Convince me that the 2020 Pats are good...

[ColoradoBills]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

You think Brady and a rookie QB are equal??

 

Stidham isn’t a rookie btw.

 

You are the one saying that Stidham (in all essence a rookie) and Brady's "stats" are comparable so that's why they will beat the Bills this year.

 

Yes I know he is technically not a rookie.  If you want to compare his stats with Brady let's do that.

Do you think Stidham puts up 4000+ yards passing this year?

Will Stidham have a 24 TD to 8 INT ratio?

Stidham rookie season stats.  3 games with 0 starts.  2-4-14 yards.  1 INT and a sack with a Peterman type rating of 18.7.

 

You were the one that quoted " I’m utterly confident that Stidham is capable of putting up that statline above, and we know that statline can be good enough to beat us."

comparing to Brady stats, not me.

 

I will stick with my opinion that Tom Brady is gone and that will affect that team greatly.

 

[y2zipper]

I think that we've already seen the high-end of what next year's Patriots could look like: the 2019 Steelers. If TL:DR, I expect the Patriots to get abysmal QB play from Hoyer and Stidham and I expect their high turnover rate on defense to regress.

 

For all the talk of the Patriots' weapons, lack thereof, etc..., the totality of their offensive production last year was average to below average. They were 15th in total yards, 21st in yards per play, and 26th in rushing yards per attempt. The only part of their offense that was above average was Tom Brady, who produced a lot of yards. (NOTE: this was mostly on volume. Brady was 4th in the league in attempts and produced a below-average passer rating) The interception rate for Brady was also very low, as always (top ten at not throwing picks). I don't particularly see Stidham or Hoyer matching Brady's production while maintaining that low of an interception rate, and the Patriots simply don't have the rushing attack to make up the deficit in production. For example, if Hoyer/Stidham have an NFL average interception rate, that's double Brady's.

 

For reference, last year's Pittsburgh team was 29th in yards per rushing attempt and only managed to beat Jameis Winston and Baker Mayfield in interception rate (3rd lowest).

 

Pittsburgh and New England managed to win by having an exceptionally high and unsustainable turnover rates. The average team got turnovers 12% of the time. Pittsburgh got 19% and New England got 17% for turnover rates, and I expect both of these teams to regress some because turnover rates always change and high turnover reliant defenses are historically not sustainable.

 

It adds up to the Patriots being a .500 team if they sustain a huge turnover rate and a 5-6 win team if they can't, unless Stidham is way better than people think.

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

You are the one saying that Stidham (in all essence a rookie) and Brady's "stats" are comparable so that's why they will beat the Bills this year.

 

Yes I know he is technically not a rookie.  If you want to compare his stats with Brady let's do that.

Do you think Stidham puts up 4000+ yards passing this year?

Will Stidham have a 24 TD to 8 INT ratio?

Stidham rookie season stats.  3 games with 0 starts.  2-4-14 yards.  1 INT and a sack with a Peterman type rating of 18.7.

 

You were the one that quoted " I’m utterly confident that Stidham is capable of putting up that statline above, and we know that statline can be good enough to beat us."

comparing to Brady stats, not me.

 

I will stick with my opinion that Tom Brady is gone and that will affect that team greatly.

 

Did Tom Brady put up 4000 yards and 24 TD’s against the Bills last year?  Wow.

[ColoradoBills]

Just now, FireChans said:

Did Tom Brady put up 4000 yards and 24 TD’s against the Bills last year?  Wow.

 

Forget it.   I can see you are the type of poster that will twist other posts to make your "hot takes" sound true.

You have all the right to believe the Bills will continue to play the Pats* bad this year.  I don't.

[Kirby Jackson]

16 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

They're good until they show us they aren't.

 

If BB doesn't get that benefit of the doubt, who does?

 

 

Nobody gets the benefit of the doubt!! Being good in 2008 with different players playing against different players with a different schedule doesn’t translate to today.

 

If you want to use BB as a part of your argument as to why they will be good go for it. Just don’t say they will be good because they were before. If you believe that the system is so strong that they can plug different people in and not skip a beat cool. Just know, that people will challenge the notion that they can run consistently vs. loaded boxes, make plays down the field, etc..

 

This was intended to be a football conversation and has been for the most part. Falling back on “because they did before” is lazy and doesn’t correlate. For the most part people have avoided it. Everyone that thinks they will be good or pretty good has given football reasons (all of which involve Belichick). That’s totally fair. Any argument to why they will or won’t be good though needs to be 100% dependent on the players, coaches and schedule of 2020. Anything from prior years or future years is irrelevant when discussing THIS season.

[FireChans]

31 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Forget it.   I can see you are the type of poster that will twist other posts to make your "hot takes" sound true.

You have all the right to believe the Bills will continue to play the Pats* bad this year.  I don't.

I didn’t twist your post, your post was just irrelevant. We only play the Pats twice. Brady’s cumulative stats over the year are irrelevant. I don’t believe the Pats will truly contend with the Bills for the division title, because as you said, Stidham being as good as Brady over the course of the year is unlikely. 

 

HOWEVER, the Pats managed to beat us with Brady playing like absolute trash last year. If Stidham plays like absolute trash (or possibly better) against us, we may only win 1 game, because that’s what happened last year.

 

This is really simple logic, and it’s easy to follow. You’re welcome to disagree and believe Brady’s magic is the real reason we lost to the Pats in the first game last season. But reality tells us it was their defense embarrassing Josh and holding us to 10 points, along with superior ST play which earned them the victory.

[Doc]

3 hours ago, dneveu said:

Harry, Sanu, Edelman, Lee with a full offseason.  

 

Last year it was Gordon (susp), Brown(susp), Edelman, Sanu (acquired in October), Dorsett, Meyers.  I think the above one looks better tbh.

 

At TE it was Watson (age 39), Lacosse, Tomlinson (Jets cut him in August), Izzo (2018 7th round pick).  This year it would be Lacosse, Asiasi, keene.  Two 3rd rounders instead of a 39 year old, jets cast off, and 7th rounder.  

I wouldn't say they've done little - Harry getting hurt wasn't ideal, and all the bandaids didn't work.  Sanu struggled as a midseason trade, and the other 2 guys ended up suspended and cut.  

 

The WRs and TEs now scare no one.  Neither does Stidham.  And there won't be a full off-season.

 

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Brady played the worst game of the year last year against the Bills, 18-39 for 150 and INT. We still got held to 10 and we still lost.

 

And that's why the Bills traded for Diggs and drafted Moss.  They were basically playing without a #2 WR or RB last year.

 

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Brady didn’t block that punt. So, I’m utterly confident that Stidham is capable of putting up that statline above, and we know that statline can be good enough to beat us.

 

It's very likely Stidham will be even worse.

[FireChans]

36 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The WRs and TEs now scare no one.  Neither does Stidham.  And there won't be a full off-season.

 

 

And that's why the Bills traded for Diggs and drafted Moss.  They were basically playing without a #2 WR or RB last year.

 

 

It's very likely Stidham will be even worse.

I don’t think there’s much evidence for that, but we’ll see. A passer rating of 45 in a full game is horrendous. Not as bad as a passer rating of 24 through 3 Q’s I guess.

[Doc]

Just now, FireChans said:

I don’t think there’s much evidence for that, but we’ll see. A passer rating of 45 in a full game is horrendous. Not as bad as a passer rating of 24 through 3 Q’s I guess.

 

So the evidence that he'll be better is...because a passer rating of 45 is horrendous?  Yeah, not how it works.

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

So the evidence that he'll be better is...because a passer rating of 45 is horrendous?  Yeah, not how it works.

I didn’t say there was evidence he’d be better. Try to keep up buddy.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The WRs and TEs now scare no one.  Neither does Stidham.  And there won't be a full off-season.

 

 

And that's why the Bills traded for Diggs and drafted Moss.  They were basically playing without a #2 WR or RB last year.

 

 

It's very likely Stidham will be even worse.

 

Right - but they scared no one last year.  True they don't get a full offseason, but harry missed camp and was on IR through most of the year.  Not ideal for a WR to make a contribution.  Sanu showed up in October so he didn't even have a camp there. 

 

The question was convince why they are good - mostly it comes down to defense being very good, and offense being only marginally worse than previously.  

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I didn’t say there was evidence he’d be better. Try to keep up buddy.

 

No, you said there's little evidence he'd be worse (which is also wrong).  Did you mean he'd be as bad? 

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, dneveu said:

Right - but they scared no one last year.  True they don't get a full offseason, but harry missed camp and was on IR through most of the year.  Not ideal for a WR to make a contribution.  Sanu showed up in October so he didn't even have a camp there. 

 

The question was convince why they are good - mostly it comes down to defense being very good, and offense being only marginally worse than previously.  

 

The defense will need to be even better than last year because there is no evidence that offense will even be just marginally worse.  Unless you mistakenly believe that Brady was a major problem and Stidham is at least as good, if not better.

[atlbillsfan1975]

They are going to stink. Honestly I don’t see any reason for them to be good under Belichick. Bill isn’t a good drafter this past offseason shows that FA are not beating down the door to play there. Belichick isn’t a players coach. He is a tough ridged coach he demands things be done a certain way. While Brady was there and bought in, it was a easy sell. When that team goes down the tubes this year watch Gilmore to react like a class act. 

[Nuncha]

23 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Why? That’s the whole part of my argument. We are fine saying that other teams will take a step forward or back. We look at their rosters, schedules, coaching and situations. From there we form an opinion of the team will be good or bad. As an example, most believe that the Broncos, Cardinals and Dolphins will be much improved. We don’t just say, “they’re bad until the aren’t.” When it comes to the Pats we just say that “they will be good until they’re not.” It’s absolutely a double standard.

 

Again, I have NO ISSUE if people think that the Pats will be good. There have been some well-reasoned arguments made here as to why they will. The one argument that I will continue to push back on is that “they will be good because they used to be good.” 

WHy?  I think my post was pretty self explanatory.  Belicheck is still there and they have a solid Defense.  D can carry a team a long way.  Until they show they are average or below, I will assume they are a good team.  They lost a 43 year old QB and people are ready to write them off.  I'll believe they are average when it actually happens.

 

The year they lost Brady for the season they went 11-5 with Matt Cassel....MATT CASSEL as the starting QB.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Azucho98

[Rocky Landing]

1 hour ago, Azucho98 said:

WHy?  I think my post was pretty self explanatory.  Belicheck is still there and they have a solid Defense.  D can carry a team a long way.  Until they show they are average or below, I will assume they are a good team.  They lost a 43 year old QB and people are ready to write them off.  I'll believe they are average when it actually happens.

 

The year they lost Brady for the season they went 11-5 with Matt Cassel....MATT CASSEL as the starting QB.

They also had Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Ben Watson in his prime, and an absolute brick wall of an O-line. Their D that year was led by the likes of Teddy Bruschi, and Vince Wilfork, and Mike Vrabel. 

 

The '08 Bills, on the other hand? Dick Jauron, and Trent Edwards. No other names need be mentioned.

[Dr. Who]

Nah, they're evil like they always are only this year they're going to lose a lot as well.

[Kirby Jackson]

4 hours ago, Azucho98 said:

WHy?  I think my post was pretty self explanatory.  Belicheck is still there and they have a solid Defense.  D can carry a team a long way.  Until they show they are average or below, I will assume they are a good team.  They lost a 43 year old QB and people are ready to write them off.  I'll believe they are average when it actually happens.

 

The year they lost Brady for the season they went 11-5 with Matt Cassel....MATT CASSEL as the starting QB.

Then that is your reasoning. You think that they will be good because of BB and their defense. That’s reasonable. “They are good because they are always good” isn’t reasonable. We can only judge on these players, coaches and schedule. 

[RiotAct]

Stidham will probably be like JFK in the 1960 Presidential debates when going up against the Bills.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

5 prime time games 

 

5. 
 

The Nation will watch the fall