Hurley's Picks: Bill Belichick really breaking character with unnecessary quarterback sideshow
BOSTON -- In the past, Bill Belichick has had some very real opportunities to publicly embrace a quarterback competition. He stiff-armed them with full vigor every single time.
After an embarrassing Week 4 blowout loss on Monday Night Football in Kansas City in 2014, Belichick laughed at a reporter who asked if the quarterback situation would be evaluated. The 37-year-old Tom Brady had been worse than average through four games, and the young gun second-round pick Jimmy Garoppolo was in the fold. Yet later that week, when pressed on the quarterback situation, Belichick went on his now-famous "On to Cincinnati" monologue. The topic of the starting quarterback was not open for public debate and discussion.
A couple of years later, with Brady set to miss the first four games of the season, Belichick stated that the starting job would of course belong to Brady when that suspension ended. Yet a reporter in late July found this to be curious, and so he asked Belichick if the coach had ever named a Week 5 starter in July. After a non-answer and a couple of follow-ups, a frustrated Belichick couldn't take it anymore.
Once again, a public discourse about the starting quarterback would not be taking place on Belichick's watch.
Fast-forward a bit to 2020. Cam Newton wasn't exactly given a full offense to work with, but he also wasn't playing well. Newton was 9-for-16 for 119 yards with no touchdowns and one interception on a nationally televised Thursday night game against the Rams in L.A., on the tail end of an 11-game stretch in which he threw just three touchdowns while also throwing eight interceptions.
Belichick not only said that no change would be made at quarterback -- he got a bit testy with the reporter.
"Yeah, great question, Mike. Really, I'm glad you asked that," Belichick said, before adding: "Cam's our quarterback."
The following year, after drafting Mac Jones at No. 15 overall, the Patriots actually did have a quarterback competition, but Belichick made it clear throughout the spring and summer that Newton was the No. 1 quarterback until further notice. Ultimately, that notice came in the form of a very clear, non-reversible move: Jones was the starting QB, and Newton was cut from the team. Newton smartly surmised that the reason he was cut instead of demoted is because his presence as a backup would have created a distraction for the whole team.
"The reason why they released me is because indirectly I was going to be a distraction without being the starter. Just my aura. Just my aura. ... That's my gift and my curse," Newton said. "If they would've asked me would I play behind [Jones]? If they had said, 'Cam, we're gonna give the team to Mac. You're gonna be second string. We expect you to be everything and some to guide him throughout this tenure.' I would've said absolutely. Yeah. But listen, the truth of the matter is this: He would've been uncomfortable. He would've. And they knew, and it comes by mere fact of me being me."
Whether he was told that directly by Belichick or whether he figured it out on his own ... he was dead-on accurate.
Newton also shared that at practices not open to the public or media, the Patriots were limiting his first-team reps, even if he took the first reps at practice. That was a way of gradually elevating Jones without anyone on the outside taking notice. Add that to the long stack of evidence that shows how fervently, how passionately, how desperately Bill Belichick has worked to prevent the circus that comes with any level of public uncertainty about the quarterback position.
And yet ... here we are.
Avoiding a similar scenario this time would have been easier than some of the previous instances. "Mac is injured. When he's back, he's our No. 1 quarterback." Issue solved. Instead, it's been a lot of, "I don't want to answer hypotheticals, so we'll see what happens" whenever a quarterback question was thrown Belichick's way over the past month. It led to some questions, and some doubts, and it led to a grassroots campaign known as "Zappe Fever" gaining some serious steam.
It led to an awkward cauldron of emotion inside Gillette Stadium on Monday night, one that seemed to pit Patriots fans against Mac Jones before the near-70,000 people in attendance lost their minds while watching Bailey Zappe walk onto the field in the second quarter. It continued after the game, when Zappe had to answer questions about the coaching staff's quarterback plans before Belichick had spoken to the media, and it extended to the next day, when Belichick still refused to name a starter.
Meanwhile, players in the locker room expressed some confusion in the quarterback plan, though Belichick denied any communication issue within his team.
Now, on a short week, after an embarrassing loss, potentially without the starting center on an offensive line that was already shaky, the Patriots have to go into New Jersey to try to beat a 5-2 Jets team that is riding high on confidence with a four-game winning streak.
And while we do know the starting quarterback for the Patriots will be Mac Jones ... we don't know when the hook might come for the "starter."
In the old days, perhaps we'd all hypothesize that Belichick merely sat back for a moment in his laboratory and devised a master plan that would extract the best level of play possible out of whichever quarterback he felt was best. Question Belichick at your own risk, the zealots would surely say.
But not now. At this moment, the Patriots are licking their wounds after taking a shellacking from the ... Bears. In Foxboro. On national TV. On a night that seemed to create a controversy out of thin air.
The only thing we can really do is scratch our heads and wonder why.
(Wednesday lines; Home team in CAPS)
Baltimore (-1) over TAMPA BAY
I can't believe this. I can't believe myself. I feel like the Wesley Snipes meme. I don't even know what movie it's from, but I relate to it.
Here I am, turning my back on Tom Brady in a nationally televised game against a team that crumbles in the fourth quarter almost every week. Here I am, saying Tom Brady can't beat John Harbaugh. I'm disgusted with myself. But that disgust is only matched by my disgust with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who ... are about to drop to 3-5?! Man oh man. This is rough.
Jacksonville (-2.5) over Denver (in London)
Listen.
Enough already, Russell Wilson. Enough already.
DALLAS (-9.5) over Chicago
It's enticing to believe the Bears have built some momentum and now can build something moving forward but honestly, last week was unique. I hate picking Mike McCarthy at all, let alone with a near double-digit spread, but I'm leaning on the Bears looking more like their entire body of work than their most recent showing.
Las Vegas (-1.5) over NEW ORLEANS
ATLANTA (-4.5) over Carolina
Hey, shoutout to the NFC South for just being unapologetically bad this year. I respect it.
PHILADELPHIA (-10.5) over Pittsburgh
I felt like I was watching high school football on Sunday night. The Steelers' offense is bad bad. Not regular bad. Bad bad.
DETROIT (+3.5) over Miami
I'm nothing if not honest. And I must admit that sometimes I just make a bad pick on purpose. Not sure why. It works out occasionally.
MINNESOTA (-3.5) over Arizona
The Vikings put together a nice little four-game winning streak before their bye week. How about that? Good for those guys.
NEW YORK JETS (+2.5) over New England
I said what I needed to say in a tweet, so why say it again?
(The line moved a point after news broke of Mac Jones starting. Not sure why.)
Tennessee (-2) over HOUSTON
Just from anecdotally following the Titans this year, I believe that they'll fall behind 14-3 in this game and then end up winning by 10.
Unrelated: This was kind of weird!
Nothing makes a big strong football man weep quite like a center playing through injury to literally carry his running back for a first down.
Very cool. "I love you like my [bleeping] own," though? Damn!! That's a lot.
New York Giants (+3) over SEATTLE
Stop. Making. The Giants. Underdogs. You fools.
(Actually don't stop though, because it rules. Makes my life easier.)
INDIANAPOLIS (-3) over Washington
I've just got to imagine that when a head coach benches a 15-year veteran in favor of a 24-year-old second-year player with zero career NFL pass attempts, then he has got to have some sort of plan in place. Using the Commanders as a soft landing spot seems like fertile testing ground, too.
San Francisco (-1.5) over LOS ANGELES RAMS
Can the Niners sweep the season series vs. the Rams? They sure can.
(Did you know the 49ers are 7-1 vs. the Rams since 2019? I didn't. Now I do. And now you do, too.)
BUFFALO (-11) over Green Bay
Being Aaron Rodgers' teammate or coach seems like a lot of fun.
You've got to be a perfect quarterback if you want to act smarter and better than everyone on your team. And 39-year-old half-invested Aaron Rodgers is not a perfect quarterback.
Cincinnati (-3.5) over CLEVELAND
As soon as I decided that I was done waiting for the Bengals to snap out of their funk, they go ahead and snap out of their funk. Now that I'm back in their corner, they'll probably revert to their Weeks 1-6 mediocrity.
Fortunately, even mediocrity can beat the Browns.
Last week: 9-5
Season: 54-51-3
You can email Michael Hurley or find him on Twitter @michaelFhurley.
