It’s a long offseason, and if you wait long enough, every NFL narrative will do a 180.
That’s how we’ve gone from the notion that the New England Patriots are going to be so bad they’re secretly tanking for Trevor Lawrence (seriously people, no), to the idea that the Patriots are actually better off with Jarrett Stidham at quarterback than Tom Brady.
And to think, there’s still about three months to go before the first regular season game.
It’s not just idle chatter that Stidham and his four career NFL passes is actually going to be better for the Pats offense than the only six-time Super Bowl winner ever. A former teammate of Brady’s is fully on board. Even if his reasoning is a bit confusing.
Will Patriots really be better off without Tom Brady?
Christian Fauria played 13 years in the NFL, including four with Brady and the Patriots from 2002-05. He’s on the air now with WEEI in Boston.
So he knows the NFL. And he thinks the Patriots offense is better without Brady. He also said in the same show that he thinks Brady will win MVP and a Super Bowl with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, so ... well, let’s just let Fauria explain it.
“They’re better off without him,” Fauria told co-hosts Glenn Ordway and Lou Merloni on WEEI. “Can I tell you why? And it has nothing to do with Brady’s skill set. It’s not because he’s not good or he can’t throw it or he’s lost some speed on his fastball. It’s because where he was in his career, his age, what he wanted to achieve and what the Patriots were trying to achieve were completely different. So it was never going to work out. They were never going to see eye to eye.
“This offense is not going to be able to move forward with Brady as the quarterback, not because he sucks. Those throwaways were important. It’s because he wasn’t willing to adapt. There’s the difference. He wasn’t willing to let N’Keal Harry grow.”
So Brady will win MVP and a Super Bowl, but the Patriots are better off with Stidham because of 2019 first-round pick N’Keal Harry’s development. OK.
Fauria said Brady “doesn’t want his stats being messed with and won’t throw interceptions,” therefore he won’t make aggressive throws to Harry.
“This year. Right now, the offense is better off without Tom Brady,” Fauria said. “They are better off without him this year, yes.”
And here’s the kicker: Fauria also mentioned “I don’t think Stidham is a good quarterback.” To recap, Fauria thinks Stidham is a bad quarterback, Brady will be MVP but the Patriots offense will be better because N’Keal Harry will catch some more passes.
Jarrett Stidham might not be bad
There are some reasonable arguments for the Patriots possibly being better off without Brady, but they mostly center around Brady’s age. He’s 43. The end is coming soon, we just don’t know when. At some point Stidham will be a better quarterback than Brady. That’s how aging works.
ESPN’s Mike Reiss said on air this week that some in New England believe the offense could be better, if Stidham is decent and the supporting cast is much better than it was last year. Maybe.
Stidham was once considered a top-end college prospect, and he did play well in the preseason last year. There are reasons to believe the Patriots won’t fall off a cliff offensively with the largely unknown Stidham replacing Brady.
But better off without Brady? That’s hard to buy, unless you assume Brady is just about finished due to his age. And just think, we still have a few more months to speculate before the season starts.
More from Yahoo Sports: