The NFL says the Patriots will play at Kansas City on Monday. The game is on. Now, what can we expect from New England’s offense? They don’t have another quarterback like Cam Newton.
Brian Hoyer is expected to be the starter. He’s been their active No. 2 quarterback in all three games so far. And he’s a veteran, making him better situated to be tossed into a lineup on short notice. Recall that last year, Hoyer came off the bench in a game at Pittsburgh and nearly railed the Colts to a win (he threw 3 TDs, but Adam Vinatieri missed a game-winning 43-yard field goal at the end).
Hoyer is more of a pocket passer than Newton. With the switch, they lose all of their ability to run the zone-read stuff. The running game won’t be as good, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the quarterbacking switch results in the Patriots actually passing for more yards in this game. (Not that Hoyer is a better passer than Newton, but I think the play-calling will be different.) This switch might oddly help the numbers of N’Keal Harry and Julian Edelman. Maybe.
Over the past six years, Hoyer has averaged 239 passing yards in the 35 games he’s started, with 39 touchdowns and 26 interceptions.
For the 2014-19 seasons, starting quarterbacks have averaged 244 passing yards and 1.52 TD passes per game (that’s about 24 TDs in a 16-game season). If we include rushing production and use standard fantasy scoring, that’s 20.5 points per week.
Hoyer has averaged over 20.5 points in 11 of his 36 starts (that’s including one playoff game) – slightly less than a third of the time. I’ve got Hoyer’s 11 above-average games in bold.
New England plays at Kansas City on Monday night. Next week, they’ll be hosting Denver (and very unlikely that Newton is eligible to play in that game).
Of course, if Hoyer totally tanks, New England could turn to Jarrett Stidham.
| BRIAN HOYER AS A STARTER (last 6 years) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Game | Result | Pass | TD | Int | Run | TDR | Pts |
| 2014 | Cle. at Pitt. | L 27-30 | 222 | 1 | 0 | -2 | 0 | 14.9 |
| 2014 | Cle. v. N.O. | W 26-24 | 204 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14.2 |
| 2014 | Cle. v. Balt. | L 21-23 | 290 | 1 | 0 | -2 | 0 | 18.3 |
| 2014 | Cle. at Ten. | W 29-28 | 291 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 26.8 |
| 2014 | Cle. v. Pitt. | W 31-10 | 217 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14.9 |
| 2014 | Cle. at Jac. | L 6-24 | 215 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | 10.7 |
| 2014 | Cle. v. Oak. | W 23-13 | 275 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 17.9 |
| 2014 | Cle. v. T.B. | W 22-17 | 300 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 23.5 |
| 2014 | Cle. at Cin. | W 24-3 | 198 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10.0 |
| 2014 | Cle. v. Hou. | L 7-23 | 330 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 20.6 |
| 2014 | Cle. at Atl. | W 26-24 | 322 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 17.3 |
| 2014 | Cle. at Buff. | L 10-26 | 192 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 9.6 |
| 2014 | Cle. v. Ind. | L 24-25 | 136 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 7.1 |
| 2015 | Hou. v. K.C. | L 20-27 | 236 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 15.8 |
| 2015 | Hou. at Jac. | W 31-20 | 293 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 27.2 |
| 2015 | Hou. at Mia. | L 26-44 | 273 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 25.7 |
| 2015 | Hou. v. Ten. | W 20-6 | 235 | 2 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 19.7 |
| 2015 | Hou. at Cin. | W 10-6 | 123 | 0 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 7.7 |
| 2015 | Hou. v. N.O. | W 24-6 | 205 | 2 | 1 | -3 | 0 | 18.0 |
| 2015 | Hou. at Buff. | L 21-30 | 293 | 3 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 28.2 |
| 2015 | Hou. v. N.E. | L 6-27 | 155 | 0 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 7.7 |
| 2015 | Hou. v. Jac. | W 30-6 | 249 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16.5 |
| 2015 | Hou. v. K.C. | L 0-30 | 136 | 0 | 4 | -1 | 0 | 6.7 |
| 2016 | Chi. at Dall. | L 17-31 | 317 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 24.1 |
| 2016 | Chi. v. Det. | W 17-14 | 302 | 2 | 0 | -3 | 0 | 22.8 |
| 2016 | Chi. at Ind. | L 23-29 | 397 | 2 | 0 | -1 | 0 | 27.8 |
| 2016 | Chi. v. Jac. | L 16-17 | 302 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 15.1 |
| 2016 | Chi. at G.B. | L 10-26 | 49 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.5 |
| 2017 | S.F. v. Car. | L 3-23 | 193 | 0 | 1 | -5 | 0 | 9.2 |
| 2017 | S.F. at Sea. | L 9-12 | 99 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.0 |
| 2017 | S.F. v. LAR | L 39-41 | 332 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 31.5 |
| 2017 | S.F. at Ariz. | L 15-18 | 234 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 12.0 |
| 2017 | S.F. at Ind. | L 23-26 | 353 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25.7 |
| 2017 | S.F. at Was. | L 24-26 | 34 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.7 |
| 2019 | Ind. v. Mia. | L 12-16 | 204 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 14.2 |
—Ian Allan