I get that Jarrett Stidham is the backup QB for the Broncos, but I feel that the sports media has been excessively shitting on him as the broncos prepare for the AFC championship.
Executive summary
A spike in negative coverage of Jarrett Stidham ahead of the AFC Championship is real but uneven: some outlets amplify doubts about his lack of recent game reps and starter pedigree, while others stress endorsements from coaches, teammates and meaningful preseason tape that argue the criticism is overblown [1] [2] [3]. The truth sits between reflexive dismissal and reflexive hype—reporting shows legitimate reasons for skepticism alongside credible voices who believe Stidham can manage a one-off high-stakes start [4] [5].
1. Media criticism: loud, personal, and partly performative
Several high-profile local commentators have outright derided Stidham, framing him as an undesired, marginal NFL option and using incendiary language for clicks and local loyalty—Marc Bertrand’s “Nobody has ever wanted this guy as their starter” is emblematic of that tone and was picked up and amplified in Boston-focused coverage [1] [6]. Patriots players’ casual offhand lines—Milton Williams admitting “nothing” about Stidham—have been treated as proof of Stidham’s anonymity rather than routine game-week posturing, and that framing fuels a narrative of incompetence despite limited evidence [7] [8].
2. Reasons critics cite that deserve consideration
The factual foundation for skepticism is straightforward and repeatedly noted: Stidham hasn’t thrown a regular-season pass since 2023, has only four career starts, and spent much of this season as a true backup with minimal in-game reps—facts reporters consistently recount when questioning his preparedness [9] [4] [10]. Those are objective, meaningful constraints in evaluating an NFL quarterback’s capacity to run an offense under postseason pressure, and they justify a degree of caution from observers [2] [11].
3. The counterweight: credible endorsements and meaningful tape
Balanced coverage also exists: Sean Payton, teammates and analysts have publicly vouched for Stidham’s readiness, noting his preparation, football IQ and past preseason performance—The Athletic highlighted a preseason stretch where Stidham went 30-of-38 for 376 yards, four touchdowns and a 143.0 rating, while Payton and figures like Maxx Crosby have praised his temperament and preparedness [3] [12] [5]. Several outlets and analysts argue that some criticisms ignore this evidence and the organizational confidence invested in him [4] [13].
4. How narrative dynamics and incentives shape coverage
Local allegiances and media incentives matter: Boston outlets and Patriots-centric voices naturally frame Stidham as a non-threat and veterans of New England media have both audience demand and competitive incentives to emphasize vulnerability, which can produce repetitive negative coverage that looks harsher than balanced reporting warrants [1] [8]. Conversely, Denver and national outlets have reason to highlight his upside and organizational faith, creating two competing amplifications rather than a single objective judgment [3] [13].
5. Practical takeaway: criticism should be measured, not personalized
Given the evidence, blanket derision is excessive when it becomes personal or absolutist; Stidham’s limited sample size and time away from game action are legitimate concerns, but so are documented traits—accuracy in preseason, coach confidence and positive teammate testimony—that counsel against treating him as a joke [3] [12] [9]. Responsible coverage would weigh both sets of facts rather than defaulting to snark or uncritical boosterism; much of the current sports-media discourse errs toward sensationalism, especially in local markets hungry for definitive narratives [1] [4].