AndyJohnson

I think everyone agrees he won't be Tom Brady, and I think everyone agrees he doesnt need to be.
I think a PERFECT gauge of Cassel's performance is to compare him to the AVERAGE QB.
I think that if he produces equally to the average QB he will have done his job, and the rest of this team is good enough for us to be very, very serious SB contenders.

So, here are the stats of the average QB, first per game, then for the season. (These are the 16th-17th ranked team passing stats for 2007 in each category)

Attempts 34
Comp 20.4
% 60
Yards 224(actually 209 NET after sacks, I added back avg sacked yards)
TDs 1.25
Ints 1.03
Sacked 2.03
QB Rating 81

For the season 326.5-544.5-60%-3584 yards- 20 TDs-16.5Ints-32.5sacks-81.0rating

Do those numbers really look difficult to put up? If Cassel puts up exactly those numbers he is adding or detracing nothing from our chance to win, just doing his job, and letting the other 52 determine whether we win or lose.
If he is short of these or ahead of these, he is adding to or taking away from our chance of winning by the way he played.
(It is important to note that these are averages. He could go 4-7-33 yards in a win when we run for 400 yards, or 55-65-450 in a loss. these are averages based on a typical game situation)
I think its pretty interesting to see what a qB has to do to 'do his job' no more, no less.

TheGodInAGreyHoodie

BS I expect him to be every good as Tom Brady.

If he throws a TD or does better than 168 yards or 56% completion it will be gravy.

Of course I am talking about the 2001 version.

__________________
Citing the Bible as proof of God is like citing comic books to prove the existence of Superman.

Watson's IQ

If Cassel can perform at the "average QB" level, I would actually expect his numbers to be even a bit better than that, given the quality of the cast around him.

That said, I would be very satisfied with that line out of Cassel, and that would be in the general vicinity of what Tom did in 2001, which I don't think is an unreasonable expectation by any stretch.

__________________
“I'm tired of hearing about money, money, money, money, money. I just want to play the game, drink Pepsi, wear Reebok…”
-Shaquille O'Neal

richpats

Brady had about 6 good games in 2001, and until December his good games were against bad teams. Brady had the advantage of playing a weak last-place schedule too. He never lost to a bad team but did have some average games against them.

Applying this to Cassel -I would just expect him to beat the teams he is supposed to beat, and not worry to much about his play (or the Pats' record) against good teams until the Pittsburgh game. The SD and Indy games were going to be tough WITH Brady - expecting Cassel to pull out a 'W' would be too much at those points in the season.

If the Pats can carry an 8-3 record into the Steeler game, I would feel VERY good about Matt Cassel going into the playoffs.

IcyPatriot

A QB rating of @ 80 will be tremendous.

Sicilian

And if we DO lose to San Diego or Indy, remember... we lost to the Rams in the regular season in 2001 too

AzPatsFan

But Cassel has started out with a QB rating of 116.0

JSn

Doesn't matter. His first game has been dismissed because he didn't start and KC sucks and the stress of the situation pales in comparison to playing the Jetsons after a week of preparation.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

AzPatsFan

I disagree. I think the stress level was higher in front of the home team fans without the benefits of extensive game prepping...

JSn

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I've been saying that all along.

Proof:
Matt Cassel's first full game and a hi-pressure situation...

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.