ESPN already talking Pats 2009 QB options - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

borg · 10-24-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbanza

I heard something pretty interesting on NE Comcast Sports last night. Now I know that ESPN and the Pats aren't allies - obviously....but Felger stated that this "fued" is still on-going. Okay. I'm just a little confused, however. When did the fued start and why? I have a feeling it was WAY before Spygate. Does it go as far back as Jackson's "they hate their coach" and only grown from there?

Yes...IMO... The Pats shut out ESPN for that SB and Berman had to get his knee pads on to get a BB interview after the game. Then Spygate became ESPN's lead for many months. Screw 'em.

***emoney_33*** · 10-24-2008, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watson's IQ

I don't really see the harm in them discussing it. After all, that's what ESPN does. You'd better believe that Pioli is already thinking about what will happen IF Brady can't return in 2009.

As long as ESPN doesn't literally inject bacteria into Tom's knee, I have a hard time getting riled up over them discussing this. The report about the team being unhappy with him is another matter, but that's pretty inconsequential as well. ESPN is by it's very nature sensationalist, this is what they do.

Tom Brady's status is unlikely to alter anything from BB/SP. They will be, as they have always, look for the best possible QB to backup Brady. This means a QB they are comfortable with starting if Brady cannot go (see Cassel, Matt). Whether that be O'Connell or a FA remains to be seen, although it will probably be O'Connell unless he completely fails to progress.

Now if this were career threatening, then throw everything out the window.

Watson's IQ · 10-24-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emoney_33

Tom Brady's status is unlikely to alter anything from BB/SP. They will be, as they have always, look for the best possible QB to backup Brady. This means a QB they are comfortable with starting if Brady cannot go (see Cassel, Matt). Whether that be O'Connell or a FA remains to be seen, although it will probably be O'Connell unless he completely fails to progress.

Now if this were career threatening, then throw everything out the window.

I think that preparing for someone to be potentially the QB in 2009 and beyond is a different sort of calculus than selecting a backup. I should clarify that I think it highly unlikely that Tom's situation is career threatening, but I'd actually LIKE to think that they have considered that contingency and are making plans for it. Better than to be caught flat-footed should the worst case scenario play out.

ScottieC · 10-24-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbanza

I heard something pretty interesting on NE Comcast Sports last night. Now I know that ESPN and the Pats aren't allies - obviously....but Felger stated that this "fued" is still on-going. Okay. I'm just a little confused, however. When did the fued start and why? I have a feeling it was WAY before Spygate. Does it go as far back as Jackson's "they hate their coach" and only grown from there?

ESPN hates the way they don't get privileged access to the team based on them being the "World Wide Leader" in sports.

They have hurt ego's. In return, they have an agenda against the Patriots.

Jackson's "They hate their coach" comment did not help, but that has more to do with Jackson and the Pats then it does ESPN and the Pats - But it sure as hell don't help the situation. It's another guy in a room full of guys that are pissed off at the organization.

Watson's IQ · 10-24-2008, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottieC

Jackson's "They hate their coach" comment did not help, but that has more to do with Jackson and the Pats then it does ESPN and the Pats - But it sure as hell don't help the situation. It's another guy in a room full of guys that are pissed off at the organization.

I agree with you in general that there are several people at ESPN who seem to have a genuine dislike for the Pats. None of them holds a candle to Jackson though, that guy is spinning with so much out of control vitriol for the Patriots that I honestly think he might burst sometimes. That's why beating down his precious Broncos on ESPN was especially sweet.

ScottieC · 10-24-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watson's IQ

I agree with you in general that there are several people at ESPN who seem to have a genuine dislike for the Pats. None of them holds a candle to Jackson though, that guy is spinning with so much out of control vitriol for the Patriots that I honestly think he might burst sometimes. That's why beating down his precious Broncos on ESPN was especially sweet.

I think that Ditka's hate is even more transparant. He says almost EVERY week, "I don't like that team".

***emoney_33*** · 10-24-2008, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watson's IQ

I think that preparing for someone to be potentially the QB in 2009 and beyond is a different sort of calculus than selecting a backup. I should clarify that I think it highly unlikely that Tom's situation is career threatening, but I'd actually LIKE to think that they have considered that contingency and are making plans for it. Better than to be caught flat-footed should the worst case scenario play out.

You can't really plan for it though. It's two completely different scenarios. On the one hand (not career ending) you develop youth for the future (O'Connell). On the other hand maybe you draft a QB higher (1st/2nd), trade for a proven commodity, or sign a FA starter. You cannot however really find a guy who is worth starting long term that is also willing to probably backup Brady for the next 3-4 years.

In the unlikely and catastrophic event that Brady's career were to end premature, there would need to be a stopgap like Cassel and maybe O'Connell before we found another franchise QB.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 10-24-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clonamery

Fixed your post for you.

When you fix someone else's post, you're supposed to boldface the changes to make them more obvious.

mike_usagisan · 10-24-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Watson's IQ

I think that preparing for someone to be potentially the QB in 2009 and beyond is a different sort of calculus than selecting a backup. I should clarify that I think it highly unlikely that Tom's situation is career threatening, but I'd actually LIKE to think that they have considered that contingency and are making plans for it. Better than to be caught flat-footed should the worst case scenario play out.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it) I think they are prepared for both scenarios. If Brady is going to be out short term for 2009, you make a one-year deal with Cassel (assuming he's still playing at or - preferably better - the level he's at now) to play as many games as it takes to get Brady back. You could probably make a deal with Cassel like the Browns did with Anderson that was short term, starter money, but easy to trade, too.

If Brady's prognosis is not good, and he might be out all year or for good, you put O'Connell in and see if he is going to be our QB of the future. He'll be as shaky as Cassel at first, but by the end of the season, we'll know what we have there. There's also the thought that if Cassel ends up being at starter level by then end of the season and it's clear Brady won't be back, you do whatever you have to to keep him.

Just my thoughts.

***ctpatsfan77*** · 10-24-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emoney_33

In the unlikely and catastrophic event that Brady's career were to end premature, there would need to be a stopgap like Cassel and maybe O'Connell before we found another franchise QB.

This isn't meant facetiously, but at least some of the draftniks were saying that O'Connell maybe, just maybe, might be that next franchise QB.