Brettlax3434

O-line and denver boy lost that game. Its taken me a while but now that hes gone i have forgiven McDaniels.

TruthSeeker

I didn't know Cassel was that great a blocker.

Oh, you mean at the QB position?

brdmaverick

Tom Brady was not the reason we lost that game, and in fact I think Matt Cassel would have been worse off.

__________________

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

MassPats38

Agree? No. Cassel may be capable of moving, but his mobility would have been useless against that pass rush. Brady is able to get rid of the ball faster than all versions of Cassel last season, so with that in mind Cassel would have been beaten worse than he was in the Steelers game. The game would not have been close, and there would be many more turnovers. Brady doesn't move much, and his ankle was not the reason so many defensive linemen were keeping him company in the backfield.

Absurdly Metro

The whole question was my attempt to paint him in a corner over his insistence that it was "crazy" to trade a "proven commodity" like Cassel when there is so much uncertainty surrounding Brady's knee.

IMO a one legged TB is still better than a two legged MC and even if TB is not back to full speed by next September and has to gut through some games until he's 100% again (ala Peyton Manning this season), I'd still say he gives us the best chance to win the most games.

He, of course, did not agree. That's when I drew the corollary between that scenario and if he would start this season's MC over a hobbled Brady in SB 42. It was astonishing to hear an otherwise rational Patriots fan squirm his way into saying MC would have given us a better shot to win SB 42 simply to avoid having to admit that trading Cassel is the only logical thing the Pats can do with him.

I couldn't wait to post this conversation tonight because I've read so many good posters on here saying the same things he does about the need to keep Cassel as insurance (not to mention the loons who have created the Monster thread posing the question of actually trading TFB). I'm actually surprised none of them are on here arguing as my friend did. Perhaps they've come to their senses by now.

__________________

TommyBrady12

no because mcdaniels would still have been the offensive coordinator.

__________________

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


"He’s the greatest quarterback to ever play the game. He goes from being a rookie that nobody is expecting anything from, to taking over with people saying he can’t do it, to winning three Super Bowls....It should already be obvious he’s the greatest quarterback to ever have played. "

- Steelers S Troy Polamalu on Tom Brady

Sean Pa Patriot

The bigger Question should have been what if Steve Grogan started instead of Tony Eason in SB XX , would we have 2 td's before it was too late when he came in..

__________________

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



We going to take it one game at a time

CanadianPat'sFan

I see where you are going with this but still hope you laughed him out of the room. There are a couple of people on here who might be on the side of your friend possibly they have not found the thread yet. I bet before the end of the day you will have someone one here who will agree and thinks MC would have won that SB....maybe the same person who started the Trade Tom Brady thread

j00fek

why did i read this thread?

T-ShirtDynasty

Off-season boredom/insanity?