ESPN Poll: Would you want your team to go after Matt Cassel

[smg93]

As of 106,000 votes, the answer is 52% Yes

To over simplify, let's assume that all the respondents are spread evenly across all NFL teams (yes, I know it's a huge assumption), that means that the fanbase of approximately half of all NFL teams would want to pursue MC. This would mean that there would be good demand for his services next year and MAY mean that a Franchise Tag then a Trade is actually a viable option again assuming of course that the fanbase is a good representation of what the NFL GM's are also thinking.

Should this be the case, what in your minds would be "fair" compensation for him?

 

[JSn]

Should this be the case, what in your minds would be "fair" compensation for him?

A low first and a high third or two seconds.

And I'll say this: I'd like to see all gained picks come from the upcoming draft.

 

[BradyManny]

If it's a package deal with McD, its a no-brainer. I think if McD does leave, Cassel following him makes sense. If I were the fan of another team, I would have my doubts about how Cassel would do without McD, Moss & Welker around him. He's clearly shown he has above-average decision making skills and great accuracy. But if he goes to Detroit, will he get to show those things? I dunno.

 

[smg93]

Let's also say he continues to play well and takes the pats to the playoffs and does well there, do you guys think that two first rounders is a stretch, or could that be fair compensation?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

A low first and a high third or two seconds.

And I'll say this: I'd like to see all gained picks come from the upcoming draft.

Don't forget there's a poison pill in the CBA that makes it tougher for teams that reach the divisional playoffs in the last capped year to sign UFAs the next offseason (not impossible, but tougher).

So I wouldn't mind 2009 2 + 2010 2.

 

[JSn]

Let's also say he continues to play well and takes the pats to the playoffs and does well there, do you guys think that two first rounders is a stretch, or could that be fair compensation?

I don't know about two firsts, but look at it this way:

Your team needs a Marquee QB, someone the team can get behind, someone to turn around your fortunes.

Do you spend a high draft pick on a great college QB hoping he can adjust to the NFL, or do you spend it on an NFL ready QB with less wear and tear on him than the college guy, who is coming from the best system in the NFL?

And odds are, you're going to have to pay the rookie more money.

I'd take the lower-risk option EVERY day. It's also going to help those season-ticket sales for at least a year to take a guy who made the news every week (in a good way).

 

[JSn]

Don't forget there's a poison pill in the CBA that makes it tougher for teams that reach the divisional playoffs in the last capped year to sign UFAs the next offseason (not impossible, but tougher).

So I wouldn't mind 2009 2 + 2010 2.

Aren't we facing the possible end of the draft with no CBA in place?

 

[smg93]

And odds are, you're going to have to pay the rookie more money.

I didn't think about this. That's right, all those high first rounders do get paid a ton of guaranteed money without ever having played in the NFL.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

ESPN also provides a state-by-state breakdown, so we can actually get a better idea of what certain fan bases think.

Massachusetts 76%(!)
Minnesota 71%
Michigan 65%
Missouri 61%
Washington 58%
California 56%
North Carolina 56%
Illinois 54%
Florida 53%
Tennessee 51%
Connecticut 51%
Texas 49%
Pennsylvania 47%
Ohio 45%
New York 42%

And then we get to the only five states <40%, i.e., DO NOT WANT territory. . . .
Wisconsin 40%
Georgia 40%
Colorado 39%
Indiana 38%
Louisiana 33%

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I'd be great if we let the fan polls decide...although in some places I guess they do...

At the end of the day a QB drafted in the first is going to cost you your #1 (and maybe more if you're moving up for him) and anywhere from $45-65M in contract with upwards of $20M+ in guaranteed or signing bonus money. There will likely be options in the draft later in the first or second round, but the fact they will be there as opposed to top 10 is telling...and it's generally a crap shoot whether you can grab 'em once the draft starts unfolding. So it really depends on what other needs a team is looking to fill in 2009 and what underutilized pieces they have in place on offense and how close they feel they are to competing if they don't add a viable starter to the mix in 2009.

If Matt remains a positive here win or lose he will certainly be worth more than Matt Schaub. By how much is anyone's guess.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Aren't we facing the possible end of the draft with no CBA in place?

Not until 2012; the CBA specifically mandates a draft for every year the contract runs, plus the first offseason after that (i.e., the salary cap ends in 2009, the CBA in 2010, the Draft--if nothing is done to extend it--in 2011).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Aren't we facing the possible end of the draft with no CBA in place?

As much as we are facing the end of the NFL... Some CBA will be entered into one way or another or there won't be football as we know it come 2011-12...

The last scheduled draft is 2011 because drafts are only permissible under anti-trust exemptions if they are collectively bargained for.

 

[smg93]

ESPN also provides a state-by-state breakdown, so we can actually get a better idea of what certain fan bases think.

Massachusetts 76%(!)
Minnesota 71%
Michigan 65%
Missouri 61%
Washington 58%
California 56%
North Carolina 56%
Illinois 54%

So let's look at these states (and ignore MA!). You've got the Vikings, Lions, Rams, Seahawks, 49ers (likely not the chargers), Panthers, and Bears as probable trading partners.

All of a sudden, $14m for the franchise tag doesn't look at all that bad. Because there are so many teams, the likelihood of offers from them being more than $14m guaranteed looks more and more likely.

Detroit as a trading partner would be awesome!

 

[mesoslo]

I like detroit and also arizona, because of the abundance of WR talent on each team.
But I really think the Vikings would make a really hard push, even if Cassel doesnt become a top QB when he arrives, he is still good enough to take the vikings into the playoffs and help them contend in the NFC.

 

[PatsFan2]

I like detroit and also arizona, because of the abundance of WR talent on each team.
But I really think the Vikings would make a really hard push, even if Cassel doesnt become a top QB when he arrives, he is still good enough to take the vikings into the playoffs and help them contend in the NFC.

Put me down too...i think the Vikings would be fools not to make a serious run at Matt Cassel who has great ceiling. The Vikings have the best RB in the Game in AP add a Top flight WR and the Vikings would be contenders for years to come.

 

[WhiZa]

I added teams and QB names to your list.

ESPN also provides a state-by-state breakdown, so we can actually get a better idea of what certain fan bases think.

Massachusetts 76%(!) - Patriots
Minnesota 71% - Vikings
Michigan 65% - Lions
Missouri 61% - Rams
Washington 58% - Seahawks
California 56% - most likely SF
North Carolina 56% - Panthers
Illinois 54% - Bears
Florida 53% - Tampa Bay?
Tennessee 51% - Titans
Connecticut 51% - Patriots
Texas 49% - Texans?
Pennsylvania 47% - Eagles
Ohio 45% - Bengals
New York 42% - Jets

And then we get to the only five states <40%, i.e., DO NOT WANT territory. . . .
Wisconsin 40% - Rodgers
Georgia 40% - Ryan
Colorado 39% - Cutler
Indiana 38% - Manning
Louisiana 33% - Brees

 

[Disco Volante]

I guess they should also have "Would you want your team to go after Tom Brady" poll now.

 

[maverick4]

ESPN really inadvertently helped us out by doing that poll. Worst case scenario we franchise him. No way Cassel walks and we get nothing in return.

 

[fester]

I'd be great if we let the fan polls decide...although in some places I guess they do...

At the end of the day a QB drafted in the first is going to cost you your #1 (and maybe more if you're moving up for him) and anywhere from $45-65M in contract with upwards of $20M+ in guaranteed or signing bonus money. There will likely be options in the draft later in the first or second round, but the fact they will be there as opposed to top 10 is telling...and it's generally a crap shoot whether you can grab 'em once the draft starts unfolding.

Your cost estimates are really only valid for a top-11 pick (see Rothlesberger/Cutler for proximate rookie contracts for a #11 compared to a Quinn or Campbell for a late teen/early twenties QB contracts). But even chosing in the top 10 will produce a significant number of busts --- see Vince Young, Ryan Leaf etc. I think your argument is stronger if you take out the money and look at the risk/reward profile as the better argument is that Cassel or any other veteran coming off of their rookie contracts will have demonstrated an ability to play or not to play at NFL speeds with NFL complexities and disguises in effect instead of projection uncertainty from a college match-up to an NFL match-up.

That I think is where the risk/reward frontier lies, and not at the cost of signing a draft pick or even the opportunity cost of going QB versus other position in the draft.

 

[SoCal Pmen]

The results don't surprise me given the compensation needed for a franchised player. I can guarantee this poll will look a lot different if Cassel is an integral part in leading the Patriots to the Superbowl.