keyshawn johnson:Matt Cassel won 11 games...

[ivanvamp]

Joe Montana = System QB

The System? WCO.

His replacement? Went on to win Super Bowls in the same system.

When Joe left the system, he sucked at KC.

(This is just another possible frame for the discussion).

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it's fair to Montana to say he "sucked" in KC, and that it proves he was just a system QB. His career arc actually followed a very normal curve. Look at his QB ratings (as one measurement) for his career, starting in 1980 (and in 1991 he missed the entire season, and in 1992 he played 1 game, so we'll leave those out as well):

1980 (24) - 87.8
1981 (25) - 88.4
1982 (26) - 88.0
1983 (27) - 94.6
1984 (28) - 102.9
1985 (29) - 91.3
1986 (30) - 80.7
1987 (31) - 102.1
1988 (32) - 87.9
1989 (33) - 112.4
1990 (34) - 89.0
1993 (37) - 87.4, with KC
1994 (38) - 83.6, with KC

1986 was, if you view this as a curve, an oddity (he did only play 8 games that year), but in general you have this pattern:

Early years (ages 24-26): ratings in the high 80's
Peak years (ages 27-33): ratings in the 90's and 100's
End years (ages 34-38): ratings declining into the 80's again

Pretty standard curve, really. Nobody's career curve is perfectly smooth, but this fits what you'd expect. He started off pretty good, became phenomenal, and then, as he hit his late 30's, declined into an average QB.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Yes.

I actually agree with the main point of your post, that Manning is probably closer to a system QB, especially when compared to the drastic systemic changes the Pats have undergone on offense. However, let's not degenerate Manning to edify Brady. Manning is a hell of a passer and I think he would have a Brees-like career with rapid turnover. Put Brady on another team, and he'd be great there. They're both great, but Brady is undoubtedly more accomplished.

Thigpen never threw six picks in a game and get it blamed on receivers.

My guess is this whole debacle revolves around Manning being the face of the league and the need to have him the GOAT and not a choker.

The reality is these debates are insignificant.

Where it does become a problem is during the games.

Am I the only one still peeved over "face guarding" in an AFCCG?

My point isn't to denegrate Manning. It's really about mediots, the league, and officiating. I wish we could start a grassroots revolt against very bad officiating.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

The Matt Cassell angle is a valid one. But not yet over.

If a mediocre QB can win 11 games with the team it says something very positive about BB and his system, but does suggest that Brady is not the GOAT.

OTOH, if an elite QB wins 5 less game with the team, then it means that TB is irrefutable the GOAT.

But the thing is the jury is still out of Matt. We don't know if he will never play a post season game or have a ring for every finger. We don't know if he will be a pro-bowler, all-pro or HOF QB or just a JAG.

The legacy of Tom very much hings on the career of Matt. And Matt winning the league MVP once will do more for Tom's legacy than Tom winning it two more times.

 

[Fball]

The Matt Cassell angle is a valid one. But not yet over.

If a mediocre QB can win 11 games with the team it says something very positive about BB and his system, but does suggest that Brady is not the GOAT.

OTOH, if an elite QB wins 5 less game with the team, then it means that TB is irrefutable the GOAT.

But the thing is the jury is still out of Matt. We don't know if he will never play a post season game or have a ring for every finger. We don't know if he will be a pro-bowler, all-pro or HOF QB or just a JAG.

The legacy of Tom very much hings on the career of Matt. And Matt winning the league MVP once will do more for Tom's legacy than Tom winning it two more times.

Nothing against Matt, but he'll never win league MVP. He's a good, solid QB, but he's just not at that level.

What's interesting is that 11-5 is normally good enough for the playoffs. If the Pats had squeaked into the playoffs that year, I think there is an excellent chance, given the quality of talent that year, that NE would have at least made the SB, and possibly won the whole thing....

 

[Lansdowne]

What context is Key's remarks? Is he discrediting Brady or crediting Belichick?

I ask this because he's been one of the greatest advocates for the Patriots by far since hanging up the cleets.

 

[Lansdowne]

Nothing against Matt, but he'll never win league MVP. He's a good, solid QB, but he's just not at that level.

What's interesting is that 11-5 is normally good enough for the playoffs. If the Pats had squeaked into the playoffs that year, I think there is an excellent chance, given the quality of talent that year, that NE would have at least made the SB, and possibly won the whole thing....

Agreed. I think the 2008 season was a credit to both Belichick and Cassel, but not a discredit to Brady. We have to remember that Cassel had an excellent supporting cast to help his transition into the league as a starter. He was fortunate to have Moss, Welker, and Gaffney. I think Cassel would have really struggled if he had the same supporting cast that Brady had in 2006, a season which saw the Pats go 12-4 and, in the eyes of many, close to another SB title. Would we have been impressed with him if Caldwell, Gaffney, Jackson, and Gabriel were his targets? Probably not. We're probably looking at an 8-8 season at best under those circumstances. Brady makes all the difference and those that credit the Patriots success on "the system" is missing the whole picture.

 

[alamo]

Simple responses.

"Cassell took a Super Bowl team and missed the playoffs."

"Are you saying the recordholder for most TDs is just a system QB? If that were true, wouldn't that mean TD stats are meaningless? If TD stats are meaningless, then what does that say about Manning?"

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Agreed. I think the 2008 season was a credit to both Belichick and Cassel, but not a discredit to Brady. We have to remember that Cassel had an excellent supporting cast to help his transition into the league as a starter. He was fortunate to have Moss, Welker, and Gaffney. I think Cassel would have really struggled if he had the same supporting cast that Brady had in 2006, a season which saw the Pats go 12-4 and, in the eyes of many, close to another SB title. Would we have been impressed with him if Caldwell, Gaffney, Jackson, and Gabriel were his targets? Probably not. We're probably looking at an 8-8 season at best under those circumstances. Brady makes all the difference and those that credit the Patriots success on "the system" is missing the whole picture.

Would MC's mobility helped against the Jets and fins?

Would a less accomplished QB provide for a simplified offense with a "dumb downed" WR corps?


Personally, I don't think you can ever "hide" a QB because it's the hardest job in sports.

By it's nature football is "system" since 11 guys operate simultaneously. As such, having a great system and surrounding talent takes nothing away from MC because you can't "hide" him. A great system, coaching, and talent are symbiotic for a great QB.

It's have it all or you have nothing. In 2008, MC proved he was a good QB because he was one of the four corners on a very good offense.

 

[redsx8827]

cassell took a 16-0 team and led them to 11-5. If the pats had been a 12-4 team in 07, then I don't think we would have gotten past 8-8 with Cassell the following year. He was given such a good team and lost 5 more games than brady did. It's all relative - Keyshawn doesn't understand that.

 

[JoeSixPat]

First of all, Cassel is a good NFL QB. Not great, but good. He has a better QB rating than Manning right now.

He inherited arguably the greatest team of all time and led'em to 11 wins against the easiest schedule in recent memory. The dropoff from 07 was incredible, and that's the year you have to compare it to, not 09 because by then the roster was very different. Using Cassel to demean Tom Brady is the worst argument ever.

Yup - that sounds about right.

The team that Tom Brady brought to within 1 play of being the undisputed greatest team in the history of the NFL - the near "Perfect Team" WITH Tom Brady - was 11-5 with Matt Cassell at QB.

Pretty much just what you'd think what would happen between a great QB and a good QB.

 

[HomerSchooled]

If not Brady, who is the consensus GOAT QB? Montana, right? Like someone mentioned earlier, Steve Young took the same team to a SB, 7 consecutive winning seasons, and put up infinitely superior numbers. Heck, even during Montana's prime, Young's numbers as a back-up were frequently superior. Does that diminish Montana's accomplishments? Of course not, they're obviously just both great QBs.

But Cassel shows up for one season, misses the play-offs with a previously undefeated team, throws less than half the TDs Brady did the previous year, posts a passer rating more than 25 points lower, and that somehow tarnishes Brady's legacy? If anything, that shatters any suggestion that Brady owes his lot to the system, and illustrates how dominant he truly is. And since Cassel's having a far better year in KC than he did here, we should probably all wonder at how remarkable Brady would be if he weren't stuck in the same system that denied Cassel the opportunity to flourish.

People must really have it in for that Brady guy.

 

[Jetssuck]

Why does Keyshawn and others bring up 2008 with Cassel, but not 2000 with Bledsoe? The Patriots are actually a 16-18 team without Brady not an 11-5 team.

The Colts were a 3-13 team in 1998 and a 6-10 team in 2001 with Manning. Now, if someone thinks the Colts are all about Manning and nobody else, feel free to explain those two seasons.

 

[BradyManny]

The Matt Cassell angle is a valid one. But not yet over.

If a mediocre QB can win 11 games with the team it says something very positive about BB and his system, but does suggest that Brady is not the GOAT.

OTOH, if an elite QB wins 5 less game with the team, then it means that TB is irrefutable the GOAT.

But the thing is the jury is still out of Matt. We don't know if he will never play a post season game or have a ring for every finger. We don't know if he will be a pro-bowler, all-pro or HOF QB or just a JAG.

The legacy of Tom very much hings on the career of Matt. And Matt winning the league MVP once will do more for Tom's legacy than Tom winning it two more times.

This couldn't make any less sense. Honestly, it may be the craziest post I've ever read.

Joe Montana's legacy has zero connection to Steve Young, just as Brady's has none to Cassel. It really doesn't matter what your replacement does, it matters what you do.

And again, even if you want to go that route, it's very easy to make an argument that the drop-off from Brady to Cassel was rather epic. 5 less wins, 29 less passing touchdowns, 30 point drop in passer rating. I mean, that's not even close.

 

[Brettlax3434]

Brady's 2007 numbers:

Attempts -398
Completions-578
% -68.9
Yards-4,806
TD-50
Int-8
YPG-300.4
Rating -117.2

Matt Cassel's 2008 numbers:

Attempts -327
Completions-516
%-63.4
Yards-3,693
TD-21
Int-11
YPG-230
Rating-89.4


The only difference between the Patriots from 2007 to 2008 is Tom Brady getting hurt and Matt Cassel starting at QB. In 2007 the Patriot's went undefeated in the regular season and won two playoff games, making them 18-0, then in the super bowl Brady led a game winning touchdown drive with 2:32 left, unfortunately the defense blew it. One year later, against an easy schedule, and with virtually the same team, Cassel put up the numbers above and Won 11 games. The drop off was equivalent to an 11 win team winning 3 or 4 games. The 2007 Patriots were the best team in the history of the league; the 2008 Patriots were a decent NFL team who did not make the playoffs, the difference, Tom Brady.
- Yeah, good arguement Keyshawn.

 

[SammyB29]

Peyton Manning is not a system QB. He is a system unto himself. Peyton does not get plopped into someone elses system. Other players get plopped into Peyton's system.

If you moved him to another team, and he was allowed to run it the way he does the Colts, it would be no different.

The fact that Jim Caldwell almost went undefeated last year goes to show that you could probably drop in just about any coach in the NFL, dare I say it maybe even Brad Childress, and as long as they let Peyton run the offense, he'd be fine. The head coach, the OC, etc, play a much, much smaller role in the Indianapolis offense than they do on any other team.

Now on the other hand, if you sent Manning to a team where he was forced to play somebody elses offense, and wasn't allowed to call his own plays, and wasn't allowed to run things himself, who knows?

None of this is to say that Manning is the GOAT and Brady isn't. I think it's a waste of time to debate that until both of their careers are over.

But to call Peyton Manning a system QB is just wrong. Assuming you're using it in the traditional sense of meaning QB who succeeds because he operates in his coach's offense.

Manning isn't a guy who benefits from being in a system, Manning is a guy who runs his own system that other players benefit from being in. He is without a doubt the smartest and most hands on quarterback in the league, and I have no doubt that you could move him to just about any team and as long as he was given free reign, he'd turn them into major contenders.

 

[upstater1]

I see what you're getting at, but it's a flawed argument. First, Steve Young was a pretty great QB, any way you slice it. Second, anyone who watched Montana knows he was great, and incredibly clutch. The 2-minute John Candy drive, the "Catch", playoff performance, etc. He had the skills, knew how to use his weapons & was as cool as the other side of the pillow....

Uh-huh. And?

 

[upstater1]

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it's fair to Montana to say he "sucked" in KC, and that it proves he was just a system QB. His career arc actually followed a very normal curve. Look at his QB ratings (as one measurement) for his career, starting in 1980 (and in 1991 he missed the entire season, and in 1992 he played 1 game, so we'll leave those out as well):

1980 (24) - 87.8
1981 (25) - 88.4
1982 (26) - 88.0
1983 (27) - 94.6
1984 (28) - 102.9
1985 (29) - 91.3
1986 (30) - 80.7
1987 (31) - 102.1
1988 (32) - 87.9
1989 (33) - 112.4
1990 (34) - 89.0
1993 (37) - 87.4, with KC
1994 (38) - 83.6, with KC

1986 was, if you view this as a curve, an oddity (he did only play 8 games that year), but in general you have this pattern:

Early years (ages 24-26): ratings in the high 80's
Peak years (ages 27-33): ratings in the 90's and 100's
End years (ages 34-38): ratings declining into the 80's again

Pretty standard curve, really. Nobody's career curve is perfectly smooth, but this fits what you'd expect. He started off pretty good, became phenomenal, and then, as he hit his late 30's, declined into an average QB.

Just to make it clear, I'm not knocking Joe Montana.

 

[upstater1]

The Matt Cassell angle is a valid one. But not yet over.

If a mediocre QB can win 11 games with the team it says something very positive about BB and his system, but does suggest that Brady is not the GOAT.

OTOH, if an elite QB wins 5 less game with the team, then it means that TB is irrefutable the GOAT.

But the thing is the jury is still out of Matt. We don't know if he will never play a post season game or have a ring for every finger. We don't know if he will be a pro-bowler, all-pro or HOF QB or just a JAG.

The legacy of Tom very much hings on the career of Matt. And Matt winning the league MVP once will do more for Tom's legacy than Tom winning it two more times.

One of the craziest things I ever read on this board.

The comparison makes no sense.

Brady went 16-0 against an unbelievably difficult schedule the year before.

Cassel went 11-5 against a much easier schedule.

Brady is worth 6 wins a year, in comparison.

 

[Jetssuck]

He is without a doubt the smartest and most hands on quarterback in the league, and I have no doubt that you could move him to just about any team and as long as he was given free reign, he'd turn them into major contenders.

What if you moved him to the 2001 or 1998 Colts?

 

[SVN]

let cassel play with caldwell and gaffeny and see if he goes to a afc championship game. not to mention our schedule was the easiest - seattle,sf, kc,oakland,stl