Brady vs. Cassel

[PatsWickedPissah]

I am so tired of the "he hasn't played since HS" nonsesne. Cassel enterd ther Kc gmes at 0-0 in the 1stQ and scored all the points neede aghasint teh the Chiefs. That is his Victory as far as I am concerned. The Jets game goes into his column as well.

The only other pro experience was in the Miami game that the Pats had conceeded in effect, as they were down two TDs late in the game.

The Defense produced two turnovers, and Cassel lead them to scores. Belichick went for a two point conversion as time ran out. Just like Shanahan did this past weekend, except that the two point conversion failed.

I wouldn't be too sure about "failure" there. Some speculate that Cassie was told to tank the toss to ensure we'd miss the Squealers in the 1st round of playoffs. BB may have to kill Cassel when he leaves next year. An accidental death would not surprise me.

 

[BradyManny]

I'm pretty sure he actually had a lot to do with winning those games.

This "protect the ball" and let the rest of the team win the game stuff is garbage. He has to contribute a lot and majority completed passes, clean hand-off's, clock management, play-adjusting and no INT's are all huge. Start adding TD stats and you'll all be screaming about him being a starter for someone next year.

Give the guy some credit, all 45 guys on any given Sunday have to win the games, not everyone except our QB who just needs to not lose.

By definition, Cassel is going to manage the game and protect the ball so that the playmakers and stars on this team will win the game. That's his role in helping us win the game. The things you list I would consider as "not losing the game, in order to win the game" type stuff. Semantics, maybe. But if I were going to ask Cassel to win us a game, I'd be asking him to complete that deep ball to Moss - at this point, we don't need him to.

So yes, Cassel deserves credit, he played well and I agree he did contribute to the win. But if I was going to rank the 22 starters on the field based on their play the last two games, he'd probably wind up in the bottom 5. Why? Because he has so little experience. Hopefully by the end of the year he's in the top 10. But we don't need him to be.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

But if I was going to rank the 22 starters on the field based on their play the last two games, he'd probably wind up in the bottom 5. Why? Because he has so little experience.

Uh, then you're NOT ranking them based on their play in the last two games

 

[Rob0729]

So I notice that a lot of people are comparing Brady's first start against the Colts with Cassel's first start against the Jet's; Similar stats and all don't get me wrong I think Cassel has been great so far but...

The difference between Brady and Cassel and Brady vs. any QB for that matter is not how they perform during the course of the game but how they perform when the game is on the line.

Brady became a sure fire hall of famer by constantly coming through in the clutch. Just taking into account last year's games swapping Brady for Cassel:

1# Pats lose to the Colts

2# Pats lose to the Eagles

3# Pats lose to the Ravens

4# Possible losses to Steelers, Jets, and Dolphins

5# Pat's lose to Giants

6# Pat's lose to Jags first playoff game

Re-watch last years games and tell me how they beat the Colt's, Eagles, Ravens, Giants, or Jags without Brady.

I don't get why we comparing Brady to Cassel anyway. But you know what, if the Pats had the 2001 version of Brady in there last year, the Pats lose a lot of those games. Brady in 2001 was not the same QB who played in 2007.

 

[BradyManny]

Uh, then you're NOT ranking them based on their play in the last two games

You misunderstood, or I poorly explained myself: he has so little experience...that he can't play to the level of the players around him, and has not played to the level of the players around him in the past two games. He's surrounded by Pro-Bowlers and quality starters. I wasn't discounting him simply b/c of his experience, merely pointing out that his inexperience is the largely the reason why he is not performing at the same level as those around him. If that makes any sense.

 

[JAYHAWKS34]

So I notice that a lot of people are comparing Brady's first start against the Colts with Cassel's first start against the Jet's; Similar stats and all don't get me wrong I think Cassel has been great so far but...

The difference between Brady and Cassel and Brady vs. any QB for that matter is not how they perform during the course of the game but how they perform when the game is on the line.

Brady became a sure fire hall of famer by constantly coming through in the clutch. Just taking into account last year's games swapping Brady for Cassel:

1# Pats lose to the Colts

2# Pats lose to the Eagles

3# Pats lose to the Ravens

4# Possible losses to Steelers, Jets, and Dolphins

5# Pat's lose to Giants

6# Pat's lose to Jags first playoff game

Re-watch last years games and tell me how they beat the Colt's, Eagles, Ravens, Giants, or Jags without Brady.

This must be a joke

 

[BradyManny]

I don't get why we comparing Brady to Cassel anyway. But you know what, if the Pats had the 2001 version of Brady in there last year, the Pats lose a lot of those games. Brady in 2001 was not the same QB who played in 2007.

True, but lets keep two things in mind:

1) Brady did not have near the set of weapons at his disposal as Cassel will this year. Specifically in Moss.
2) The game has changed even from 2001 in terms of the passing offenses.

I think a lot of people forget that Brady was a Pro-Bowler in 2001. Sure 2007 Brady makes 2001 Brady look paltry in comparison, but 2001 Brady was good enough relative to his peers to make the Pro Bowl. I would not expect Cassel to repeat such a feat, and as I keep repeating: we do not need Cassel to the THAT good. Cassel is 2 for 2 in doing what was asked of him, that's good enough.