Could this possibly be Belichick's plan for Cassel?

[Deus Irae]

Again, the things you "know" are impressive.

Anyway, how is what I'm saying any more absurd than saying Cassel couldn't win against the division winners? Last I heard it was a team sport. And the defense handed over a near miraculous come-from-behind-win #12 (Jets 2.0). Are we pinning that loss on Cassel also?

My point is we won the same amount of Lombardi's this year as last. Are we saying it's QB play that was the result? Is that the reasonable assessment here?

Brady went 18-1 against a very difficult schedule

Cassel went 11-5 against a very easy schedule

 

[ctpatsfan77]

That's what makes trades tough in the NFL - the signing bonus money would be killer. How are roster bonuses treated in a trade? That could make a difference...

For the record, the problem would be the uncapped year in 2010--the same problem that makes the idea of trading Brady less appealing--which mandates that any dead money accelerate completely into 2009, with no ability to spread it out into 2010.

 

[JSn]

Brady went 18-1 against a very difficult schedule

Cassel went 11-5 against a very easy schedule

I see. I thought the Patriots did that.

 

[BradyManny]

I see. I thought the Patriots did that.

The defense gave up 2 more points a game than in 07. The offense scored 11 points less per game than in 07.

In 07, adding Moss into the equation created such a potent offense that teams hardly stood a chance, and it disguised some defensive deficiencies. In 2008, the offense dropped from other-worldly to very good, and the defense showed some more warts.

 

[fgssand]

The history of today's NFL really started with the salary cap and free agency. For example, Steve Young and Joe Montana were together because Young had no choice. He despised being Montana's back-up and would have left if he could have.

I don't recall a team keeping 2 starting QBs signed to big $ long term deals in the cap era which is what the initial poster is saying the plan will be.

Even if the Pats would do that, I doubt they would find a willing partner in that plan in Cassel. He has spent a decade sitting. I can't see him locking himself in long term to do it again when he can go elsewhere and play.

Your helping to make my point.....my assumption was that NE sucks it up for the one year, in anticipation or preparedness for the new capless NFL to take over.

If there is no cap after next year, and we cannot sign any free agents other than our own anyway (based on expected finish in 2009)....then, keeping two could make sense.

Restating my position one more time (DEUS take note) - I do expect tag and trade to be in the works and I also think a one, this year and a three is the minimum we'll get.

 

[Deus Irae]

I see. I thought the Patriots did that.

Let's have the team get rid of all the current quarterbacks and just put one of their CB cuts in as quarterback. After all, it's not the individuals that matter, it's the "Patriots". Davey, Bledsoe, Brady, Casell, O'Connell, Hank Poteat,.... they are all really fungible at quarterback.

 

[dhamz]

Your helping to make my point.....my assumption was that NE sucks it up for the one year, in anticipation or preparedness for the new capless NFL to take over.

I highly doubt the Patriots are basing any long term planning on their being a new capless era of the NFL. There will quite possibly be an uncapped year in 2010 but the cap will be in the next CBA. The owners will demand it and if the NFLPA doesn't agree there will be a lockout in 2011.

 

[Sicilian]

Brady went 18-1 against a very difficult schedule

Cassel went 11-5 against a very easy schedule

I'm not sure the argument ever really became is Cassel = Brady, but I have issue with this easy sched vs. hard sched nonsense.

2007 was a tough schedule no doubt, but it also included a 1-15 Miami team that went 11-5 and won the division in 2008, and a 4-12 Jets team that went 9-7 in 2008. The Bills remained about the same.

And say what you want about the Cardinals, the point is we killed a team that went to the Super Bowl. We also lost badly to the team that eventually won it all. Those aren't considered tough games on a schedule?

What about the Colts? The Chargers who had a late push? The Broncos who were eventually exposed, but at the time were playing pretty well. These aren't tough games?

So people act like if you didn't play all 10 win teams you had a "cake" schedule, and it's just not true.

 

[BradyManny]

I'm not sure the argument ever really became is Cassel = Brady, but I have issue with this easy sched vs. hard sched nonsense.

2007 was a tough schedule no doubt, but it also included a 1-15 Miami team that went 11-5 and won the division in 2008, and a 4-12 Jets team that went 9-7 in 2008. The Bills remained about the same.

And say what you want about the Cardinals, the point is we killed a team that went to the Super Bowl. We also lost badly to the team that eventually won it all. Those aren't considered tough games on a schedule?

What about the Colts? The Chargers who had a late push? The Broncos who were eventually exposed, but at the time were playing pretty well. These aren't tough games?

So people act like if you didn't play all 10 win teams you had a "cake" schedule, and it's just not true.

I was at the Cardinals game. It was a scrimmage from the first play. The Cardinals didn't put forth any effort. The Colts are always tough, but they were banged up and just coming around. The Chargers were struggling early in the year. The Broncos are trash. The Phins weren't as bad as 1-15 last year and they weren't as good as 11-5 this year. The Jets have had a good defense both seasons. Honestly, at worst, I see the Pats going 14-2 w/ Brady this past year, with a chance at another run at 16-0.

But don't take my word for it. Again, go to FootballOutsiders.com and see Cassel's production when the opposing defense is taken into account. He is a GOOD quarterback. But he isn't a $14.5 million QB.

 

[Sicilian]

I was at the Cardinals game. It was a scrimmage from the first play. The Cardinals made an effort to not try. The Colts are always tough, but they were banged up and just coming around. The Chargers were struggling early in the year. The Broncos are trash. The Phins weren't as bad as 1-15 last year and they weren't as good as 11-5 this year. The Jets have had a good defense both seasons. Honestly, at worst, I see the Pats going 14-2 w/ Brady this past year, with a chance at another run at 16-0.

But don't take my word for it. Again, go to FootballOutsiders.com and see Cassel's production when the opposing defense is taken into account. He is a GOOD quarterback. But he isn't a $14.5 million QB.

Again, I am NOT arguing that Cassel is some how as good as Brady. That's absurd. I know we would have had a better record with Brady, maybe even undefeated, who knows.

The argument I was making was that there was this great discrepancy in the schedules these past two years, and I just don't see a huge difference.

And the fact that the Cardinals game was a joke does NOT cancel the fact that they beat three other playoffs teams and almost upset the Steelers in the Super Bowl. That goes in my book as a quality opponent, I don't care what happened in our game.

 

[BradyManny]

And the fact that the Cardinals game was a joke does NOT cancel the fact that they beat three other playoffs teams and almost upset the Steelers in the Super Bowl. That goes in my book as a quality opponent, I don't care what happened in our game.

The Cardinals proved themselves - however, when we played them, they didn't make any effort. The game was a joke.

As for the schedules - 2007 is even more difficult in hindsight. Some of the "easy" games on the schedule (Ravens, Eagles), turned out to be great defenses whose seasons were derailed for one reason or another, we now know that.

Think about the defenses that team beat: Giants, Steelers, Ravens, Eagles, Chargers (w Merriman), Colts, Redskins (at the time, a top defense). Add in games against the Cowboys & Jags (playoffs). The 16-0 feat in 2007 is even more impressive considering what we know about some of those teams now, and also considering that each week, every team was gunning for us like it was their Super Bowl.

 

[Sicilian]

The Cardinals proved themselves - however, when we played them, they didn't make any effort. The game was a joke.

As for the schedules - 2007 is even more difficult in hindsight. Some of the "easy" games on the schedule (Ravens, Eagles), turned out to be great defenses whose seasons were derailed for one reason or another, we now know that.

Think about the defenses that team beat: Giants, Steelers, Ravens, Eagles, Chargers (w Merriman), Colts, Redskins (at the time, a top defense). Add in games against the Cowboys & Jags (playoffs). The 16-0 feat in 2007 is even more impressive considering what we know about some of those teams now, and also considering that each week, every team was gunning for us like it was their Super Bowl.

The Ravens and Eagles were what they were in 2007, and were different teams in 2008. You can't say, "Well, they got better in 2008, so that's the team we really beat in 2007." No. We beat a 1-15 Miami team twice, a 4-12 Jets team twice, a sub .500 Ravens team and a sub .500 (i think?) Eagles team. They gave us tough games, but apparently the rest of the league didn't have as much trouble.

The 16-0 feat was incredible, but we had our share of gimme games.

 

[BradyManny]

The Ravens and Eagles were what they were in 2007, and were different teams in 2008. You can't say, "Well, they got better in 2008, so that's the team we really beat in 2007." No. We beat a 1-15 Miami team twice, a 4-12 Jets team twice, a sub .500 Ravens team and a sub .500 (i think?) Eagles team. They gave us tough games, but apparently the rest of the league didn't have as much trouble.

The 16-0 feat was incredible, but we had our share of gimme games.

The rest of the league didn't have much trouble up to that point. Since then, both teams have risen back to elite status.

 

[Sicilian]

The rest of the league didn't have much trouble up to that point. Since then, both teams have risen back to elite status.

Right... after a year and an off-season, in which everything shuffles. That doesn't mean they were any tougher at the time. That year, they were not tough oppoents. Tough defenses that played good games? Absolutely. Tough teams overall, no.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Brady went 18-1 against a very difficult schedule

Cassel went 11-5 against a very easy schedule

True to a degree - but compare the health of the defense between the 18-1 season and the 11-5 season.

I'll bet if someone digs deeper they can make a case that Cassel's hill to climb wasn't as easy as you make it out to be.

 

[Deus Irae]

True to a degree - but compare the health of the defense between the 18-1 season and the 11-5 season.

I'll bet if someone digs deeper they can make a case that Cassel's hill to climb wasn't as easy as you make it out to be.

Then you should do that, by all means.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm glad that some fans are actually considering what might happpen if Cassel were to stay because Belichick wanted him in 2009. I just wanted that to be considered when everyone was not even considering it and dismissing the possibility.

Congratulations, you're not alone.

It's still not happening.

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

Cassel is GOING TO BE TRADED. He is NOT the second coming of Tom Brady and is not worth that kind of money. The Patriots need to unload him quick while he's still a hot commodity, because he's never going to be better than he was this past season. In time, Kevin O'Connell will prove a better quarterback than Cassel. Mark it down.

This is EXACTLY how I feel as well.

At the beginning of this season, where was all of the Matt Cassel fans at?

There were maybe a few.

I know that I WASN'T one.

He did however pull off a very good season.

This might be his apex. He may go much higher, but, what if he levels off or drops mightily?

Trade him now.

 

[Synovia]

I will also repeatedly come back to the thing no one wants to talk about, which is that Cassel's #s by more discerning metrics are just slightly above average, and are below the likes of J. Campbell, Garcia, Seneca Wallace, and Tavaris Jackson. His DVOA, DYAR, YAR & VOA are all below those guys.

Only if you look at the entire season, including the time when he was playing in a restricted offense. If you look at the last 8 weeks of the season (disregarding buffalo, hes about 3rd in the league).


week DYAR Rank
10- 71 #9
11- 244 #1
12- 193 #2
13- -115 #28
14- 31 #16
15- 132 #3
16- 142 #4


Week 13 was Pitt, IIRC.





By the end of the season, even the sophisticated metrics thought Cassel was one of the best. Using full season DVOA assumes he was the same guy in week 1 as in week 17. We all know that isnt true.

 

[Synovia]

The 16-0 feat was incredible, but we had our share of gimme games.

They also beat what, 7 or 8 of the 11 other teams that made the playoffs?