Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by ctpatsfan77, Jan 9, 2009.
All I can say is: "I WANT TO BELIEVE."
Let's just hope other teams are willing to give up something substantial.
I know this won't be a popular sentiment, but if I was a team looking to get a QB I would look at Derek Anderson's 2007 compared to his 2008, and might be a little weary of acquiring Cassel. I know we love him around here, but he's still far from a proven commodity. I just hope someone is willing to pony up big time.
This is pure speculation. And obsurd speculation at that.
I want to beleive too, but in the end common sense won't allow me.
I want to see Brady back starting week 1, and atleast get some compensation for Cassel, and put him in the NFC.
The difference (IMHO, anyway) is that as last year went on, Derek Anderson tailed off and pretty much got that contract due to his first 6 to 8 games of 2007. Matt Cassel, on the other hand, was mediocre at the beginning of the year and kept getting better and better.
I'd be happy with a #2. And I'd be dancing naked through the streets for a #1. However, to call it "absurd speculation" seems a little naive when it's two veteran NFL people, GMs, who are saying this. I don't know how this will end but logic would dictate that what it said on this board would be "absurd speculation" and what Lombardi and Reese say, while maybe not the end result, would be more "realistic speculation".
I won't refute that, but my point was that asking for the world in trade based on one year of performance is asking a lot. The Browns probably wish they'd traded Anderson when they had the chance.
If we get anything like that that would be amazing. We probably won't but I wouldn't rule out a 1st rounder. Who'd have thought there'd be a silver lining somewhere after the horrible loss of Brady.
Not that it is unpopular, but it doesn't make sense to me?
Am I reading this right? A guy who did well his first year and does poorly his second is a proven commodity, but a cuy who played one year and did well is not a proven commodity? So if Cassel could play half a year next year and suck badly, he would be worth a lot more? That doesn't make sense.
"Proven commodity" is hard to define. I understand that rookies are not proven. But after a year, don't you think that Mayo has "proven" he can play at the NFL level, and guys like Ghoulston have not?
There is a matter of consistency, of doing it year after year, but surely Cassel has "proven" that he can read a defense, he can hit a check down receiver, can hit a receiver in stride, and can make yardage on the ground when the oppottunity arises.
First you have to prove you can do it. That is a matter of talent and ability. Most college players fail at this level. Then after you prove that you can do it, you have to prove you can do it consistently.
Does that make sense?
Anderson had a 82.5 rating, 56.5 completion% and a 3.6% INT rate while in 2007 with very strong receivers, maybe not quite as strong as ours but Winslow and Edwards were very good. As has already been noted, his rating went from 92 to 74 in the first haff to the second. TD/INT from 17/9 to 12/10. YPA from 8.20 to 6.22. He sucked in the second half of 2007.
Cassel had an 89.4 rating, 63.4 completion% and a 2.1% INT rate. More notable his QB rating by month was : 87, 83, 86, 103, very consistent and showing no signs of the cracks that Anderson showed in 2007.
While I agree that Cassel's not a sure thing, Cassel's 2008 looks much, much more encouraging than Anderson's 2007. Anderson had plenty of college starting experience and had started some games in the NFL, too. He came out like gangbusters in the first half of 2007 then came back to earth in the second half, in a big way. In the second half of '07 Anderson only managed 3 games with a passer rating over 80, none over 100.
Meanwhile Cassel came in with astoundingly little game experience, looked skittish in the early going but then settled in and got better and better. Cassel's second half featured 7 games with a rating over 80, 5 of those over 100.
EDIT: apologies to all those who made the same points as I was typing!
No no no, he was saying "compare Anderson's 07 season to his 08 season", basically pointing out that an average or even bad QB can have a great season.
That being said, I still think if a team needs a QB they are better off getting Cassel than using a first rounder draft pick on a QB. Cassel has at least proven SOMETHING at the NFL level, as opposed to College QBs who haven't.
Another difference in consistency I noticed on Anderson vs. Cassel :
2007 for Anderson his Home/Away passer rating was 94/74. Cassel's was 90/89. That's another point in his remarkable consistency is that he was just as good on the road as at home.
We already showed that if you look deeper, Anderson DID NOT have a great season. He had a great FIRST HALF of a season.
Right, but all "great seasons" aren't created equal. Cassel was an uber-raw prospect who showed steady and impressive improvement over the season. Anderson had more experience going in and had an incredibly uneven season, with a handful of great games followed by a lot of mediocre ones. When you're projecting future performance -- even from a single season -- consistency and upward trajectory make all the difference.
Interesting point on the 2-year contract idea.
It seems that the dynamics of the un-capped year make Cassell tied up for a second year even w/o the franchise tag if he signs a franchise tender for 1 year. If the un-capped year happens, of course. That's surely a big part of Lombardi's speculation.
2 years is short enough that the Pats can't hurt Cassell too badly by trading him to a team he hates. It's also short enough that if his career fizzles over the life of that contract for any reason, he still can get another shot from somebody based on this past season.
Conversely, it's long enough that a team might trade for him and gamble on working out a long-term deal later. If he shines at a new team, the new deal is indeed very likely to happen.
"s" pin would have done themselves a service and just posted the various threads here for the article.
The concept of "teams" is unreal. You have to look at a specific team and gauge value. Besides why does everyone assume BB wants a high 1st rounder? 1-9 is not a value play with the Pats.
i expect at the very least a 1st and 3rd for cassel
anythign less would be robbery, and thats what the pats DO, not have done on them
Lombardi knows what he's talking about. The smartest guys on this forum are only guessing. He stands to gain nothing by making outlandish forecasts and is as close to Schefter as anyone in reliable insider scoops.
If you're about to spend a first round pick on a QB to rescue your nose-diving franchise, you have much more incentive to use it to get Cassel than a college QB. He's started a full season (as far as any sane person is concerned). He's proven to have good skills, many of which have nothing to do with his receivers. He hit almost all of them a couple of times and spread the ball around a lot. He's quick, smart with the ball and is responsible for like TWO of his INT's this year. He's young and he spent FOUR YEARS in the best system in the NFL. He's now a marketable name brand, which matters in the ACTUAL (non-fantasy) NFL. Lastly, he will command LESS MONEY than a high-first round QB. Insanity will define the QB starved teams that take a pass.
We will not be disappointed with what we get for Matty. And don't forget the outside chance that he may be OUR QB this season again if all doesn't go as we assume it will with TFB.
For the two year deal to work the whole thing would have to be salary and fully guaranteed IMO. It would need to be salary so that we could trade him without bonus acceleration biting us. And it would need to be fully guaranteed so that Cassel would have an incentive to take 2 years/$20M over 1 year/$14.8M.
Thats why I was saying before that if the Chiefs gave us their #2, thats at 35
If they threw in Tyler Thigpen that would give the Patriots some Brady insurance. Or if not Thigpen some other serviceable player, or #2 of #3 in 2010.
and, please, if they get a #1, dont dance in the streets naked. please.
Separate names with a comma.