Grade Matt Cassel's performance

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

C.

Yes, he had pretty good stats.

The running game was really good tonight.

He took alot of sacks. Most of the problem was the oline. They get a D.

He locked on to 1 reciever too much.

He is days and months better than last week though.

The defense tonight really played well imo.

Denver really is a fraud though as well.

They suck ass.

And injuries don't help.

I really liked Sammy Morris's effort tonight.

He deserves an A.

 

[Wildo7]

I looked at what I expected from him what I wanted and took in to account what he is (a 3rd year rookie).

I expected him to managed the offense
have his high completion of passes
reduce mistakes
improve his reads

what I wanted was;
manage the offense well.
drive downfield
make good reads
and but 2 td's on the board
get the ball out quick enough to avoid sack


I think managed the game well while the team dove downfield his reads were not that great. He did improve his reads like the moss jumper. and all in all he reduced his mistakes. He didn't get the ball out quickly so didn't avoid the sacks. I didn't tuck and run any where near as much.

I'd probably agree with your overall assesment, though there were still a lot of times when I thought he held on too long. I blame the OLine for most of the sacks though. His reads were decent.

 

[Deus Irae]

which part was ridiculous, exactly? You do realize that the "you disagree with me therefore you're stupid" style of posting you love is wearing thin right? I mean, most intelligent people formulate arguments and back them up with facts without just resorting to useless hyperbole.

1. Coming from you, the part of your post chastening me is funny, but not much else. Pots/kettles, etc...

2. Name me a quarterback who's ever been "responsible for the entire offensive output". I'd love to watch that game. I never saw even Michael Vick pull this one off.

3. You take points away for his reads, despite a 75% completion record, no 3-and-outs, 3 touchdowns and no interceptions, and you won't give him credit because the running game was working. So, you ignore the positive stats and just pull a letter out of your ass. And then you wonder why I called your post ridiculous. Merril Hoge would be proud of you.

I don't have a problem with a "B" grade, I have a problem with someone using "F" logic to get to that point.

For the last time, I don't give Cassel too much credit because the Pats scored 40 points against a terrible, injury-ridden defense by mostly running the ball. If you think my grade of a B- is "ridiculous" then congrats, you're homerism is off the charts.

Yes, that's it. Noticing the silly basis for your grade couldn't possibly be my point. It has to be pure homerism. Great assertion and logic on your part, especially in light of your complaint in your first paragraph.

 

[Wildo7]

2. Name me a quarterback who's ever been "responsible for the entire offensive output". I'd love to watch that game. I never saw even Michael Vick pull this one off.

That was my exact point. We did most of our offensive damage by running the ball. He threw for 184 yards against an absolutely terrible defense missing two of their best players. This really isn't that complicated.

3. You take points away for his reads, despite a 75% completion record, no 3-and-outs, 3 touchdowns and no interceptions, and you won't give him credit because the running game was working. So, you ignore the positive stats and just pull a letter out of your ass. And then you wonder why I called your post ridiculous.

His reads were OK, nothing to be especially proud of, he changed progressions a handful of times in the entire game. I've said this from the start, sorry you couldn't understand.

Merril Hoge would be proud of you.

I don't have a problem with a "B" grade, I have a problem with someone using "F" logic to get to that point.

Very witty. File under "useless hyperbole."

Yes, that's it. Noticing the silly basis for your grade couldn't possibly be my point. It has to be pure homerism. Great assertion and logic on your part, especially in light of your complaint in your first paragraph.

Only a total boob would point to the successful running game and 184 yards against possibly the worst defense in the league as a reason why Cassel deserves a grade higher than a B-. I am sorry you have nominated yourself as that boob.

 

[Batman]

He definitely held on for too long on a lot of occasions there should have been a lot more short slants called bailey played 8-10 yards off moss. But he took the sacks rather than making errors which is a good thing.

 

[Deus Irae]

That was my exact point. We did most of our offensive damage by running the ball. He threw for 184 yards against an absolutely terrible defense missing two of their best players. This really isn't that complicated.

They weren't missing those players for the entire game. Also, what part of "no 3-and-outs" seems to be the most difficult for you to grasp?

His reads were OK, nothing to be especially proud of, he changed progressions a handful of times in the entire game. I've said this from the start, sorry you couldn't understand.

I think it's you that doesn't understand. 34 dropbacks and 34 true runs (4 runs came when Cassel pulled the ball down) is not "mostly running the ball". If I've forgotten a deliberate run called for Cassel, that would make the numbers 35-33, which would still be an essential split. In those 34 dropbacks, he completed 18 of 24 passes, ran 4 times, and was sacked 6 times. Most of the sacks were pretty clearly not on him in any 'bad sense'.

Only a total boob would point to the successful running game and 184 yards against possibly the worst defense in the league as a reason why Cassel deserves a grade higher than a B-. I am sorry you have nominated yourself as that boob.

Again, the problem isn't your grade, it's your logic. Perhaps your reading comprehension also needs help, as I've mentioned this before. Your grade is useless because the basis for it was ridiculous. You might has well have just rolled dice, because that would have made as much sense.

Recap:

Passing/Running was evenly split, contrary to your assertion
0 interceptions
75% completions
3 touchdowns
0 3-and-out possessions of any meaning
7 scores on 10 meaningful possessions.
4 of 5 (80%) red zone efficiency
Passer rating over 130

Calling that a "B-" is hard grading and probably silly if you really think about it, but calling it that based upon yards passing and his reads is ridiculous.

 

[PATRIOT64]

MANAGED the QB position O.K. but a C is the correct grade here

Still has no idea of how to get rid of the ball quick and has absolutely the worst pocket presence in the league

Most of this completions were 5 and 8 yard out patterns so nothing to write home about,But other than the NEAR interception at the 1 that was overturned he was mistake-free and that alone deserves a compliment

Morris was an 'A 'tonight as well as Hobbs and Goskowski who is quickly becoming Mr. accurate inside of the 35 - Other than that grades were Bs and Cs

 

[primetime]

A-/B+. He was hardly a superstar and hardly the reason the Patriots won tonight (that's the much maligned defense), but he did what he had to do. When you complete 75% of your passes and throw for 3 TDs, you've done your job. I hesitate to give him an A grade because I dont feel he was instrumental at all to the victory, but I do think he performed very well, bouncing back from last week's horrendous showing against what is probably a better team.

 

[RayClay]

He was OK. Without the running game he would have been in serious trouble.

He doesn't have cement legs like Bledsoe, so he should be able to improve his pocket presence and decision making as far as getting rid of the ball.

I'm not trying to be harsh, but he's our QB and we have a reasonable chance to make the playoffs where anything can happen. He needs to work like a Clydesdale to improve those areas mentioned IMO.

Wouldn't mind seeing them mix in some more designed rollouts just to keep defenses from locking on to him.

Solid B for not coughing the ball up. That's mucho important and taking sacks disguises how good he has been in not throwing it up for grabs.

 

[Wildo7]

They weren't missing those players for the entire game. Also, what part of "no 3-and-outs" seems to be the most difficult for you to grasp?

The part where it's in anyway relevant to Cassel's performance since about two thirds of first downs were run plays.

I think it's you that doesn't understand. 34 dropbacks and 34 true runs (4 runs came when Cassel pulled the ball down) is not "mostly running the ball". If I've forgotten a deliberate run called for Cassel, that would make the numbers 35-33, which would still be an essential split. In those 34 dropbacks, he completed 18 of 24 passes, ran 4 times, and was sacked 6 times. Most of the sacks were pretty clearly not on him in any 'bad sense'.

I never once mentioned anything about him being responsible for the sacks, in fact I clearly said I put that on the OL. And I said most of our offensive output was from the run game and YAC, I never said we called run plays and passing plays evenly. Talk about reading comprehension.

Again, the problem isn't your grade, it's your logic. Perhaps your reading comprehension also needs help, as I've mentioned this before. Your grade is useless because the basis for it was ridiculous. You might has well have just rolled dice, because that would have made as much sense.

By the way, I notice you haven't bothered to vote on a grade. I guess you're just here to tell everyone how stupid they are without actually taking a position.

Passing/Running was evenly split, contrary to your assertion

I said we were more productive in the run game, not that we called more running plays, nice try though. And you ignored another one of my "ridiculous" points that a lot of those passing yards were YAC against a pathetic defense.

0 interceptions
75% completions
3 touchdowns
0 3-and-out possessions of any meaning

I notice you've changed this last line. 15 of 23 1st downs were run plays and almost all of Cassel's completions were medium-short range passes. Sorry, but that doesn't earn an A.

7 scores on 10 meaningful possessions.
4 of 5 (80%) red zone efficiency
Passer rating over 130

All of your selective stats are negated by the fact that anyone with a brain could see that the Broncos defense was downright terrible, and since you site passer rating I'll point out that considering they were without Bly and Bailey for most of the game, Cassel's passer rating was average as far as other QBs go against the Broncos.

Calling that a "B-" is hard grading and probably silly if you really think about it, but calling it that based upon yards passing and his reads is ridiculous.

My logic is that he threw for only 184 yards against a **** defense and the Pats ran for most of the yards they gained. You can twist my words all you want but none of what you said is relevant to my point. The defense he faced was absolutely terrible and he didn't shine against them but rather managed a decent game. If this is still too complicated for you to understand I'm not sure I can help you out any further.

 

[CheerforTom]

I have no idea what I'd give him as a letter grade, but citing Cassel's 3/0 stat is pretty misleading. Two of his TDs were thrown to the LOS and the carrier and blockers did all the work, he just happened to get the credit because they got to the end zone. He was also very lucky the pass on the challenge play wasn't picked off. Numbers aren't everything.

 

[Joker]

He's SIX games into a career where he's NEVER started a game...and you guys want vintage Tom Brady....ridiculous.

One important side note...Stephen Neal back at RG was a HUGE improvement...her's hoping he can stay healthy. If he can, Cassel will be the benefactor.

 

[BennyBledsoe]

He's SIX games into a career where he's NEVER started a game...and you guys want vintage Tom Brady....ridiculous.

One important side note...Stephen Neal back at RG was a HUGE improvement...her's hoping he can stay healthy. If he can, Cassel will be the benefactor.

S'what I'm saying!

It's amazing what good offensive line play can do for a quarterback, now isn't it?

 

[dakevdude]

He's SIX games into a career where he's NEVER started a game...and you guys want vintage Tom Brady....ridiculous.

One important side note...Stephen Neal back at RG was a HUGE improvement...her's hoping he can stay healthy. If he can, Cassel will be the benefactor.

Was it a HUGE improvement??? I thought they had trouble all nite on the right side of the o line...

 

[dakevdude]

S'what I'm saying!

It's amazing what good offensive line play can do for a quarterback, now isn't it?

Woah....what game were you watching???

 

[Joker]

He was also very lucky the pass on the challenge play wasn't picked off. Numbers aren't everything.

OK...he doesn't get "lucky" and they keep possession at the 1 yard line down 27-0....THIS would be the HUGE turning point in the game and Denver comes back and wins???

First of all,the play was called CORRECTLY....any moron can if/then the whole dyam game to fit his agenda, which is exactly what YOU are doing...making an argument off a fallacy.

 

[BennyBledsoe]

Woah....what game were you watching???

Last week, the line didn't get any push in the running game and never gave Cassel time to throw.

This time, there was room to run and although he got hit a bunch there were times he could go through the progressions and make the play.

 

[CheerforTom]

He was also very lucky the pass on the challenge play wasn't picked off. Numbers aren't everything.

OK...he doesn't get "lucky" and they keep possession at the 1 yard line down 27-0....THIS would be the HUGE turning point in the game and Denver comes back and wins???

First of all,the play was called CORRECTLY....any moron can if/then the whole dyam game to fit his agenda, which is exactly what YOU are doing...making an argument off a fallacy.

I didn't say the play wasn't called correctly. It was.

If he doesn't get "lucky" it doesn't affect the game at all really, but it means he goes 2/1 instead of 3/0. Big difference in the numbers (including QB rating) being thrown around in here. It IS an if/then, but the point is that it's an instance where Cassel didn't have any control over what the outcome was beyond throwing the ball where it should have been picked off.

While I'm at it, what exactly do you think I'm arguing here? What's my "agenda" that I'm trying to fit stuff into? I think Cassel played a good game. I swear, some of you guys come here after the games where you've been drinking a lot.

 

[Wildo7]

I didn't say the play wasn't called correctly. It was.

If he doesn't get "lucky" it doesn't affect the game at all really, but it means he goes 2/1 instead of 3/0. Big difference in the numbers (including QB rating) being thrown around in here.

While I'm at it, what exactly do you think I'm arguing here? What's my "agenda" that I'm trying to fit stuff into? I swear, some of you guys come here after the games where you've been drinking a lot.

They're conflating people who don't rush in to give Cassel an "A" grade with people who constantly ***** about Cassel "sucking." It's a shame because the superhomers are starting to become as annoying as the trolls.

 

[Joker]

For your edification, I'm sober as a judge and I rarely drink...never during the week. I just feel making an if/then argument on a night when the Patriots won 41-7 is a bit squirrely.Maybe YOU should lay off the acorn sour mash.