Is O'Connell a go at #2 backup? Or do we need a solid vet QB?

[DaBruinz]

Its simple: The VAST MAJORITY of QBs taken outside the top 15 picks of the first round are abject failures. Theres no indication that O'Connel will ever be able to play at an NFL level, despite the fact that Cassel can.

Could you please provide where you get your facts for this? Also, what do you consider "abject failure"? Why don't you give us a short run down of the QBs drafted from 2000 to 2006 who were drafted from the middle of the 1st round to the end of the 3rd who were "abject failures" in your mind. I am limiting to those years because players drafted in 2007 and 2008 haven't been in the league long enough to make a decision on unless they are out of the league.

For me, I consider the player an "abject failure" if that player was either cut outright. Players who become permanent back-ups play a very important role and should be considered failures.

Cassel's success does not guarantee O'Connel's success. It does not even mean that O'Connel has a better chance of success. Unless they're all a product of the system, the two are simply unrelated.

All QBs are products of the system they play in. All of them. Every single one. So to act like being a "product of the system" is a bad thing is just plain foolish. The reality is that players like Marino, Montana, Young, Bradshaw, Plunkett, etc, were successful because of the systems they were in. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand the game of football.

If you compare O'Connell's attributes to Cassel's attributes, O'Connell seems to be better than Cassel athletically. Where there is question for us laymen is in O'Connell's mental attributes because we've never seen him play outside of a few pre-season games. By all accounts, though, O'Connell matches Cassel there. Is it wrong to HOPE that O'Connell will be better than Cassel. Nope. Its not wrong. Nor are they unrelated. Only time will tell if O'Connell will have similar succeess in the Patriots system as Brady and Cassel have had before him.

 

[DaBruinz]

Or that they don't have a lot of confidence in a vet with half a year in the offense being able to handle things any better than a rookie.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I gave MY opinion. Which was that the Pats not bringing showed the confidence they had in O'Connell. Not a lack of confidence in any veteran that was available. While what you say is true, its unlikely. A veteran such as Chris Simms or Tim Rattay will have experience that the rookie doesn't. Experience that can mean the difference between winning or losing a game.

Theres a good chance a highly drafted rookie has better physical skills than a journeyman vet, and if either one of them is going to have problems with the offense, the rookie may be the better option. Plus, playing the rookie helps in the long term, because you'll have more idea of what he is, and what hes worth.

Sorry, but this contradicts what you just stated earlier about most QBs taken outside the Top 15 are abject failures. You can't have it both ways. And, if you eliminate the physical aspects and look at the mental ones, then a veteran QB is much more likely to succeed because he's got the knowledge and the training that the Rookie doesn't have. So he can handle the stresses of the position better.

 

[spacecrime]

Do we really need yet another thread ignorant of the fact the rookie o'connell was good enough to be the #2 QB behind Cassel?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

In answer to the thread title: Both.

O'Connell as #2 with a Patrick Ramsey or a Brad Johnson signing on a #3 for vet minimum.

To what end? Belichick has actually been pretty clear on why he does or doesn't do something. He brought in Flutie in 2005 and Testeverde in 2006 because he didn't have what he considers a veteran presence on the roster (not to mention a veteran OC). He defines that as a player with 8 or more years of experience including exhibiting the capacity to win.

You will note he stopped bringing that in once Brady had his 8 seasons in entering 2007. Brady is the veteran presence on this team. Doug and Vinnie were here for two reasons... To step in if Brady was injured in game and to tell great stories and anecdotes and give younger players someone to bounce questions off of. The plan was always to get the developmental QB ready in a week to step in if Brady was out longer. By 2008 the developmental player was entering his 4th season and he stepped in in game. There was no need to bring in another mentor as Brady was handling that on one leg behind the scenes...

O'Connell is entering his second season in the system and Brady is back and entering his 10th. They have all summer to get O'Connell ready to step in in game if needed. He spent a year already at the #2 position which developed him a lot faster than either Brady or Cassel had opportunities to.

They may bring in another arm to battle Gutierrez for the #3 slot, but it won't be a cranky crumedgeon or a JAG wannabe starter. More likely it will be an UDFA or another late round flyer from a pick they can't unload anyway. They apparently re-signed Gutz for two years so they intend to give him a shot to remain on the roster. If he gets bumped it will be by another developmental Qb with greater upside.

 

[Synovia]

Sorry, but this contradicts what you just stated earlier about most QBs taken outside the Top 15 are abject failures. You can't have it both ways. And, if you eliminate the physical aspects and look at the mental ones, then a veteran QB is much more likely to succeed because he's got the knowledge and the training that the Rookie doesn't have. So he can handle the stresses of the position better.

No, it doesn't contradict at all. O'Connel can still be a failure, and have a Vet not be any better.

You can't just eliminate the physical stuff, because chances are, the 22 year old rookie has better physical stuff than the 35 year old journeyman.

 

[Reaper]

You are just talking like it will happen again. how long has brady been playing, that was just a fluke it wont happen again.

 

[Synovia]

Could you please provide where you get your facts for this?

There are a handful of 2nd and 3rd round QBs in the NFL right now.


Other than Drew Brees, and Matt Schaub, they're all backups at absolute best, and most of them are out of the league after their rookie contract.

Since 1992, theres only been 2 QBs drafted in the 2nd or 3rd that have been successful (out of 31). Brees and Plummer. And neither one of them had any real success with the team that drafted them.


Chances are, despite my hope, O'Connel falls in that other 29.

 

[AzPatsFan]

You guys are smoking rope.

The chances of Kevin O'Connell being a good QB are marginal based on the success rate of NFL QBs. He might, but it would be a lot more probable if he had 3 - 4 years of experience, before you find out if he can, like Cassel.

Using the Brady argument is saying that since the GOAT QB, took a job due to injury in his second season, anyone could, is truly daft.

IMO, the reason that the Pats did not sign another QB after Brady got hurt was twofold. First, it would have undermined the confidence of Cassel, and if all it took was the physical mechanics, the league would be overflowing with QBs.

It is NOT. Over 90% of QB play goes on between the QBs ears. After he got rolling 5-6 games into the season Cassel psyche was assured, and you could see it in his play. For the first 5 games it was marginal, and could easily have been destroyed, by a Vote of No Confidence in bringing in another guy. That is but one example why Belichick is the GOAT Coach, or damn near.

Secondly, if a second QB goes down in the same the season, and you don't have a QB familiar with the Offense, the season is probably beyond redemption, by the time he is acclimated, anyway. So simply accept it.

And try to make chicken salad out of chicken feathers with a raw rookie,nad others. Despite Cassel's improbable fine play, did you note how many youngsters BB pushed into playing roles in 2008, to get some experience in the Year of No Brady?

If you recall they sent a pair of would be backup QBs home, Simms and Rattay, so they were planning, in the normal course of events, to sign an experienced vet backup behind Brady.

So they absolutely need a experienced vet to backup, in TC to learn the system, for the looming 2009 SB favorite contender. The Pats will sign one bye and bye. Patrick Ramsey is but the first of several interviewees, I'd wager.

 

[PatsCanDoIt]

The only veteran QBs Bill has ever had here were special circumstances. Bledsoe, Flutie, Testaverde and Huard. We all know the Bledsoe story. Flutie and Testaverde were signed because Bill respects them and as Cassel insurance, not Brady insurance. Huard was signed as Bledsoe insurance but he was passed by Tommy during the 2001 pre-season.

IOW, if a vet QB is signed it will be as O'Connell insurance, not Brady insurance. We still have a QB a year ahead of O'Connell remember.

 

[AzPatsFan]

Could you please provide where you get your facts for this? Also, what do you consider "abject failure"? Why don't you give us a short run down of the QBs drafted from 2000 to 2006 who were drafted from the middle of the 1st round to the end of the 3rd who were "abject failures" in your mind. I am limiting to those years because players drafted in 2007 and 2008 haven't been in the league long enough to make a decision on unless they are out of the league.

For me, I consider the player an "abject failure" if that player was either cut outright. Players who become permanent back-ups play a very important role and should be considered failures.




All QBs are products of the system they play in. All of them. Every single one. So to act like being a "product of the system" is a bad thing is just plain foolish. The reality is that players like Marino, Montana, Young, Bradshaw, Plunkett, etc, were successful because of the systems they were in. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand the game of football.

If you compare O'Connell's attributes to Cassel's attributes, O'Connell seems to be better than Cassel athletically. Where there is question for us laymen is in O'Connell's mental attributes because we've never seen him play outside of a few pre-season games. By all accounts, though, O'Connell matches Cassel there. Is it wrong to HOPE that O'Connell will be better than Cassel. Nope. Its not wrong. Nor are they unrelated. Only time will tell if O'Connell will have similar succeess in the Patriots system as Brady and Cassel have had before him.

Da Bruinz,

I'll answer that QB question for him.

There are probably a dozen who we would consider good QBs in the league. More than half the teams are dissatisfied or worse with their QBs. Yet the NFL probably drafts ten QBs year. So in a ten year window, (although QB can be a 15 year position), that is 100 QBs, in all rounds including the early First, but it only turns out that 10-12 are any good.

There is your long odds, about 10-12% are "successful" and that is after adequate training in the school of hard knocks. In actuality, most high drafted rookies are not really expected to do much than learn in their first two years, and flash talent, occasionally. As far as athletic mechanics for the QB position, every one is more than qualified; but some are better than others obviously.

KOC has virtually no training, and he has the mechanics, so do the 100 other candidate failures. Big Deal.

If he even becomes "good " after a few years of play, it does no good for the Patiots of 2009, superbowl chances. Isn't that what we are looking for in a qualified backup QB, isn't it?

 

[MassPats38]

You guys are smoking rope.

The chances of Kevin O'Connell being a good QB are marginal based on the success rate of NFL QBs. He might, but it would be a lot more probable if he had 3 - 4 years of experience, before you find out if he can, like Cassel.

Using the Brady argument is saying that since the GOAT QB, took a job due to injury in his second season, anyone could, is truly daft.

IMO, the reason that the Pats did not sign another QB after Brady got hurt was twofold. First, it would have undermined the confidence of Cassel, and if all it took was the physical mechanics, the league would be overflowing with QBs.

It is NOT. Over 90% of QB play goes on between the QBs ears. After he got rolling 5-6 games into the season Cassel psyche was assured, and you could see it in his play. For the first 5 games it was marginal, and could easily have been destroyed, by a Vote of No Confidence in bringing in another guy. That is but one example why Belichick is the GOAT Coach, or damn near.

Secondly, if a second QB goes down in the same the season, and you don't have a QB familiar with the Offense, the season is probably beyond redemption, by the time he is acclimated, anyway. So simply accept it.

And try to make chicken salad out of chicken feathers with a raw rookie,nad others. Despite Cassel's improbable fine play, did you note how many youngsters BB pushed into playing roles in 2008, to get some experience in the Year of No Brady?

If you recall they sent a pair of would be backup QBs home, Simms and Rattay, so they were planning, in the normal course of events, to sign an experienced vet backup behind Brady.

So they absolutely need a experienced vet to backup, in TC to learn the system, for the looming 2009 SB favorite contender. The Pats will sign one bye and bye. Patrick Ramsey is but the first of several interviewees, I'd wager.

So in your opinion these great veteran QBs, who cannot seem to find a roster, are better than a QB who has spent a year working with the very offense he is asked to assume? At what point do you consider a backup sufficiently ripe to assume the #2 slot (thereby obviating the need for a veteran number 3)? 1 year of experience? 2? 3? What's the magic number in your opinion? Did you ever ask yourself why Cassel seemed to work so well with Gaffney last season (perhaps sessions with the second team offense)? Does coaching have any bearing on the success of a rookie QB, or is it a "Hand of God" effect that avoids the problem of junior QBs falling into the abyss?

I suspect great QBs can walk in and display some command of an offense, but QBs considered mediocre do not necessarily have that ability. It also depends on the simplicity of the offense run (that subject was repeatedly discussed in response to the screams last year to get the very same guys being discussed now), and similarity to the new team's offense.

I would agree the meetings with those QBs were canceled as a sign of confidence in Cassel, but I recall the stated purpose of those visits was a reference to updating emergency roster/shadow roster/whatever you want to call the list of players on speed dial not on the active roster used in the event of a rainy day. The Patriots routinely entertain visits from players, and surprisingly not all find themselves added to the 53. If you know something about those two visitors not in the public domain, feel free to produce those facts.

As you are well aware, the 53-man roster is a short list, and Belichick uses the practice squad to avoid the limitations of the list. Given Patriots' injury issues, the emphasis tends to be need based. If the Patriots believe O'Connell is best capable of performing the back-up role and would be an attraction for other teams if sent to the practice squad, he will get a slot. If he cannot perform that role (see Rohan Davey prompting the acquisition of Huard, a quasi-veteran), he will leave. The Patriots have a second year back-up in Gutierrez, who was kicked because he did not show the capabilities of O'Connell. As Brady, prior to this injury, was bulletproof, the Patriots did not need to carry 3 QBs. If Brady does not look like he would be ready, I do not see how the Patriots suddenly change their formula, lose Cassel, and bring in a retread who could not carry a starting role on an inferior offense. There is a risk if Brady went down in the first game, but the Patriots apparently haven't rolled craps since Brady took the helm so I do not see a sea change coming to add someone unfamiliar with the offensive system with a preseason to figure it out.

 

[Synovia]

So in your opinion these great veteran QBs, who cannot seem to find a roster, are better than a QB who has spent a year working with the very offense he is asked to assume?

I don't think hes saying that at all. What hes saying is that O'Connel is an unknown.

That being said, backup QBs are one of two things: 1)Unknows 2) Known mediocrity.

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

BB doesnt draft QB's that high!! KOC is our #2!!

Being that KOC played at a higher level in the preseason than MC... I'm not too concerned.

 

[spacecrime]

Secondly, if a second QB goes down in the same the season, and you don't have a QB familiar with the Offense, the season is probably beyond redemption, by the time he is acclimated, anyway. So simply accept it.

This is what you (and many many others) said last year, that if Brady went down the season was over.

As if our team was made up of a QB and 52 JAGs.

 

[Synovia]

Being that KOC played at a higher level in the preseason than MC... I'm not too concerned.

Being that KOC played against the 3rd string at best, while MC played the starters, I think you're assuming too much.

 

[Headcase]

Wouldn't the simple fact that BB has had two starting QBs go down with serious injuries, and both times he has someone ready to take over the team, be enough to avoid this question?

I guess not.

SSDD

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Wouldn't the simple fact that BB has had two starting QBs go down with serious injuries, and both times he has someone ready to take over the team, be enough to avoid this question?

I guess not.

SSDD

why is 2 for 2 automatically mean 3 for 3?

If I remember correctly, we were doing pretty well filling up holes in the secondary every time a starter went down enroute to two SBs but since 2005 getting those guys off the street to perform to that injured starters level is no longer a gimme - At one time that was 2 for 2 as well - Things can change and the team can falter at any given time in this league.

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

Being that KOC played against the 3rd string at best, while MC played the starters, I think you're assuming too much.

I see his upside. Do you?

 

[Synovia]

I see his upside. Do you?

Upside is not guaranteed. He has plenty of upside. So did Kyle Boller.

 

[AzPatsFan]

This is what you (and many many others) said last year, that if Brady went down the season was over.

As if our team was made up of a QB and 52 JAGs.

That is not what I said,at all. Unlike y'all I was a Cassel apologist. I thought that he did exactly what BB wanted him to do and displayed POISE and withstood the impediments that BB put in his path, possibly on purpose. Like playing, while auditioning bum-of-the-day.

There was the OL-of-the-day and/or Scrub-receiver-of- the-day whenever he was playing.

What I said above, is if you lost Brady, and then you also lost Casell, and didn't have a Testaverde type as the third guy already aboard, who knew the Offense, then accept it.

Then the season would probably be lost by the time you brought in some old vet like Favre, who didn't know the Offense and took 4-5 games and losses to figure it out. I never mentioned the ne'er-weres like a Kingbury or Rohan Davey, who might theoretically know the Offense but couldn't play.

So treat the season as a learning and testing opportunity for more than the QB, but all across the roster. Belichick did, even with only losing Brady.