I'm watching NFL Total Access right now and they had a graphic comparing Brady's '01 stats with Cassel's from last year. They pointed out that Matt did (slightly) better than Tom in all the categories (completion percentage, passer rating, etc.) And I thought, Yeah, but Matt had way more talent around him in his first year than Tom did in his. Then again, Tom's team won the freakin' Super Bowl. But then again again, both teams finished 11-5; in 2001 that was good enough for a #2 seed, this year it wasn't enough to make the playoffs. I ain't trying to start another argument, and it'd be pointless anyway now that Matt's gone. I just have to wonder if comparing these guys on their first seasons is really apples to apples, ya know?