T-ShirtDynasty
Moderator
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
- Messages
- 3,541
- Reaction score
- 1
I want what you're smoking.Give me that #17 and Revis and Cassel's their QB.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I want what you're smoking.Give me that #17 and Revis and Cassel's their QB.
I want what you're smoking.
I don't see the Pats going below pick 20 and in my mind they will ask for a 1st and more in this year's draft.
I don't think the Pats trade w/anyone ahead of SF at 10. Buffalo @ 11, Denver @ 12, Washington @ 13, Saints @ 14, Houston @ 15, San Diego @ 16 don't need a QB. The Jets @ 17 will not happen. Chicago @ 18, Tampa Bay @ 19 and Detroit as mentioned @ 20 are good spots. So the most likely trading partners in my mind are SF @ 10, Chicago @ 18, Tampa Bay @ 19 and Detroit @ 20. I don't see the Pats going below pick 20 and in my mind they will ask for a 1st and more in this year's draft.
1) Generally want a first rounder (obviously) instead of say (like Matt Schabb) two 2nd rounders as a first rounder can be signed to 5 year deal whereas a 2nd rounder can only sign a maximum 4 year deal.
2) Maybe with some of the surprise firings this year of coaches and GM's (Shanahan, Gruden, etc) - maybe that gives more incentive for coaches (Childress, Lovie Smith, etc) to try to win NOW and go with a VET (Cassell) instead of build for the future with a draft QB (Sanchez, Stafford). Coaches have to even more concerned than ever before about looking for fast turnaround (like Miami, Ravens, Atlanta). This helps Cassells value. Some might say rookie Ryan and Flaccos success would diminish Cassells value but I think most smart coaches and GM's now first year QB success is few and far between. Last case was several years ago with Rothesburgher and have been several busts since then.
3) I am pretty sure Pats won't want KC's # 3 this year (who out their is worth it to the Pats at # 3 for $40+ million guaranteed?) plus trading down from that position could be difficult. But how about KC's #34 pick, plus Tony Gonzales, and a conditional pick in 2010 draft for Cassell?
>>>>>I can't see a team giving up #10 for Cassel, but if they did, it'd be quite a heist.<<<<
Why is that? Let's say you have the #10 pick and need a QB. Would you choose a QB right out of college or would you use that pick on a QB that has demonsrated good NFL success? Look at the success rate of QB's taken in the top 5 selections of the draft. College success does not guarantee good NFL success. A guy who has done it sure seems to me a more attractive choice than a guy who has no experience doing it at the NFL level.
Cassel:
A)proven excellent work ethic, B)demonstrated NFL success, C) demonstrated big game management characteristics, D)brings to his new team seasoning and study under the NFL's best QB/Coach tandem of this decade (imho, the best coach of my lifetime).......but he isn't worth a #10? I don't see the logic (though the money demand from Cassel's agent is a bit of a wildcard ).
I agree completely with you in this sense - if I have #10 and I'm choosing between one of the 2 college QBs and Matt Cassel, then its Cassel, and its a no brainer. But I think a smart GM does neither b/c I don't think Cassel's price will get that high. Even with rumors of Brady's knee being in rough shape out there, the Pats still don't have an abundance of leverage. And, as I said in another thread, Cassel is still not without question marks. I was not surprised to see football outsiders metrics put him with only a 6% DVOA.
If all GMs were smart, Atlanta would not have gotten two seconds for Matt Schaub.
And I can all but guarantee you that back-to-back 400 yard games > 6% DVOA in the minds of GMs.
Hopefully there are some GMs out there that think this way, and you're probably right that there are. Some teams are desperate for a QB, and for probably half of the league, Cassel represents an upgrade.
But for the 400 yard games, no, I don't think many GMs will be overly-wooed by those games, and yes, I think they would take DVOA or metrics more seriously. The 400 yard games were almost a statistical anomaly and the fact that the last person to do it was Billy Volek says something. Cassel played really well in those games, of course, but GMs are going to look a little deeper at things.
He talked about it on WEEI earlier today (around the 10 minute mark).
His prediction, for whatever it's worth, is that the Patriots should be able to get more than Atlanta got for Matt Schaub (two seconds + a two-spot jump in the first). He thinks that Pioli might well try to make a play for Cassel, but would also likely try to move down in the draft if he can.
He also suggested the possibility that the Patriots might try to trade Cassel for a swap of draft picks (e.g., Cassel and their first for the #3 overall), although he doesn't think it's likely (noting correctly that the Pats don't like picking that high, but also noting correctly that BB did quite well with SF's pick last year).
Hopefully there are some GMs out there that think this way, and you're probably right that there are. Some teams are desperate for a QB, and for probably half of the league, Cassel represents an upgrade.
But for the 400 yard games, no, I don't think many GMs will be overly-wooed by those games, and yes, I think they would take DVOA or metrics more seriously. The 400 yard games were almost a statistical anomaly and the fact that the last person to do it was Billy Volek says something. Cassel played really well in those games, of course, but GMs are going to look a little deeper at things.
If I'm at the top of the draft, as Pioli is, I draft the top QB and use Thigpen for a year or two to bring the QB along.
That's if I think the team needs a QB.
No way do I trade it for Matt Cassell.
If I'm at the top of the draft, as Pioli is, I draft the top QB and use Thigpen for a year or two to bring the QB along.
That's if I think the team needs a QB.
No way do I trade it for Matt Cassell.