Let me start by saying until this year I can't remember the last time I missed a Pats' game, but due to unprecedented business travelling, I've missed a bunch.....so I acknowledge at the outset I haven't seen Cassel play nearly as much as I would like. Having said that, what I saw against the Jets was a confident, energetic, very impressive performance from Cassel. He threw the ball well, led the team, moved extremely well (his scrambling ability is obviously better than Brady's), and overall did an outstanding job. In the few areas he seemed off--eg, the deep ball--I sensed that a little more experience would work to correct that. He's also 26. Next season Tom Brady will be 32, coming off major knee surgery--surgery that does not appear to be healing as it should. Where he'll be come September, nobody knows.....but let's say for the purposes of this argument his health remains uncertain as next season rolls around. Don't misunderstand--I don't for a second underestimate Tom Brady. He has clearly been one of the best QBs of all time, and could (should?) have several top-level years ahead of him. I would also suggest that he might be one of the few guys who should be retained simply for the purpose of sustaining the integrity of the franchise--meaning, for pursposes of history, emotion, etc. But I'm not sure that's the way BB will ever do business, with the possible exception of keeping Troy Brown last year, which obviously didn't mean much. Belichick and the overall organization doesn't go by names, or history, or salary, or sentiment. He and they go by what they see in front of them, and act in whatever way is in the best interests of the team. So my question to the board is, come next year, is it possible that the Pats would be better off with Matt Cassel than Tom Brady? And if so, what should the Pats do about it?