Should the Pats keep Cassel over Brady?

[alamo]

The problem with that is that I believe the number would be around $10 mil.....so that's a devistating cap hit (especially with TB's being $14mil) if we can't trade him.

Worse than that... Miguel computed the numbers a couple of weeks ago and the franchise tag would be over 14M. In fact, Cassel's cap number would be slightly HIGHER than Brady's.

 

[SVN]

This isn't that stupid a thread I don't know why everyone is ripping on this guy. This is going to be a legitimate problem come the off season.

legitimate problem to keep cassel OVER brady ?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Wow, these responses are even pissier and more reactionary than I thought.

If you want rational commentary, instead of whining, post a rational topic.

Brady is a sure HOF, tight game winning QB who has great pocket sense, can throw the long ball and read defenses. Cassel, whom I like, has yet to prove that he is even a shadow of Brady in those aspects. As a Pats fan, I'd be happy with a Matt Cassel had we not had Brady but to part with a proven winner like Brady, a non-running QB receovering from a knee injury (not a shoulder or arm injury) while still young career wise is insanity, especially for a guy who still has a lot to prove regarding his steady state capabilities. There are lots of 1 year wonder QBs. Matt hasn't achieved even the one year wonder status as of yet. Let's hope he does.

I now return you to the 4th stupid thread of the week.

 

[Keegs]

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?

this guy makes Briz look like Alfred Einsten, if it's any constellation

insta-ban his face please

 

[Keegs]

This isn't that stupid a thread I don't know why everyone is ripping on this guy. This is going to be a legitimate problem come the off season.

no it will not

 

[alamo]

Wow, these responses are even pissier and more reactionary than I thought. I was hoping that between the "Help! You cad! You villian!" and the "Moderators, save us! I have the vapors!" posts I might get some feedback about the ultimate potential upside of Cassel vs. Brady entering his mid-thirties coming off major surgery, or something, you know, responsive like that.

Take a minute to breathe, and actually read the post. Nobody knows what Brady's recovery is going to be like--we've heard nothing but bad things. I didn't say it was the end for Brady. What I DID say was, let's posit that next September Brady's health isn't what was hoped.....raising the possibility that next season could be largely lost as well. What we then would have would be a GREAT qb entering his mid-thirties (yes, the next year would be 33....I'll give 30, 31, and 32 to early, but sorry, 33 belongs to mid) with questionable health.

Sorry, if Cassel is as good as he looked to me the other night--and again, thanks for such insight here--what to do at QB is something the Patriots' organization would take some time thinking about. Unlike, apparently, anyone on this board.

Your assumption that people didn't read your post and consider the question is wrong. They simply considered the question you are asking not even to be a close call at this point: all the progress Cassel has made has raised him to the point where he looks like he could be a long-term average NFL QB. And that assumes he solves his problems throwing the long pass.

When Brady is eventually done, the Pats are likely going to have to survive with an average QB. Why in the world would we want to accelerate that time? That is why there has been little agreement with your position, it makes no sense to most people *unless* we know for certain Brady is completely done and will not come back.

 

[WhiskeyBreath]

LMFAO. 10 char

 

[Deus Irae]

 

[thechris]

Cassel has gone from the worst quarterback in the history of the NFL to replacing the GOAT in a matter of five months.

Incredible.

 

[Lansdowne]

Absolutely not. I won't rip the OP like others here, because I could see why one would ponder the decision. But I will say this: You keep Brady, you let Cassel get his big contract elsewhere, and you continue to develop O'Connell until he's needed. Not even debatable, IMO.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

You guys overreact.

It's a crazy idea, yes, but doesn't call for some of the crap I'm reading in your responses.

Though I would never trade Brady, I have always wondered what kind of offer he would draw from other teams, and what it would take for the Pats to give him up. We will never find out though.

 

[Mogamedogz]

Without a doubt the worst thread I have ever read on this forum.... and that is saying a lot. I am actually embarrassed for the OP.

 

[Keegs]

Without a doubt the worst thread I have ever read on this forum.... and that is saying a lot. I am actually embarrassed for the OP.

yeah this is definitely the Rex Grossman of threads.

 

[mtbykr]

Worse than that... Miguel computed the numbers a couple of weeks ago and the franchise tag would be over 14M. In fact, Cassel's cap number would be slightly HIGHER than Brady's.

Wow, didn't realize it was that bad....i heard the $10mil number on WEEI the other day so I figured they would know.

 

[jbb9s]

Its a shame that this scenario didn't play out with Cassel having 1 year left on his contract. Then the door would be WIDE open for the Patriots to have a haul in for a trade or even keep him for his rookie salary.

 

[billdog3484]

who hired you...and who's decision was it to keep you in the firm?

 

[TheComeback]

Jesus people--are you overreacting enough? I thought it was a thoughtfully written post, even if the answer, on the surface, seems obvious.

Yet, he does have a point. Brady is 32, which isn't old for a quarterback, but at some point we're going to have to address the position. Perhaps that's what O'Connell's for. Cassel is playing well enough that if Brady weren't a hall of famer, this wouldn't be such a "stupid" topic. He's a young quarterback with a bright future and tons of upside.

I think it's a legitimate question to ask if we should keep Cassel and release Brady--but only if there's some indication next year that Brady hasn't recovered from his knee surgery and isn't going to be the same player. Somehow, I doubt that will happen. It's Tom Brady. But if it does--and the coaching staff sees that Brady can't play at the level he used to--then what do you do? Do you keep the older, but injured, QB for a moderate short term gain, or do you develop the young one? It's a good question.

 

[Deus Irae]

Jesus people--are you overreacting enough? I thought it was a thoughtfully written post, even if the answer, on the surface, seems obvious.

Yet, he does have a point. Brady is 32, which isn't old for a quarterback, but at some point we're going to have to address the position. Perhaps that's what O'Connell's for. Cassel is playing well enough that if Brady weren't a hall of famer, this wouldn't be such a "stupid" topic. He's a young quarterback with a bright future and tons of upside.

I think it's a legitimate question to ask if we should keep Cassel and release Brady--but only if there's some indication next year that Brady hasn't recovered from his knee surgery and isn't going to be the same player. Somehow, I doubt that will happen. It's Tom Brady. But if it does--and the coaching staff sees that Brady can't play at the level he used to--then what do you do? Do you keep the older, but injured, QB for a moderate short term gain, or do you develop the young one? It's a good question.

It's a ridiculous question. And that's putting it nicely.

 

[Mogamedogz]

Jesus people--are you overreacting enough? I thought it was a thoughtfully written post, even if the answer, on the surface, seems obvious.

Yet, he does have a point. Brady is 32, which isn't old for a quarterback, but at some point we're going to have to address the position. Perhaps that's what O'Connell's for. Cassel is playing well enough that if Brady weren't a hall of famer, this wouldn't be such a "stupid" topic. He's a young quarterback with a bright future and tons of upside.

I think it's a legitimate question to ask if we should keep Cassel and release Brady--but only if there's some indication next year that Brady hasn't recovered from his knee surgery and isn't going to be the same player. Somehow, I doubt that will happen. It's Tom Brady. But if it does--and the coaching staff sees that Brady can't play at the level he used to--then what do you do? Do you keep the older, but injured, QB for a moderate short term gain, or do you develop the young one? It's a good question.

No it's not. It's batchit crazy.

 

[SVN]

Jesus people--are you overreacting enough? I thought it was a thoughtfully written post, even if the answer, on the surface, seems obvious.

Yet, he does have a point. Brady is 32, which isn't old for a quarterback, but at some point we're going to have to address the position. Perhaps that's what O'Connell's for. Cassel is playing well enough that if Brady weren't a hall of famer, this wouldn't be such a "stupid" topic. He's a young quarterback with a bright future and tons of upside.

I think it's a legitimate question to ask if we should keep Cassel and release Brady--but only if there's some indication next year that Brady hasn't recovered from his knee surgery and isn't going to be the same player. Somehow, I doubt that will happen. It's Tom Brady. But if it does--and the coaching staff sees that Brady can't play at the level he used to--then what do you do? Do you keep the older, but injured, QB for a moderate short term gain, or do you develop the young one? It's a good question.

iam more surprised at the people who think its a legitimate question. lets say the pats do this stupid move , will you come out and say its an interesting move or downright blast the move at that time ?and how do you know cassel in the 2nd yr and so forth is brady in his prime and is the answer. ?
just unbelievable- 6 weeks ago, people wanted to start oconnell and now think realising/trading brady is the legitimate question ???
i should stop posting or listening to marshall faulk after all. he isnt in the minority any more