So I'm talking to a friend today about the Cassel situation and his argument is more of the same old same old about the "wisdom" of keeping Cassel as insurance against Brady not being 100% next fall. I then bring up SB 42 and Brady not being 100% for that game and ask him if, in hindsight, he thinks Cassel would have given us a better chance at victory that day than a hobbled Brady against the NY front seven. To his credit he qualified his answer by admitting that the 2007 Matt Cassel would not have given us a better chance to win. Then he says, "But the Matt Cassel we saw at the end of this season would definitely have given the Pats a better shot to win." My question to Pats fans (and especially to the "Pats should not trade Cassel crowd") is simply this; Do you agree?