Would Cassel have given Pats a better shot to win SB 42?

[Brettlax3434]

O-line and denver boy lost that game. Its taken me a while but now that hes gone i have forgiven McDaniels.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I didn't know Cassel was that great a blocker.

Oh, you mean at the QB position?

 

[brdmaverick]

Tom Brady was not the reason we lost that game, and in fact I think Matt Cassel would have been worse off.

 

[MassPats38]

Agree? No. Cassel may be capable of moving, but his mobility would have been useless against that pass rush. Brady is able to get rid of the ball faster than all versions of Cassel last season, so with that in mind Cassel would have been beaten worse than he was in the Steelers game. The game would not have been close, and there would be many more turnovers. Brady doesn't move much, and his ankle was not the reason so many defensive linemen were keeping him company in the backfield.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

I would have laughed my buddy out of the room if he tried that on me, come on now man.

The whole question was my attempt to paint him in a corner over his insistence that it was "crazy" to trade a "proven commodity" like Cassel when there is so much uncertainty surrounding Brady's knee.

IMO a one legged TB is still better than a two legged MC and even if TB is not back to full speed by next September and has to gut through some games until he's 100% again (ala Peyton Manning this season), I'd still say he gives us the best chance to win the most games.

He, of course, did not agree. That's when I drew the corollary between that scenario and if he would start this season's MC over a hobbled Brady in SB 42. It was astonishing to hear an otherwise rational Patriots fan squirm his way into saying MC would have given us a better shot to win SB 42 simply to avoid having to admit that trading Cassel is the only logical thing the Pats can do with him.

I couldn't wait to post this conversation tonight because I've read so many good posters on here saying the same things he does about the need to keep Cassel as insurance (not to mention the loons who have created the Monster thread posing the question of actually trading TFB). I'm actually surprised none of them are on here arguing as my friend did. Perhaps they've come to their senses by now.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

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?

no because mcdaniels would still have been the offensive coordinator.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

The bigger Question should have been what if Steve Grogan started instead of Tony Eason in SB XX , would we have 2 td's before it was too late when he came in..

 

[CanadianPat'sFan]

The whole question was my attempt to paint him in a corner over his insistence that it was "crazy" to trade a "proven commodity" like Cassel when there is so much uncertainty surrounding Brady's knee.

IMO a one legged TB is still better than a two legged MC and even if TB is not back to full speed by next September and has to gut through some games until he's 100% again (ala Peyton Manning this season), I'd still say he gives us the best chance to win the most games.

He, of course, did not agree. That's when I drew the corollary between that scenario and if he would start this season's MC over a hobbled Brady in SB 42. It was astonishing to hear an otherwise rational Patriots fan squirm his way into saying MC would have given us a better shot to win SB 42 simply to avoid having to admit that trading Cassel is the only logical thing the Pats can do with him.

I couldn't wait to post this conversation tonight because I've read so many good posters on here saying the same things he does about the need to keep Cassel as insurance (not to mention the loons who have created the Monster thread posing the question of actually trading TFB). I'm actually surprised none of them are on here arguing as my friend did. Perhaps they've come to their senses by now.

I see where you are going with this but still hope you laughed him out of the room. There are a couple of people on here who might be on the side of your friend possibly they have not found the thread yet. I bet before the end of the day you will have someone one here who will agree and thinks MC would have won that SB....maybe the same person who started the Trade Tom Brady thread

 

[j00fek]

why did i read this thread?

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

why did i read this thread?

Off-season boredom/insanity?

 

[fair catch fryar]

Re: Would Cassel have given Pat's a better shot to win SB 42?

2008 vs Steelers and SB 42 had one thing in common - Matt Light meets Burnination.

There was more to that SB loss than QB play, for sure. Defense and O-Line collectively sucked that day. Brady gave us a better chance.

Arguments like this are fruitless and tormentive. Matt Cassel would NOT have made the difference in that game. The only thing I can see that maybe would've helped wa the offensive play-calling and some proper adjustments there when needed, but the catch by Tyree and all the other lucky, freaky ass **** was the real difference!