|
![]() |
#14 | |
Cheaterlover*
Join Date: May 2009
Location: RI
Casino cash: $10010716
|
Quote:
But I'd disagree with "especially after the year he had here". Yeah, he didn't look great. But he still did some things. He was 20th in passing yardage, better than Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, and some other QBs who might be considered "better than Cassel". His TD/INT ratio was dead even (as was Matt Hasselbeck's); Cutler's was one TD better than even, and Stafford and Sanchez had way more INTs than TDs. His QB rating was 25th. Sucks, huh? But look at the 24 guys above him. 100+ to 90: 1. Brees 2. Favre 3. Rivers 4. Rodgers 5. Roethlisberger 6. P. Manning 7. Schaub 8. Romo 9. Brady 10. Warner 11. E. Manning 12. McNabb 90 to 80: 13. Flacco 14. Orton 15. Campbell 16. Palmer 17. Garrard 18. Young 19. Smith 80 to 70: 20. Ryan 21. Cutler 22. Henne 23. Hasselbeck 24. Bulger 25. Cassel (69.9) I think it's safe to say that the top group of 13 are clearly pretty elite QBs. The rest could be mixed-and-matched IMO and the difference in their numbers can be attributed to the talent around them, the teams they played, and the bounce of the ball. I don't think David Garrard or Chad Henne are that much better than Cassel, just as I don't think Flacco, Orton, or Campbell are necessarily better than Carson Palmer. For a guy with his first year with a new team, with a new coach (who is new at his job), and a shaky cast of characters, IMO Cassel did about what I expected. Sure, there were many games and plays he could've done better. Doesn't mean he's a bust. |
|
Posts: 12,916
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
|
|