Bill Simmons on Tom Brady/Matt Cassel

[Hootie]

The Montreal Screw-Job Award for "Most Shocking Turn on a Beloved Figure"

I didn't call my father during the first half of the Baltimore beating. There was nothing to say. When you give up an 83-yard run to start a game against a team you know wants to run 40 times, you kinda know how it's going to turn out. We all knew the 2009 Patriots had a playoff stink bomb in them; just not in Round 1 at home. Anyway, I was too depressed to call him at halftime. After another Brady interception in the third quarter, my cell phone started vibrating. Yup, it was a text from my dad.

"We never should have traded Cassel."

(Ouch.)

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by RustShack

So Brady is the product of the system and talent... but Manning isn't?

Put Cassel under center for the Colts and tell me how many games they win.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Put Cassel under center for the Colts and tell me how many games they win.

Can't speak for hypotheticals, but under center for the Patriots he won one more game than Brady.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The Patriots lost to the Ravens last week because of Tom Brady.

Not Randy Moss, not Matt Light, not Bill Belichick - Tom Brady. He played absolutely horrific football, put his team in a massive hole and played right into Baltimore's hands.

Manning simply played a competent game against an elite defense and his team won fairly easily. And when I said Manning wouldn't have taken the sack/strip like Brady did - time the brady sack against the Manning dump at the end of the 2nd half right before the TD. The situations were virtually identical, with Suggs blowing untouched around the LT and closing in the QBs blind-side. Manning felt the pressure and got the ball out, Brady didn't.

Manning is a better quarterback. He's a damn quarterbacking robot. It's virtually impossible to play the position better than he does yet some people simply refuse to acknowledge it. Those people are spending their time harping on the guy instead of realizing that the history books will likely refer to him as the greatest quarterback in NFL history when all is said and done. It's a shame, really.

I don't see much merit in the historical argument either, Mannings been the better QB over the course of their respective careers. However, I'll set that aside and acknowledge the 3 SBs point (even if I think it's crap) for the sake of mere discussion. That said, there's no argument whatsoever that Manning is presently the better QB. And I see very little debating who will be the better QB over the course of the remainder of their careers.

Brady looked horrible because he never seemed quite right after his injury. He just went through a full season putting a lot of pressure on a recovering knee. You could see it in the passes he was throwing--a lot more dead ducks than you usually see out of Brady. You could see it in his inability to slide out of protection. I don't know if this is a permanent thing. But it's definitely not reflective of his body of work.

I've always thought Manning's a better QB. But Manning and Brady, in my opinion, will and should go into the books as one of the top 10, probably even top 5 QBs of all time.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Brady looked horrible because he never seemed quite right after his injury. He just went through a full season putting a lot of pressure on a recovering knee. You could see it in the passes he was throwing--a lot more dead ducks than you usually see out of Brady. You could see it in his inability to slide out of protection. I don't know if this is a permanent thing. But it's definitely not reflective of his body of work.

I've always thought Manning's a better QB. But Manning and Brady, in my opinion, will and should go into the books as one of the top 10, probably even top 5 QBs of all time.

Brady in 2009 looked a lot like Manning in 2008. The healthy Manning in 2009 looked a lot like the healthy Brady in 2007.

Manning has the physical gifts, Brady has the calmness and decision-making edge.

They're both good.

Horse. Dead. Still being beaten.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Can't speak for hypotheticals, but under center for the Patriots he won one more game than Brady.

He was rarely under center, and when he was he wasn't worth a ****.

That's part of the problem.

[The Bad Guy]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

He was rarely under center, and when he was he wasn't worth a ****.

That's part of the problem.

With Weis, if he doesn't show progress this year he has go to.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

With Weis, if he doesn't show progress this year he has go to.

I'll be very interested to see the results.

The coaches are in place, so all the pressure is now on the players to perform.

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by The Bad Guy

With Weis, if he doesn't show progress this year he has go to.

I know when I ask you, I'll get an informed answer rather than a barrage of posts about how stupid I am....so I pose this question to you:

With Weis' knowledge of Clausen would they trade Cassel (even though he probably doesn't have any value to anyone but McDaniels in Denver) and draft Clausen instead?

We have so many more pressing needs, but my concern is that someone might talk Pioli/Haley into seeing Clausen as the QBOTF and trade Cassel for an extra draft pic.

mmaddog
*******

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I'll be very interested to see the results.

The coaches are in place, so all the pressure is now on the players to perform.

Agreed.

Same deal with the front office.

There's no excuse from the top down to not see significant progress in 2010.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

He was rarely under center, and when he was he wasn't worth a ****.

That's part of the problem.

Okay, now this can be taken two ways.

Way Number One: Cassel is a sucky quarterback who can't operate from under center.

Way Number Two: Cassel is better utilized in a spread formation shotgun-style approach, and Haley didn't know how to use him efficiently like Belichick did, so Haley was trying to pound a square peg into a round hole all year.

And both interpretations don't account for the other variables, like "having an O-line that can block" or "having targets who can get open". Although from most reports it seems like Cassel has had some time to throw and just didn't hit the target or tried to throw it to a different target. Which are problems that Bledsoe had in his final years, after being shellshocked by seasons of abuse.

The question is, does Cassel have the brains and ability to run the Chiefs offense better. Judging from what he did in New England, I say "yes". I think having Weis will help him, since Weis will probably call more Cassel-friendly plays than Haley did.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by mmaddog

I know when I ask you, I'll get an informed answer rather than a barrage of posts about how stupid I am....so I pose this question to you:

With Weis' knowledge of Clausen would they trade Cassel (even though he probably doesn't have any value to anyone but McDaniels in Denver) and draft Clausen instead?

We have so many more pressing needs, but my concern is that someone might talk Pioli/Haley into seeing Clausen as the QBOTF and trade Cassel for an extra draft pic.

mmaddog
*******

****ing idiot.


Oh....sorry.
Instinctive reaction.

Seriously, I'd be surprised to see anyone talking Pioli into trading Cassel this year, especially after the year he had here, making his value far less than what we gave up for him.

I'd also be surprised if Weis could even talk him into draftong Clausen even without a trade simply to hedge his bet.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by milkman

Seriously, I'd be surprised to see anyone talking Pioli into trading Cassel this year, especially after the year he had here, making his value far less than what we gave up for him.

They're not yanking Cassel after one season. Especially not before seeing what Weis can do, and what Cassel looks like with a year of the Chiefs under his belt.

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.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by JD10367

Okay, now this can be taken two ways.

Way Number One: Cassel is a sucky quarterback who can't operate from under center.

Way Number Two: Cassel is better utilized in a spread formation shotgun-style approach, and Haley didn't know how to use him efficiently like Belichick did, so Haley was trying to pound a square peg into a round hole all year.

And both interpretations don't account for the other variables, like "having an O-line that can block" or "having targets who can get open". Although from most reports it seems like Cassel has had some time to throw and just didn't hit the target or tried to throw it to a different target. Which are problems that Bledsoe had in his final years, after being shellshocked by seasons of abuse.

The question is, does Cassel have the brains and ability to run the Chiefs offense better. Judging from what he did in New England, I say "yes". I think having Weis will help him, since Weis will probably call more Cassel-friendly plays than Haley did.

If 8 games in '09 were enough to shellshock Cassel, he's an unbelievable pussy.

He needs another viable weapon, and then he needs to perform. No excuses.

And even reading the words "Cassel-friendly [system]" make me sigh.

[philfree]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

He was rarely under center, and when he was he wasn't worth a ****.

That's part of the problem.

I wish I had his under center vs shotgun snaps stats. It seemed to me that Haley had Cassel under center quite a bit. Which is why Gailey was removed from the OC job. He would have had Cassel in the pistol instead of trying to develope his skills under center.


PhilFree

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by philfree

I wish I had his under center vs shotgun snaps stats. It seemed to me that Haley had Cassel under center quite a bit. Which is why Gailey was removed from the OC job. He would have had Cassel in the pistol instead of trying to develope his skills under center.


PhilFree

I was alluding to his time in NE, but I brought up his KC stats for the sake of comparison:

Shotgun: one of the worst QBs in the league.
Under center: one of the worst QBs in the league.

End analysis: 44/46.

(I'd be interested in the numbers, too, in all seriousness.)