Matt Cassel: Good or Bad?

[unlurking]

Steal of a trade.

Now, if either Stafford or Sanchez are left when we pick, hopefully we can get a hell of a deal to trade down.

As far as him being the QBOTF, I really don't know. I voted yes, but honestly, that was more homerism than knowledge.

[Bugeater]

Given the situation (Stafford probably wasn't dropping to us, and there isn't a whole lot out there available anyway, and what we gave up for him), I'll go good. I heard Pats fans aren't happy about it so that's a plus as well.

[StcChief]

Good deal. Thiggy as solid backup.

This really opens door on draft. We may still trade down.

[Ultra Peanut]

The world is not black and white.

Pros:

1. 26 year old QB with NFL starting experience
2. Did a solid job last year

Cons:

1. Had a stellar supporting cast for that solid (not spectacular) year
2. In some dubious company when it comes to leading the league in YAC % of passing yards

Cassel is "safer," but far from guaranteed, while Stafford and Sanchez have far more upside.

[Will]

Originally Posted by Ultra Peanut

The world is not black and white.

Pros:

1. 26 year old QB with NFL starting experience
2. Did a solid job last year

Cons:

1. Had a stellar supporting cast for that solid (not spectacular) year
2. In some dubious company when it comes to leading the league in YAC % of passing yards

Cassel is "safer," but far from guaranteed, while Stafford and Sanchez have far more upside.

I really don't know if you can call his supporting cast stellar.

1. They had little to no running game for much of the year
2. The New England Receiving Corps put up very similar numbers to that of the Chiefs

Wes Welker 111 rec 1165 yds 3 TD
Randy Moss 69 rec 1008 yds 11 TD

Tony Gonzalez 96 rec 1058 yds 10 TD
Dwayne Bowe 86 rec 1022 yds 7 TD

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Will

I really don't know if you can call his supporting cast stellar.

1. They had little to no running game for much of the year
2. The New England Receiving Corps put up very similar numbers to that of the Chiefs

Wes Welker 111 rec 1165 yds 3 TD
Randy Moss 69 rec 1008 yds 11 TD

Tony Gonzalez 96 rec 1058 yds 10 TD
Dwayne Bowe 86 rec 1022 yds 7 TD

This is patently false.

6th ranked rushing attack in '08

13th ranked rushing attack in '07

Cassel took 47 sacks
Brady took 21

With Brady, Moss had 23 TDs the year before, FFS.

[Will]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

This is patently false.

6th ranked rushing attack in '08

13th ranked rushing attack in '07

Cassel took 47 sacks
Brady took 21

With Brady, Moss had 23 TDs the year before, FFS.

So do you think Moss would have had 23 tds last year with brady throwing to him. I don't think so. And as for the running game, it was ranked 6th but it wasn't that much better than the one in KC.

New England: 513 carries 2278 yds
32 carries/game for 142 yds 4.4 avg

Kansas City: 379 carries 1810 yds
24 carries/game for 113 yds 4.8 avg

Thats 468 more yds on 134 more carries which is an average of 3.5 yds/carry

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Will

So do you think Moss would have had 23 tds last year with brady throwing to him. I don't think so. And as for the running game, it was ranked 6th but it wasn't that much better than the one in KC.

New England: 513 carries 2278 yds
32 carries/game for 142 yds 4.4 avg

Kansas City: 379 carries 1810 yds
24 carries/game for 113 yds 4.8 avg

Thats 468 more yds on 134 more carries which is an average of 3.5 yds/carry

KC is irrelevant to this discussion. They ran for more yards last year than in '07. Period.

And I guarantee you that Randy Moss would have had 5-6 more TDs with Brady than Welker.

Hell, this says it all:

16-0
11-5

Couple that with the fact that the 16-0 team played the NFCE and AFCN and the 11-5 team played the AFCW and NFCW and you have a massive difference in quality of teams played.

[munkey]

Originally Posted by Ultra Peanut

Cassel is "safer," but far from guaranteed, while Stafford and Sanchez have far more upside.

I don't understand this logic at all...What "upside" are you referring to?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by munkey

I don't understand this logic at all...What "upside" are you referring to?

This always bothers me too. People keep talking about upside as if it's all about arm strength.

Cassel has a ton of upside because of his intangibles: he's easy to coach, a terrific leader, and extremely disciplined in getting better. To boot, his fundamentals are great.

I hate that people think he has limited upside because he doesn't throw a great deep ball. Who cares? Brady didn't either his rookie season. And Peyton and Brees have made their living mostly on short- to intermediate routes.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

This always bothers me too. People keep talking about upside as if it's all about arm strength.

Cassel has a ton of upside because of his intangibles: he's easy to coach, a terrific leader, and extremely disciplined in getting better. To boot, his fundamentals are great.

I hate that people think he has limited upside because he doesn't throw a great deep ball. Who cares? Brady didn't either his rookie season. And Peyton and Brees have made their living mostly on short- to intermediate routes.

That is not true.

If it were all about arm strength then I would like Stafford better than both Cassel and Sanchez.

But I like Sanchez better because he appears brings the same things that you say that Cassel brings in the way of intangibles.

He's coachable, confident and relaxed in the limelight, has nearly flawless mechanics, and is reputed to be dedicated to practice and film study..

He had his best games against the best teams that he faced.
Cassel, on the other hand, played his best against AFC West opponents, going 3-1 against, with the loss coming against the best AFC West team, the Chargers.

As someone else pointed out elswhere, Cassel only had two(?) wins against teams with a winning record.

Where's the upside in that?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by milkman

That is not true.

If it were all about arm strength then I would like Stafford better than both Cassel and Sanchez.

But I like Sanchez better because he appears brings the same things that you say that Cassel brings in the way of intangibles.

He's coachable, confident and relaxed in the limelight, has nearly flawless mechanics, and is reputed to be dedicated to practice and film study..

He had his best games against the best teams that he faced.
Cassel, on the other hand, played his best against AFC West opponents, going 3-1 against, with the loss coming against the best AFC West team, the Chargers.

As someone else pointed out elswhere, Cassel only had two(?) wins against teams with a winning record.

Where's the upside in that?

But I think that anyone who talks about Cassel's ability to win games is cherry-picking statistics. In the second half of the season, he only lost two games: the Jets and the Steelers. It just shows what a ridiculous standard some people are holding him to when a lot of people are claiming he can't win big games because he didn't look good against Pittsburgh. EVERY quarterback looks bad against Pittsburgh. Hell, that team made Flacco look like a high school QB. And the Jets game, for those who recall, was a game in which Cassel threw for 400 yards and led some great game-ending drives to send the game into OT--not his fault that the Pats didn't win the coin toss and ultimately lost. And while many of the teams he faced in the second half were easier, he also shredded Miami and Arizona apart. He beat Buffalo, a 7-9 team in a tough division twice. And he beat Oakland, a team who had a new coach and ended up winning the last two games after the NE loss.

So basically, all we have as proof that he can't handle the big game was a game against a Super Bowl defense and a game earlier in the season against Indianapolis in which they lost by a field goal. And sorry, but looking good against a Steelers defense (which, by the way, absolutely embarrassed NE's offensive line) is a far cry from looking good against Penn State and Ohio State. Meanwhile, against NFL level competition, Cassel went an impressive 6-2 in the second half of the season to lead to an 11-win season which surprisingly wasn't good enough for the playoffs.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by milkman

As someone else pointed out elswhere, Cassel only had two(?) wins against teams with a winning record.

I don't even like Cassel, but man, that's kind of a nutty argument. I mean, they won 11 games, but 9 of them don't count because they came against teams .500 or below? And all losses go on Cassel regardless?

Let's take a look.

One of the losses against a winning team came against the Dolphins, Cassel's second start. They only scored 13, and lost by 25. They avenged that loss later in the year by scoring 48 and winning by 20.

San Diego beat them by 20 week 6 (start #4), 30-10.

(Week 7 they beat Denver 41-7, but that doesn't count, since the donkeys went .500).

They also split with the Jets, and the game that they lost the Patriots offense put up 31 points.

3 point loss on the road week 9 to the Colts, who ended the season 12-4. Only scored 15 in that one.

The Steelers beat them badly week 13, 33-10.

(The Patriots beat the Cardinals 47-7 in week 16 - that's one of their 2 wins).


I didn't realize it until I looked at the schedule, but apparently they didn't lose to a single team with a losing record. SD was 8-8. The Jets were 9-7. The Dolphins were 11-5. The Colts and Steelers were 12-4. That's 3 division winners, a 12-4 wild card team and a division opponent.

[unlurking]

Originally Posted by munkey

I don't understand this logic at all...What "upside" are you referring to?

Upside:
Since we DON'T know for a fact that he ISN'T the second coming of John Elway, he just might BE the second coming of John Elway.

[munkey]

Originally Posted by unlurking

Upside:
Since we DON'T know for a fact that he ISN'T the second coming of John Elway, he just might BE the second coming of John Elway.

I wonder what the statistics are on the difference between first round QB's drafted and QB's picked from the 2nd down when it comes to success rate.

I have a feeling it's not all that one sided.