Pats to Tag Cassel: Good or Bad?

Or they could trade Brady. Just kidding.

If his knee isn't 100% and he comes back looking like Dante Culpeper then you trade Brady for a couple picks and suit up Cassel. It's all about what have you done for me lately.

No, you don't trade Brady because his value would be the lowest it could possibly be. You'd maybe get a 2nd and 3rd round pick for one of the best QBs in the NFL.

But if his knee is bum and doesnt work any more, then he is no longer one of the best QB's in the game, he is just another guy. An expensive another guy, and a couple draft picks could do a lot more to help out your new young gun

If they can find someone stupid enough to take a useless QB (the Raiders), then they should do it. But they wouldn't know if Brady were useless until he'd played in a few games. And by then, Cassel would be long gone.

Eh they can string out Brady for a few games take a look at him. I'm sure someone will pick up a bum Brady (the Radiers) If Culpeper can still find work, Im sure Brady can flash his rings and find work if needed.

Yeah, I wouldn't say that Brady won't be able to find a job somewhere. Not saying that it'll be a place Brady wants to play, but there will definitely be someone that'll take him, bum knee and all.

"But they wouldn't know if Brady were useless until he'd played in a few games."

If someone could check my verb tense agreement in this sentence I'd appreciate it.

$29M is too much to commit to 2 players at 1 position that cannot be legitimately shared.

Someone on WEEI or on some blog somewhere today (I forget which) said that this is a smart decision, but in hindsight the smartEST decision would've been to extend Cassel's contract before the season started. Then you could keep him without the big cap hit, or trade him for an even better package of draft picks.

Of course, that would be ridiculously ingenious. Almost as ingenious as using 6th and 7th round picks to select Pro-Bowl calibre QBs.

Well as Steve Spurrier would say, "Hind site is 50/50

True, but they haven't denied it, and it seems like an overwhelmingly logical and obvious thing to do.

Better?!

It's fixed.

So astoundingly true. But the story "leaked" somehow and for some reason. But you never know. Maybe they want to test the interest in the trade market for Cassel before they use up their franchise tag.

I dunno Rawb

They have until March 1 (or so) to trade or tag him...and obviously if they trade him without a tag, a contingency of the trade will be a new deal. If they tag him and trade him, they can just rework a contract anyways

I'd say the tag is a foregone conclusion

Gotta agree with JT. The tag just has too much upside and makes too much sense. It seems like the smart business move, and for as much as I don't like the Pats, they tend to come out on the upside when it means making a smart business move.

Was that 2001 Pats team an inferior team? Or was it an inferior offensive team? I seem to recall a pretty good defense that year.

Good point. Yes clearly inferior offensively (and superior defensively). But Cassel doesn't play defense. If Cassel was just as good as Brady, wouldn't he be 16-0 since Brady took the (essentially) same team to that record? There's other points (like it was Cassel's first year starting), but last I checked, Brady lead in inferior offense to a Super Bowl (in 2001), while Cassel took the team to a pretty good record (and it looks like they would have had fun against the Ravens)

I contend that the aging 2008 Patriots defense is not as good as the 2001 version. <be>
Try comparing 2008 Cassell with 2001 Brady. I don't think that anyone is saying that a first year starting QB is a "savvy" as a 7th year former MVP.

Take the 2008 Packers for example (a team I know more about than the Patriots). Moving from Favre to Rodgers clearly limited the offense. The playbook was streamlined. The team was more susceptible to the blitz, and Grant saw a severe dip in performance as defenses no longer had to respect the pass as much. On the flipside, look at the year Jones had with the Jets. How much of that improvement is due to defenses showing more respect for the passing game.

Rodgers has shown signs that he could be a very successful QB in the NFL (GB did score 419 pts)...just not yet.

The '07 Pats were 16-0 with a very tough schedule. The '08 Pats were 11-5 against one of the softest schedules in the League. Then again, the offensive line this season was nowhere near as good as it was last season.

Maybe you're right JuT, but basically doubling the cap hit at quarterback while the team needs considerable improvement at linebacker and defensive back means that it's far from a no-brainer to keep both.

Cassel's 2008 numbers are actually very similar to Brady's 2001 numbers. But Brady didn't have Randy Moss and Wes Welker to throw to, he had Troy Brown and David Patten.

But there's no way of projecting Cassel to improve as a passer the way Brady did. He went from a high percentage Chad Pennington type of QB to a downfield Peyton Manning type (only perhaps a bit better). That kind of progression isn't normal or expected at any position.

The quarterback is the most import position on the field

Given recent history, its going to take Brady 1/2 to a full season to recover and play at a high level...a level needed to succeed with this team. Do you think a Gutierez or O'Connell can keep the team (relatively) afloat for 6+ weeks?

If not, allowing Cassel to walk is essentially wasting the season because I really can't see, prudently, Brady performing well at the start of the season...

I'm no doctor, neither are you. If that's the case, then the Pats will take that into consideration. It might only be 3 or 4 weeks... who knows? We're talking about a future variable that neither one of us has the information or the medical training to discuss with any degree of certainty.

McNabb, Palmer, Culpepper, Rivers, McCown, Grossman...

of those, only (maybe) 4 are/were ever considered elite QBs

Culpepper is all but out of the league

Palmer never really got it all back and now has elbow issues

McNabb is finally recovering from such an injury

and Rivers, who had a significantly simpler prognosis still had issues (like a 58.8 QB Rating against those tough Oakland Raiders).

The point is, that injury takes time and its been proven time and again. It can end careers. Its the football equivalent of Tommy John Surgery (if not worse). I don't have to be a doctor to look at previous QBs who have experienced this to suggest that recent history seems like a fairly good indicator of future results

Maybe it won't be...but it seems pretty likely it will

None of those 4 are even close to being elite QBs.

I'm just saying every injury is different, and every patient is different, and every recovery is different. I'm not saying you're wrong, you're just supposing on something you can't know.

Palmer hasn't been the same since his ACL tear

Culpepper once lead one of the greatest offenses ever

Rivers had the highest QB rating this year

And McNabb? Well he's continually been a top 5 QB for the past Decade

and none of them are close to elite? I seem to remember conversations about how elite they were earlier this decade. I know its sort of off topic but if all else Culpepper was clearly an elite QB with Carter and Moss and McNabb has proven time and again to be an elite QB...

Are you kidding me? McNabb? We must have a different definition of an elite, either that or you stop watching Eagles games once the playoffs start.

And I never considered Culpeper elite, although he was good. At the same time, how much of his success was dependent on his legs?

Check the numbers... Culpepper's 2004, overshadowed of course by Manning's record-breaking year, was one of the greatest QB seasons of all time -- and that's before you consider his rushing contributions. He was super-elite that season. Meanwhile Rivers, like JuT mentioned, led the league in passer rating this year. Palmer was elite before his injury, too (101.1 rating in 2005), and McNabb has consistently been one of the league's best QBs when healthy. Even in the playoffs, where he has admittedly had some clunker performances, he still plays at an above-average level for a postseason QB. All of these guys were at one time or another considered near Brady's caliber as a QB, and they all slipped drastically after the injury. I think it's a great insurance policy to keep Cassel around just in case the same happens to Brady... unless Belichick knows something about O'Connell that nobody else does (granted, like he did w/ Brady & Cassel).

Correction, I shouldn't say Rivers "slipped drastically", but like Justin said, there have been inconsistent performances. Imagine how good he would have been in '08 if he hadn't gotten hurt last year...

Like Darren Oliver, you just cleaned up the mess...Thanks D21Dubs...

I thought Darren Oliver WAS the mess?

yeah yeah...

Anyways, he was the mop up man...

He did have a sub-3 ERA last year...

To me there are 2 elite QBs in the NFL, and those are 2 players that have consistently performed at a high level, had success in big games. Like I said above, it seems as though I have a different definition of elite. It's probably different from most football fans' definitions. Whatever. But I've never considered those 4 QBs to be on the same level of Brady, especially not McNabb or Palmer.

How are both elite then? Either Manning wasn't elite (until the 2006 season - 2007 SB) or Brady wasn't until the 2007 season/2008 SB because of statistics

I never said statistics made a QB elite. I didn't consider Manning elite until he stopped choking in the playoffs. And I didn't think Brady was elite until 2004. I'll admit, it's an extremely exclusive definition for elite.

But even if I expanded it a bit to include guys like Culpeper and Rivers and Kurt Warner, McNabb is still not in the club. He's good. But elite? No way in hell.

Dan Marino's not elite?

Terry Bradshaw is?

Barry Sanders...never elite...not even close

When did I say Dan Marino wasn't elite?

I guess my point was that your definition of elite is title driven

and much like medical conjecture amongst the masses, there are so many other extraneous factors involved, that it seems unfair to base it solely on that

Then again, in my opinion, elite is generally a top 5ish thing. And like I said, certain QBs were elite for short time periods...Culpepper is perfect example, as his was dominant for a solid couple of years

I mean, Drew Brees is an elite QB right now, in my mind. Age not being a factor, I think there are 20-25 teams that would take McNabb over their current QB (the cowboys being one of em...hahaha)

Probably, just a difference of opinion is all...

Point is, (like D21 said) the players i mentioned were all playing at high levels that declined significantly the year after the injury...and in some cases grew back to a comparable level (or close)

The other factor we're forgetting here is that Brady is in the middle or just past the middle of his prime...a 21 year old heals much differently than a 31 year old

grew back to a comparable level... in the 2nd year that is

The thing with Manning was that for a time, his seasons always seemed to end with a trip to Gillette Stadium and a one-way game of catch with Ty Law. So it was hard for me to think of him as elite.

You're right about performance deteriorating after injury though, I just didn't think any of those 4 was on the same level as Brady, at least not consistently.

I'll be honest, and it's not really you guys, but I'm sick and fucking tired of the doctor talk. I've heard thousands of prognoses from amateur physicians about Brady's knee in bars, on the radio, on TV, and on blogs. The Patriots have REAL doctors, who went to real medschools and have real experience treating real injuries. When Brady sees them, they'll do what real doctors do. Then they'll tell the Patriots what the situation is, and the Pats will decide what to do.

Everybody is putting in their 2 cents on what the Pats should do with Brady's knee. To me, they might as well be 2 cents Canadian because all these medical opinions are essentially worthless, as are mine.

Thanks Rawb! Two Canadien cents are worth more than two US cents.

Seriously, I agree. The patriots have proven that they will do what is best for the organization.

2 cents Canadian = 1.7 cents American. And my point was more based on the fact that in most states, Canadian currency can't be used to purchase anything.

Glad to see you finally admit your opinions are worthless, Rawb.

You're right, though. Everyone responds differently from injury, no two are alike. Personally, I could care less, we are, after all, talking about Tom Brady. He could play opening day and be 100%, or he could never be 100% again, or somwhere in between. Time will tell.

But the point of this site is to offer opinions, and if anyone doesn't like it, well....

More Doctor talk - Dr. Commento seems to remember that Brady has already had some complications with infection after the initial surgery. That has to set the timetable back from the get go... He isn't going to be the same no matter how you much you try to fingerpaint it. The game is football. Even if he never runs an inch, his mind will DEFINITELY be on his knee on every play. A less devastating injury decimated Randall Cunningham's confidence and those who remember - Randall was considered the MJ of pro athletes before MJ was...

...and even with the rising price of copper, a U.S. penny isn't even worth one cent anymore because they're almost comletely NOT made of copper anymore!

He wasn't going to be the same as 2007 even if he didn't get hurt -- it's called regression to the mean... I mean, 50 TDs? I love the guy and everything, but no way that was happening again.

I hate to say it, but comparing Cunningham to Brady is Apples and Oranges

Brady has significantly better weapons than Randall did (well, better receivers) and his game was predicated on his athletic abilities overall, where's Brady's are more of a passer.

You're right, it will probably affect him both mentally and physically next year, as we have seen with the preceding injuries of other QBs in the last decade.

Who knows? Maybe as a pocket passer and a respectable line, he'll be fine, but all the previous evidence suggests they'll be some bumps in the road

"and it's not really you guys"

To reiterate, I don't mean JuT or Kelsdad with the medical opinions. But by now I'm not surprised that Kelsdad took it personally, even with my qualifying statement.

The specific projections of Brady missing 6 weeks and Brady missing 8 weeks are kind of silly at this point. And as Manny pointed out, there is the high likelihood complications have pushed those dates even farther back. Brady might not play in 2009.

I'm not saying anybody is wrong here, just that there is too little information to come up with an informed opinion. Yes Kelsdad, this is a site for opinions, but typically those are informed opinions. If you're going to opine on how exactly long Brady should sit out, I think it should be based on more information than what's available right now. And if you're going to come up with opinions based on such a small amount of information, don't take it personally when someone calls you on it.

just tossing it in, but they might place him on the PUP list and simply keep him out for 6 weeks based on that...seems fairly reasonable

You're right, because you played minor league baseball, Tom Brady will be out for precisely 8 weeks. I can't believe I missed that step in logic.

I honestly think Brady will start no later than week 7

The pats are usually very effective in using the PUP list and Brady was injured last september

McNabb started the 2007 season after being injured week 11 of the 2006 season

Essentially the same thing with Culpepper

Carson Palmer was injured in the last game of the 2005 season (playoffs) and started the following year's first game (and all of the subsequent ones)

This time, the same thing with Rivers

I could see the Pats playing it safe and putting Brady on the PUP or trying it out. My point is, none of those guys were consistently effective right out of the gates following the surgery and there isn't much reason to believe Brady will be any different, though he appears to have more time than any of the above

I can just see the Pats thinking its worth spending 15 mil in cap space to ensure QB play capable of making them 4-2 or 3-3 by week 7 and then letting Brady take over for a Manning-esque run into the playoffs And its not like there's a juggarnaut rival team in their division...the Dolphins and Jets are respectable teams, but the Pats beat both of them this year...

I don't know when Brady will start. That was my whole point, Kelsdad, was that it's completely unknowable. Therefore it's unpredictable as to what the Patriots will do with Cassel.

JuT, it's such a big chunk of cap to spend on 1 position. The $29M figure I've heard for Brady+Cassel would be 24% of the total cap. That's ridiculous. The Pats will try to find a way around that at all costs.

The projection I saw has the cap at 123 million and that's 19% for the 2...your point is the same

Just looking at the Eagles page...even if the pay McNabb the high rate of 15 mil (his final year...which won't be used), all three QBs would make roughly 17 mil total

Assuming Cassel leaves the team (you don't need to be under the cap until June, I believe) and they move forward with Brady, Gutierez (sp?) and O'Connell, are you or the Patriots really comfortable?

I think that's what I'm getting at. Sure Brady could play well, but recent history says he'll be adequate at best. Maybe if they used the cap space and/or Cassel to help reconstruct the defense, the could do just as well as they would with Cassel leading the offense. I'm not sure

Comfortable? No. But I haven't felt comfortable with our defense the entire season. But if they can squeeze in both Cassel and Brady, I'd feel better about the QB position, obviously. I'd also like a legitimate NFL running-back instead of 3 or 4 guys splitting carries. I think that's vital for the future.