The Pats are using him as an insurance clause, no more, no less.

The Pats are using him as an insurance clause, no more, no less.

 

He will be traded before the draft is complete.

Pioli

 

And, I kinda doubt the Pats would do that. I honestly think they want to keep Cassel for the time being so they won't have to worry about the QB position. And, as important as that position is, I think that's a smart move. Wait and see how Brady returns from the injury first. Also, I have doubts as to whether they'd have a big interest in Larry Johnson. I suspect they'd want better value to trade a guy like Cassel...I'm not sure a 29 year old RB who has missed 12 games over the past two seasons after racking up 800+ touches in the previous two seasons is equal to Cassel. It's all about upside and potential...Cassel is now viewed as a "semi-proven" QB who is a rising star...Johnson is an aging RB who is breaking down. I think draft picks would be more valuable to NE.

 

Look at LJ...

.

 

2005 (16 Games)

336 rushes, 1750 yards (5.2 avg), 20 TD

33 receptions, 343 yards (10.4 avg), 1 TD

 

2006 (16 Games)

416 rushes, 1789 yards (4.3 avg), 17 TD

41 receptions, 410 yards (10.0 avg), 2 TD

 

2007 (8 Games)

158 rushes, 559 yards (3.5 avg), 3 TD

30 receptions, 186 yards (6.2 avg), 1 TD

 

2008 (12 Games)

193 rushes, 874 yards (4.5 avg), 5 TD

12 receptions, 74 yards (6.2 avg), 0 TD

 

If you combine his total yards and TD's for '07 and '08 you get 1693 yards and 9 TD's. That's 50-100 yards less than just his rushing total in either of the previous two years and about half his TD total in either of those years.

 

 

Think Corey Dillon. Also, Johnson wouldn't have to carry the load in NE like he would in KC. That's the problem w/ Maroney, he keeps breaking down. If you have those to splitting carries, you now have one of the stronger tandems in the league to go along w/ the passing game. Even if Brady is healthy, he won't be near 100%. Having a strong running game could alleviate pressure on him, and keep an aging "D" off of the field. Also, they'll be able to use their draft to get some more youth to go along with Mayo, so that they'll be ready to take over in 2 years. You know how Belichek loves veterans

Also, I have doubts as to whether they'd have a big interest in Larry Johnson. I suspect they'd want better value to trade a guy like Cassel...I'm not sure a 29 year old RB who has missed 12 games over the past two seasons after racking up 800+ touches in the previous two seasons is equal to Cassel.

I can't believe Larry Johnson is already 29.

Think Corey Dillon. Also, Johnson wouldn't have to carry the load in NE like he would in KC. That's the problem w/ Maroney, he keeps breaking down. If you have those to splitting carries, you now have one of the stronger tandems in the league to go along w/ the passing game. Even if Brady is healthy, he won't be near 100%. Having a strong running game could alleviate pressure on him, and keep an aging "D" off of the field. Also, they'll be able to use their draft to get some more youth to go along with Mayo, so that they'll be ready to take over in 2 years. You know how Belichek loves veterans

 

I just think New England can get better value out of Cassel...

He will be traded before the draft is complete.

 

Not likely. They'll want to make sure Brady is 100% healthy before they even start thinking of getting rid of Cassel. They would be stupid to trade him without knowing if Brady will be back.

$14 million would have made Cassell the 3rd highest paid QB in the league this year. I don't know where it puts him at salary-wise next year. The Pats will, in all likelihood, have the second and third highest paid QBs in the league if they can't work out a deal for either QB.

 

I know I'm the only one, but I still think this is a crazy thing to do if you are the Pats.

$14 million would have made Cassell the 3rd highest paid QB in the league this year. I don't know where it puts him at salary-wise next year. The Pats will, in all likelihood, have the second and third highest paid QBs in the league if they can't work out a deal for either QB.

 

I know I'm the only one, but I still think this is a crazy thing to do if you are the Pats.

 

Why is it crazy? It's not like they're the Bengals and have a ton of holes. With Brady, this team most likely was playing in Tampa last weekend. If Brady isn't healthy and ready to go, they now have a QB that can keep them in the playoff picture. I'd almost call the crazy if they didn't franchise Cassel.

Why is it crazy? It's not like they're the Bengals and have a ton of holes. With Brady, this team most likely was playing in Tampa last weekend. If Brady isn't healthy and ready to go, they now have a QB that can keep them in the playoff picture. I'd almost call the crazy if they didn't franchise Cassel.

 

My whole argument was never that Cassell isn't important; I get the position's importance.

 

I just feel like the Pats could have signed him for less than what they franchised him for. Manning and Brady are the only QB's whose salary is over what Cassell's will be next year. The Pats, IMO, could have locked him up for next season for less then the $14 million and still have kept the option to trade him.

 

It is all in the link in the third post, I just really don't want to re-hash an old argument. I know I am all alone with this opinion; we'll just have to see how this all plays out.

My whole argument was never that Cassell isn't important; I get the position's importance.

 

I just feel like the Pats could have signed him for less than what they franchised him for. Manning and Brady are the only QB's whose salary is over what Cassell's will be next year. The Pats, IMO, could have locked him up for next season for less then the $14 million and still have kept the option to trade him.

 

It is all in the link in the third post, I just really don't want to re-hash an old argument. I know I am all alone with this opinion; we'll just have to see how this all plays out.

 

Cassel will actually be paid more next year than Brady, although Brady is the higher paid QB overall. (I remember reading that somewhere last week.)

 

I disagree that they could have got him for much less next season. They had no chance to sign him to a deal when there is a great chance he's going to be backing up Brady next season, when he could go out and sign a multiyear deal with a team that will make him their starter.

 

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but I just don't see the downside to the move.

My whole argument was never that Cassell isn't important; I get the position's importance.

 

I just feel like the Pats could have signed him for less than what they franchised him for. Manning and Brady are the only QB's whose salary is over what Cassell's will be next year. The Pats, IMO, could have locked him up for next season for less then the $14 million and still have kept the option to trade him.

 

It is all in the link in the third post, I just really don't want to re-hash an old argument. I know I am all alone with this opinion; we'll just have to see how this all plays out.

 

How exactly do you think they could have signed him for less? There aren't a lot of free agent QB's out there that won 11 games last year as their first year as a starter. KC, Minny, and SF would have overpaid him by a ton. Now they still can and might but it will cost them 2 first rounders.

Cassel will actually be paid more next year than Brady, although Brady is the higher paid QB overall. (I remember reading that somewhere last week.)

 

I disagree that they could have got him for much less next season. They had no chance to sign him to a deal when there is a great chance he's going to be backing up Brady next season, when he could go out and sign a multiyear deal with a team that will make him their starter.

 

It'll be interesting to see how it plays out, but I just don't see the downside to the move.

 

I'm sorry, UK. I lied to you. I am being dragged into the argument again. :lol:

 

If Brady plays next year, then you have tied up $14 million in a back-up. Why not take that money and upgrade the RB corps or the LBs or the secondary or a combination of the 3? There are other options at QB beside Cassell. I bet they could have gotten a numebr of QBs to be a back-up for much less. Are we sure that a Byron Leftwich couldn't be as effective (and before we dismiss this, remember what you thought about Cassell before we saw him play a down and who you thought was the more skilled QB)?

 

If Cassell starts then this moves can work, but I still don't see why they wouldn't offer a contract where the money is spread out so they are paying less next year. $14 million is over 10% of the projected cap, I believe. They have tied this up in one player and have 20% tied up in two guys with the hope that one of them never sees the field.

 

If you are going to trade Cassell, then do it. Considering that there will now be a year's worth of video to analyze on him, a $14 million insurance policy at QB on an aging team that has needs seems like a gamble. The Pats are normaly right on these things, though. We'll see; I've been wrong before and 100% recognize that I could be wrong here. :thumb:

How exactly do you think they could have signed him for less? There aren't a lot of free agent QB's out there that won 11 games last year as their first year as a starter. KC, Minny, and SF would have overpaid him by a ton. Now they still can and might but it will cost them 2 first rounders.

 

We'll see. :thumb:

I'm sorry, UK. I lied to you. I am being dragged into the argument again. :lol:

 

If Brady plays next year, then you have tied up $14 million in a back-up. Why not take that money and upgrade the RB corps or the LBs or the secondary or a combination of the 3? There are other options at QB beside Cassell. I bet they could have gotten a numebr of QBs to be a back-up for much less. Are we sure that a Byron Leftwich couldn't be as effective (and before we dismiss this, remember what you thought about Cassell before we saw him play a down and who you thought was the more skilled QB)?

 

If Cassell starts then this moves can work, but I still don't see why they wouldn't offer a contract where the money is spread out so they are paying less next year. $14 million is over 10% of the projected cap, I believe. They have tied this up in one player and have 20% tied up in two guys with the hope that one of them never sees the field.

 

If you are going to trade Cassell, then do it. Considering that there will now be a year's worth of video to analyze on him, a $14 million insurance policy at QB on an aging team that has needs seems like a gamble. The Pats are normaly right on these things, though. We'll see; I've been wrong before and 100% recognize that I could be wrong here. :thumb:

 

 

Why would he sign a long term deal to be a backup when teams were going to offer him a long term deal to start? Additionally why sign a player to a long term deal if you don't plan on using him long term? His options after the tag was placed were to sign a big deal somewhere else and have the Pats not match, at that point the Pats would receive two first round picks and they would be giddy about that. His other option was to accept it knowing that he was taking a big chance this year that he would play or be traded. No matter what the Pats were going to have an established QB under center and more than likely additional picks. If the Pats didn't do what they did they had no backup plan for an injured Brady or no compensation for losing a big time free agent. To me it was a no brainer. The only way it hurts them is if nobody tries to trade for him and he never takes a snap for the Pats.

Why would he sign a long term deal to be a backup when teams were going to offer him a long term deal to start? Additionally why sign a player to a long term deal if you don't plan on using him long term? His options after the tag was placed were to sign a big deal somewhere else and have the Pats not match, at that point the Pats would receive two first round picks and they would be giddy about that. His other option was to accept it knowing that he was taking a big chance this year that he would play or be traded. No matter what the Pats were going to have an established QB under center and more than likely additional picks. If the Pats didn't do what they did they had no backup plan for an injured Brady or no compensation for losing a big time free agent. To me it was a no brainer. The only way it hurts them is if nobody tries to trade for him and he never takes a snap for the Pats.

 

Okay, if you think its a good idea to tie up a fifth of the cap in two players when the best case scenario is that one of them never sees the field while the other rehabs then we disagree. I say use $14 million dollars and bring in the depth you need on an aging team. Let's see where Brady is and bring in a veteran QB to take the reigns for cheaper if he rehabs slowly, like a Leftwich.

 

We keep talking about trading Cassell, but again if the Pats wanted to trade him then why franchise him? Why not try to sign him to a multi-year deal with a signifigcant raise? If you think that he could not be signed for a deal that paid him less than all but 1 or 2 QBs in the league then that is your opinion and I respectfully disagree. The Pats could have spread payments out a la what the Falcons did with Matt Schaub. That way you have cap flexability if no deal is made.

 

Latch, we obvously disagree and I'll let you have the last word but I just feel like there were other options to be explored that are fiscally more responsible. Maybe the Pats did their due diligence and this was the best option to them, I don't know. I am fully ready to admit that I could be 100% wrong.

 

Again, we'll see. :thumb: