Get rid of Brady? Dracut best ever? W...

Get rid of Brady? Dracut best ever? Who wrote that?

There are 14 comments on the Lowell Sun story from Dec 2, 2008, titled Get rid of Brady? Dracut best ever? Who wrote that?. In it, Lowell Sun reports that:

Can you believe it? Some fool got a hold of my laptop when I wasn't looking and submitted a column suggesting the Patriots might want to explore trading Tom Brady and turning the offensive keys over to Matt ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lowell Sun.

Jackie Walsh

Danvers, MA

#1 Dec 2, 2008
I would say that most have written you off......because suggesting the trade of "Tom Terrific",is worthy of all kinds of venom being spewed in your general direction!!! I mean have you seen Gisele?
crawhammer

Roslindale, MA

#2 Dec 2, 2008
A lot went wrong against Pittsburgh, however when four consecutive second half possessions end with quarterback turnovers (2 fumbles & 2 INT's), you're pretty much going to lose. And even with Moss dropping a would-be TD pass, Cassel was horrible. He was inaccurate much of the game – under throws, over throws, miss throws...still can't hit the deep ball when he badly under threw a wide open Gaffney who only made matters worse by dropping the ball as tried to come back to it...several deflected passes...lucked out on a dropped pick in the end zone...didn't handle the pass rush well...looked extremely indecisive...held the ball too long...didn't protect the ball...stared down receivers...yes, it was ugly.

When I looked at NE's schedule at the beginning of the season, I circled three games –@SD,@Indy & Pitt. The result of these three games: 0-3. Cassel's contribution: 0 TD's, 4 INT's, & 58.9 QBR. Last regular season NE went 3-0 against those three opponents. Brady's contribution: 10 TD's, 3 INT's & 114.5 QBR.(The QBR's are approximate).

Overall from last season to this season:

Pts/G has gone from 1st (36.8 ) to 17th (23.1)

Red zone offense has gone from 2nd (.694 TD%) to 21st (.489 TD%)

Third down efficiency has gone from 2nd (48.2%) to 13th (41.2%)

Passing offense has gone from 1st (303.7 Y/G) to 11th (240.3 Y/G)

Rushing offense has gone from 13th (115.6 Y/G) to 9th (130.5 Y/G)

It's quite obvious, so I suggest everyone just accept it already, the loss of Brady has had a significant negative impact on the team.
Joe S

AOL

#3 Dec 2, 2008
Brady played at cold-weather Michigan, whereas Cassell practiced in warm-weather southern California. In N.E., we need a QB with experience in cold weather. Cassell is another Bledsoe at best.
Teddy P

AOL

#4 Dec 2, 2008
Jackie Walsh wrote:
I would say that most have written you off......because suggesting the trade of "Tom Terrific",is worthy of all kinds of venom being spewed in your general direction!!! I mean have you seen Gisele?
I'm 100% in favor of keeping Giselle. But you know what? While Cassel's isn't a supermodel, she might be even prettier.
Teddy P

AOL

#5 Dec 2, 2008
crawhammer wrote:
A lot went wrong against Pittsburgh, however when four consecutive second half possessions end with quarterback turnovers (2 fumbles & 2 INT's), you're pretty much going to lose. And even with Moss dropping a would-be TD pass, Cassel was horrible. He was inaccurate much of the game – under throws, over throws, miss throws...still can't hit the deep ball when he badly under threw a wide open Gaffney who only made matters worse by dropping the ball as tried to come back to it...several deflected passes...lucked out on a dropped pick in the end zone...didn't handle the pass rush well...looked extremely indecisive...held the ball too long...didn't protect the ball...stared down receivers...yes, it was ugly.
When I looked at NE's schedule at the beginning of the season, I circled three games –@SD,@Indy & Pitt. The result of these three games: 0-3. Cassel's contribution: 0 TD's, 4 INT's, & 58.9 QBR. Last regular season NE went 3-0 against those three opponents. Brady's contribution: 10 TD's, 3 INT's & 114.5 QBR.(The QBR's are approximate).
Overall from last season to this season:
Pts/G has gone from 1st (36.8 ) to 17th (23.1)
Red zone offense has gone from 2nd (.694 TD%) to 21st (.489 TD%)
Third down efficiency has gone from 2nd (48.2%) to 13th (41.2%)
Passing offense has gone from 1st (303.7 Y/G) to 11th (240.3 Y/G)
Rushing offense has gone from 13th (115.6 Y/G) to 9th (130.5 Y/G)
It's quite obvious, so I suggest everyone just accept it already, the loss of Brady has had a significant negative impact on the team.
Never an argument about who was/is a better QB.

The point was that Brady is getting up there in age. For the first time in his life, he's exhibiting passion for something (Giselle) other than football (can't really blame him there, either).

Cassel will walk at the end of the year as a free agent and you'll get nothing in return. You could get a great package for Brady, probably from the 49ers.

Since Tom is going to start declining at some point soon, and since this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in 3 (going on 4) years now, and since there are gaping holes to be filled before this team can win again, and since dynasites often crumble before they reload, does it not at least make some sense to explore all options in "the best interest of the football team" as Bill Belichick likes to say?
crawhammer

Roslindale, MA

#6 Dec 2, 2008
Teddy P wrote:
<quoted text>
Never an argument about who was/is a better QB.
The point was that Brady is getting up there in age. For the first time in his life, he's exhibiting passion for something (Giselle) other than football (can't really blame him there, either).
Cassel will walk at the end of the year as a free agent and you'll get nothing in return. You could get a great package for Brady, probably from the 49ers.
Since Tom is going to start declining at some point soon, and since this team hasn't won a Super Bowl in 3 (going on 4) years now, and since there are gaping holes to be filled before this team can win again, and since dynasites often crumble before they reload, does it not at least make some sense to explore all options in "the best interest of the football team" as Bill Belichick likes to say?
If you trade Brady then you're choosing Cassel over him. So it is about who's the better quarterback to lead your football team moving forward. That anyone even has a moment of pause on this one is craziness. If Giselle was going to be a distraction for Brady then you would have seen it affect his play last season when of course Brady had the greatest single season ever for a quarterback. He's also not old and has shown no sign of declining.

The team hasn't won a Super Bowl since the '04 season but come on, get real, before Brady the Patriots had accumulated 7 postseason wins in 40 years. After Brady, the Patriots accumulated 14 postseason wins (an NFL record 10 in a row) and 3 Super Bowl titles in 7 years. They're coming off a nearly perfect season in which the offense set numerous individual and team records. The offense has taken a big step backward this season with Brady's absence, the numbers are irrefutable. Cassel has weaknesses that one couldn't say for certain whether or not he'll improve and even if he does he's not likely going to be an elite quarterback like Brady is already.

There's little doubt that the Patriots' offense will return to its dominant ways once Brady returns. The "reloading" really needs to take place on the defensive side of the ball.
Teddy P

AOL

#8 Dec 3, 2008
crawhammer wrote:
<quoted text>
If you trade Brady then you're choosing Cassel over him. So it is about who's the better quarterback to lead your football team moving forward. That anyone even has a moment of pause on this one is craziness. If Giselle was going to be a distraction for Brady then you would have seen it affect his play last season when of course Brady had the greatest single season ever for a quarterback. He's also not old and has shown no sign of declining.
The team hasn't won a Super Bowl since the '04 season but come on, get real, before Brady the Patriots had accumulated 7 postseason wins in 40 years. After Brady, the Patriots accumulated 14 postseason wins (an NFL record 10 in a row) and 3 Super Bowl titles in 7 years. They're coming off a nearly perfect season in which the offense set numerous individual and team records. The offense has taken a big step backward this season with Brady's absence, the numbers are irrefutable. Cassel has weaknesses that one couldn't say for certain whether or not he'll improve and even if he does he's not likely going to be an elite quarterback like Brady is already.
There's little doubt that the Patriots' offense will return to its dominant ways once Brady returns. The "reloading" really needs to take place on the defensive side of the ball.
I was under the impression that records were meaningless to the Patriots. We used to keep score by Super Bowls won, not offensive records set.

Bottom line: Giants beat them because the defense couldn't get off the field when it mattered and the offensive line couldn't handle a pass rush. Those problems only got worse this year, with or without Brady. They're going to continue to get worse, with or without Brady, unless there's a huge infusion of talent.

If trading Brady to get that talent while finding an adequate replacement at QB is in the best interests of the team (as BB always likes to say), you can bet that's what's going to happen, whether it's next year or two years or three years down the line.

With each year that goes by without a Super Bowl being won, it's getting closer and closer to becoming reality.
Dracut Guy

Boston, MA

#9 Dec 3, 2008
Am i the only one who is getting sick of columnists,Felger,Thomase,Borg ess,Tedy P. throwing out a opinion and then it being thrown back in their face,(see tedy P.'s thoughts about trading brady and Dracut the best team ever). Now he says that the bruins goaltending won't be enough for the B's in the playoffs.

Ted you are a joke along with alot of the other columnists in the area. Personaly i like Steve Buckley. But thats about it.

EVERYONE JUST SKIP THE COLUMNIST PARTS OF THE SUN SPORTS PAGES

“"Offense" Wins Championships”

Since: Jul 08

Lowell

#10 Dec 3, 2008
Teddy P wrote:
<quoted text>
I was under the impression that records were meaningless to the Patriots. We used to keep score by Super Bowls won, not offensive records set.
Bottom line: Giants beat them because the defense couldn't get off the field when it mattered and the offensive line couldn't handle a pass rush. Those problems only got worse this year, with or without Brady. They're going to continue to get worse, with or without Brady, unless there's a huge infusion of talent.
If trading Brady to get that talent while finding an adequate replacement at QB is in the best interests of the team (as BB always likes to say), you can bet that's what's going to happen, whether it's next year or two years or three years down the line.
With each year that goes by without a Super Bowl being won, it's getting closer and closer to becoming reality.
Teddy, are we not jumping the gun a bit here? I think the likes of Kerry Collins and Kurt Warner suggest that TB has a little ways to go before we start talking about the downside of his career.

Besides, the current NFL climate of hoarding draft picks doesn't exactly lend itself to trades ala NHL, NBA, or MLB where high priced free agents are dumped for younger, cheaper, hole pluggers. Draft players are too much of a gamble and players coming off their rookie contracts are too expensive.

This team will continue to survive on the occasional draft success (Mayo, Samuel, etc.), low priced FA's (Mentally erasing Delta O'Neill), and a veteran core willing to restructure their cap numbers to continue to be a part of a winning team.
OldSchoolDem

Laurel, MD

#11 Dec 3, 2008
Ok, I've had enough of Brady/Cassel. I guess it's a case of 'what have you done for me lately.' Damn Tom Brady for letting that dude blow up his knee like that. What a bum! As for calling Dracut 'the best MVC team ever', I hope that was just for grins or reactions. Because otherwise, you should just hand in the resignation now and go check in at Tewksbury State. Grimard's a good QB, but let's not forget some of the other (and I'd argue much better) signal callers we've had around here, people like Mike Mastrulo, Niall Murphy, Matt Welch, etc. And let's not forget all those Chelmsford powerhouses of the 90's and early 2000's, the Central Catholic back-to back (and undefeated in the MVC) SB champs from 97-98, and the Tewksbury teams of the mid-90's. As an aside, in my opinion, the MVC is the best league, top to bottom, in this state.
crawhammer

Roslindale, MA

#13 Dec 4, 2008
Teddy P wrote:
<quoted text>
I was under the impression that records were meaningless to the Patriots. We used to keep score by Super Bowls won, not offensive records set.
Did you miss the part where I stated after Brady's arrival, the Patriots accumulated 14 postseason wins (an NFL record 10 in a row) and 3 SUPER BOWL TITLES in 7 years?
Teddy P wrote:
<quoted text>
Bottom line: Giants beat them because the defense couldn't get off the field when it mattered and the offensive line couldn't handle a pass rush. Those problems only got worse this year, with or without Brady. They're going to continue to get worse, with or without Brady, unless there's a huge infusion of talent.
The problems got worse this year WITHOUT BRADY. A lot worse, and you're ignoring the obvious if don't believe Brady's absence this year is the main reason why. Cassel doesn't have nearly the pocket awareness and skills of Brady.
Teddy P wrote:
<quoted text>
If trading Brady to get that talent while finding an adequate replacement at QB is in the best interests of the team (as BB always likes to say), you can bet that's what's going to happen, whether it's next year or two years or three years down the line.
With each year that goes by without a Super Bowl being won, it's getting closer and closer to becoming reality.
That "down the line" Brady will not be the starting quarterback in New England is merely stating the obvious because of course nothing lasts for ever. However, trading Brady is not in the best interest of the team now. Belichick, as much as anyone, should realize this considering his career record with and without Brady as his starting quarterback:

Bill Belichick without Brady: 47-63, 1 postseason win

Bill Belichick with Brady: 101-24, 14 postseason wins, 3 Super Bowl titles
dwaterdown

Haskell, OK

#14 Dec 4, 2008
it would be the dumbest thing they ever did if they trade Brady.I sure won,t like the pats anymore if they do that .
Teddy P

AOL

#15 Dec 4, 2008
OldSchoolDem wrote:
Ok, I've had enough of Brady/Cassel. I guess it's a case of 'what have you done for me lately.' Damn Tom Brady for letting that dude blow up his knee like that. What a bum! As for calling Dracut 'the best MVC team ever', I hope that was just for grins or reactions. Because otherwise, you should just hand in the resignation now and go check in at Tewksbury State. Grimard's a good QB, but let's not forget some of the other (and I'd argue much better) signal callers we've had around here, people like Mike Mastrulo, Niall Murphy, Matt Welch, etc. And let's not forget all those Chelmsford powerhouses of the 90's and early 2000's, the Central Catholic back-to back (and undefeated in the MVC) SB champs from 97-98, and the Tewksbury teams of the mid-90's. As an aside, in my opinion, the MVC is the best league, top to bottom, in this state.
Would it interest you to know that no less an authority than Bruce Rich, the guy who coached those Chelmsford teams, told me the other night that Dracut is "as good a team as the MVC has ever had, if not THE best"?
Teddy P

AOL

#16 Dec 4, 2008
crawhammer wrote:
<quoted text>
The problems got worse this year WITHOUT BRADY. A lot worse, and you're ignoring the obvious if don't believe Brady's absence this year is the main reason why. Cassel doesn't have nearly the pocket awareness and skills of Brady.
What does Brady's injury have to do with the fact they don't have a defensive back who could cover you or I right now?

This is a team that won its Super Bowls because of steady and clutch QB play and a rock solid, fundamentally sound defense. Sure, Brady showed his greatness as soon as they got him all those nice weapons, but at what cost? They set a ton of records, yet when push came to show in the playoffs they were barely better than a severely banged up Chargers squad at home, and got beat by the Giants.

Now that they lost Brady, they still have all these expensive toys on offense, but the defense is putrid, so they're a borderline playoff team at best. With Brady, they're a playoff team, but not a Super Bowl winner because that defense is still atrocious.

P.S. I happen to agree with you about Brady being as responsible as Belichick for the team's run, but I think sometimes leaders like Law, McGinest, Phifer, etc. get overlooked because everyone's in a rush to talk about Belichick and Brady's greatness. They were truly a TEAM, and won't win again until the TEAM is as well-balanced as it is talented at a few skill positions.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Matt Cassel Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Teddy Bridgewater's future debated in ESPN roun... (Jul '15) Dec '15 Fart news 19
News Jerry Jones thinks Romo has 4-5 years left (Dec '15) Dec '15 Fart news 2
News Bills 'pull out the stops' for former Vikings f... (Mar '15) Mar '15 The Bill Pill 3
News 2014 NFL mock draft: Vikings select Teddy Bridg... (Apr '14) Dec '14 The Fart Father 15
News Get On The Vikings Bandwagon (Jun '14) Dec '14 Explosive Diarrhea 60
News Vikings Fall to 4-7, Where Can We Point The Fin... (Nov '14) Nov '14 Larry 6
News Ready Or Not, It's Teddy Time In Minnesota (Sep '14) Oct '14 Laughing Bear Fan 58