Report: Brady done for 2008 .

[Youk Of The Nation]

brady threw for 112 yards in his 1st superbowl win,to write these guys off in september is a bit premature...

but since i know the audience i am addressing this doesnt surprise me.

""cheating his way to 3 superbowls""

jesus christ almighty there should be a thread for the pathetic and downtrodden and the guy who started this thread with the green smiley face should be ass raped by stokey carmichael and the black panthers of oakland.

 

I changed it to a smiley face there, crunchy.

 

Not everyone who roots for the Sox roots for the goddamn patriots.

 

I hope Brady gets better but I'm also glad he's out. :thumbsup:

[See Red]

The issue being Cassell is possibly the worst backup QB in the league. Or at least that seems to be a pretty popular opinion...

 

Guy hasn't started a meaningful football game since High School. And while week one's a bit too early to judge, if barely beating the hapless, potentially 0-16-bound Chiefs is any indication, 8-8 looks like a best case scenario. It's not as simple as throw the ball in the air and let Randy Moss catch it... ask Kerry Collins. And if you can't get the ball to Moss downfield those drag routes Welker torches defenses on become an awful lot less effective.

 

You can't lose one of the best QB's ever and realistically expect things to be alright. There's a lot of good teams in the AFC this year.

 

Can you realistically expect Matt Cassell to perform better than, say, Matt Leinart has when healthy in his time in Arizona?

[ORS]

Have you looked at their schedule? All Cassell needs to do is not turn the ball over and they can win 10 games easily. Yes, there are quite a few good teams in the AFC this year. Two of them started off 0-1 while losing at home to Carolina and Chicago respectively. 8-8 as a best case is bluster.

[See Red]

Have you looked at their schedule? All Cassell needs to do is not turn the ball over and they can win 10 games easily. Yes' date=' there are quite a few good teams in the AFC this year. Two of them started off 0-1 while losing at home to Carolina and Chicago respectively. 8-8 as a best case is bluster.[/quote']

 

Based off of last year it looks easy. We're also talking about a league that has about 5 or 6 teams per season that make the playoffs that didn't the year before.

 

And if you're putting any stock into the first week, which it seems like you may be in pointing out Indy and San Diego's losses, then .500 looks like a pretty reasonable guess -- especially with the Patriots having struggled so badly against what looks to be the worst team in the league.

 

If Matt Cassell goes something like 14 or 15 TD's and 15 or 16 INT's... where do you see the Patriots falling record wise?

[ORS]

 

If Matt Cassell goes something like 14 or 15 TD's and 15 or 16 INT's... where do you see the Patriots falling record wise?

With their schedule, O-line, WRs, RBs, and defense? 10-6.

[Gom]

I love how you guys are riled up by what I say and I really don't care about football either way, nor do I know it.

 

Here's what I think. Even with a healthy Brady, going undefeated was unlikely. It only happened twice in the history of the NFL. I was thinking 13-3.

 

Football is not like baseball. The QB is by far the most important person on the field. Take what was arguably the greatest season ever by a quarterback and eliminate that player...tough to do. Remember that Moss was helped by Brady [and vice versa]. A below average QB makes a great WR merely good.

 

Plus, with the Yankees out of it, and if Cashman comes back as GM, then we are out of it next year as well, I gotta have something to say to you guys.

[See Red]

I think 8-8 or 9-7 is more realistic. I think Buffalo and the Jets are both better than the Patriots right now (and they both have very weak schedules too). And even then, it's an ugly 9-7.

 

This is where I remind you that the Patriots new starting QB hasn't started a meaningful game in 9 years. Moss is less effective when you can't get the ball to him downfield, Welker will be a great deal less effective when you can't spread the field, and the running game, which at times looked like an Achilles heel last year, will be less effective when the defense can actually play to defend the run without worrying about getting burned by Moss and Stallworth.

 

And that's not to mention the defense won't have the comfort of playing with 20+ point leads and teams will actually be able to keep them honest. It's an awful lot easier to play defense when you know the other team has to throw the football. The defense actually looked somewhat mediocre (particularly their run defense) and, towards the end of games, worn down in games where the other team didn't have to abandon their running game in the first half -- and that was with Asante Samuel.

 

You're talking about replacing one of the greatest of all-time with one of the worst in the League right now.

[jacksonianmarch]

I love how you guys are riled up by what I say and I really don't care about football either way, nor do I know it.

 

Here's what I think. Even with a healthy Brady, going undefeated was unlikely. It only happened twice in the history of the NFL. I was thinking 13-3.

 

Football is not like baseball. The QB is by far the most important person on the field. Take what was arguably the greatest season ever by a quarterback and eliminate that player...tough to do. Remember that Moss was helped by Brady [and vice versa]. A below average QB makes a great WR merely good.

 

Plus, with the Yankees out of it, and if Cashman comes back as GM, then we are out of it next year as well, I gotta have something to say to you guys.

 

dumbass

[ORS]

I think 8-8 or 9-7 is more realistic. I think Buffalo and the Jets are both better than the Patriots right now (and they both have very weak schedules too). And even then, it's an ugly 9-7.

 

This is where I remind you that the Patriots new starting QB hasn't started a meaningful game in 9 years. Moss is less effective when you can't get the ball to him downfield, Welker will be a great deal less effective when you can't spread the field, and the running game, which at times looked like an Achilles heel last year, will be less effective when the defense can actually play to defend the run without worrying about getting burned by Moss and Stallworth.

 

And that's not to mention the defense won't have the comfort of playing with 20+ point leads and teams will actually be able to keep them honest. It's an awful lot easier to play defense when you know the other team has to throw the football. The defense actually looked somewhat mediocre (particularly their run defense) and, towards the end of games, worn down in games where the other team didn't have to abandon their running game in the first half -- and that was with Asante Samuel.

 

You're talking about replacing one of the greatest of all-time with one of the worst in the League right now.

Save last year's historic stats (which resulted in the first 16-0 regular season ever), you are talking about replacing and average of 25/15 TD/INT. Look it up. Those typical NE teams averaged about 13 wins a season. Given the schedule and the quality of the rest of the team, 10 wins is no stretch.

 

To be honest, this whole thing is kind of funny. One of the big knocks on Brady by Patriot haters is that he gets too much credit for being on a great team every year. Now that good team can't be good enough to win without the hero. Which is it?

[ORS]

I love how you guys are riled up by what I say and I really don't care about football either way' date=' nor do I know it.[/quote']

Gee, I wonder if this has anything to do with you being called a troll here by multiple members? Let me know what you think.

[TheKilo]

I think the Pats win 10 games, win the division, and lose in the divisional rd. of the playoffs.

[a700hitter]

Save last year's historic stats (which resulted in the first 16-0 regular season ever), you are talking about replacing and average of 25/15 TD/INT. Look it up. Those typical NE teams averaged about 13 wins a season. Given the schedule and the quality of the rest of the team, 10 wins is no stretch.

 

To be honest, this whole thing is kind of funny. One of the big knocks on Brady by Patriot haters is that he gets too much credit for being on a great team every year. Now that good team can't be good enough to win without the hero. Which is it?

When Brady replaced Bledsoe, people didn't know who he was and they were distressed about losing Bledsoe. Cassell has been around a while, but he should know the system, so I wouldn't give up on the season.

[ORS]

I think the Pats win 10 games' date=' win the division, and lose in the divisional rd. of the playoffs.[/quote']

This I agree with. It certainly hurts their ultimate goal, but not the first step (winning the division).

[mtbykr]

The pats lost the best player in the league (arguably) and that hurts, but don't count them out just yet. From here their schedule looks pretty easy, but teams fluctuate so much year to year it's hard to know how good these teams may be down the road.

 

Cassel is an unknown at this point. He hasn't started a game since HS, however he's backed up Palmer/Leinart in college (ironically he beat out Leinart for the starting job, and then lost it to injury) and Brady in the NFL.....so it's not like he's been 2nd fiddle to scrubs. BB has had ample opportunity to replace Cassel and has stuck with him, so he see's something there. Also remember, we are talking about the coach that seems to plan for every possible contingency.....so it's not like he hasn't thought about this happening.

 

I think winning the division is very possible, and then anything can happen in the playoffs....you just have to get hot at the right time. The pats have gone from the Superbowl favorite to a very good team with the loss of TB....there are certainly teams better in the AFC right now, but it's long season and anything can happen. Realistically I can see them getting a wildcard if Cassel doesn't play great to going deep in the playoffs if he does.

[mtbykr]

Interesting, sheds some light on the Simms/Rattay subject:

 

 

http://blogs.nfl.com/2008/09/09/patriots-ahead-of-their-time-again/

 

 

 

Patriots ahead of their time, again

Posted: Adam Schefter | Adam Schefter | Tags: Chris Simms, New England Patriots, Tom Brady

 

As it turns out, the Patriots were ahead of their time, as usual. They made plans to bring quarterbacks Chris Simms and Tim Rattay to Foxborough, Mass., last Saturday –- a full day before Tom Brady suffered a season-ending knee injury.

 

It wasn’t as if Brady suffered the crushing injury, then the Patriots started scrambling. They already were preparing. They already had workout plans in place to begin compiling their player board for possible replacements in the event that they suffered a significant injury -– which they did Sunday.

 

Brady’s injury had nothing to do with the visits by Simms and Rattay. They were coming anyway, whether or not Brady was injured.

 

So that clears up some of the confusion as to why Simms and Rattay visited Foxborough on Monday before being sent away without any type of workout. But it doesn’t explain whether the Patriots plan to sign or trade for another quarterback to help replace Brady.

 

More and more, it seems as if the Patriots have decided that bringing in another quarterback could place more pressure on Matt Cassel or Kevin O’Connell. For now, or however long it lasts, it’s possible that New England will not sign another quarterback as a confidence boost to the two they now have on their roster.

 

[CrespoBlows]

The NFL ruled that the hit on TB was legal:

 

 

 

 

 

Game 3 of last year something similar happend to Wilfork....the difference is that Wilfork was actually blocked into the qb. Now Wilfork was flagged, fined, and ripped to shreds in the media for being a dirty player. The two plays are almost identicle, but the NFL rules like this? Either both plays are legal, or they are dirty....can't have it both ways.

 

 

 

 

http://boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

 

 

Watch those two videos.

 

Tell us how they are remotely similar.

[TheKilo]

Well, to start, both got hit in the knee.

 

Oh also - when the Pats player got hit it was dirty but not when the Bills player got hit.

[mtbykr]

Well, to start, both got hit in the knee.

 

Oh also - when the Pats player got hit it was dirty but not when the Bills player got hit.

 

Way to put words in my mouth....I have never said one was dirty and one was not. My argument was never about them being dirty. My argument was that the NFL ruled on both plays, and I believe both should have been the same outcome using the NFL's guideline. (whether a fine or not a fine...doesn't matter). The NFL maintains that if you hit a qb on the knee or below it's illegal unless the defender is 'engaged' with a member of the offense, and in both situations they were....so either both should be illegal, or both should not.

[CrespoBlows]

Way to put words in my mouth....I have never said one was dirty and one was not. My argument was never about them being dirty. My argument was that the NFL ruled on both plays' date=' and I believe both should have been the same outcome using the NFL's guideline. (whether a fine or not a fine...doesn't matter). The NFL maintains that if you hit a qb on the knee or below it's illegal unless the defender is 'engaged' with a member of the offense, and in both situations they were....so either both should be illegal, or both should not.[/quote']

 

Wilfork threw a f***ing elbow. Pollard was pushed into Brady, as he stepped up into him.

[TheKilo]

Way to put words in my mouth....I have never said one was dirty and one was not. My argument was never about them being dirty. My argument was that the NFL ruled on both plays' date=' and I believe both should have been the same outcome using the NFL's guideline. (whether a fine or not a fine...doesn't matter). The NFL maintains that if you hit a qb on the knee or below it's illegal unless the defender is 'engaged' with a member of the offense, and in both situations they were....so either both should be illegal, or both should not.[/quote']

 

Honest question - do you believe Pollard's hit was a dirty play?

[mtbykr]

Honest question - do you believe Pollard's hit was a dirty play?

 

No. Initially after looking at it I thought it was, but after looking at it multiple times I don't believe it was dirty.

[Mr Crunchy]

Joe Kapp Bart Starr2xs Len Dawson Craig Morton2XS Trent Dilfer Jim Mcmahon Joe Theisman Ben Rothlisberger Doug Williams Jake Delhomme Earl Morral Mark Rypien Jim Plunkett Ron Jaworski Fran Tarkenton 3xs Jim Kelly 4xs Phil Simms Rex Grossman Bob Griese 3xs Kenny Anderson Boomer Esiason and other guys who suck much worse than this panel have made it to the big show.

 

The patriots have the coach,they should have a decent running game, they have talented wideouts,a young assasin at lb and a questionable dback field and perhaps the best front in defense.

they play the softest schedule in the game.

11-5 is possible and winnign the division should be a bit harder but it should happen.

[Mr Crunchy]

and tony eason

[TheKilo]

No. Initially after looking at it I thought it was' date=' but after looking at it multiple times I don't believe it was dirty.[/quote']

 

So by your logic, you don't believe Wilfork's hit was dirty.

[Mr Crunchy]

its football for chrissakes

people attempt homicide on each snap...

[mtbykr]

So by your logic' date=' you don't believe Wilfork's hit was dirty.[/quote']

 

what logic is that? please explain

[See Red]

Joe Kapp Bart Starr2xs Len Dawson Craig Morton2XS Trent Dilfer Jim Mcmahon Joe Theisman Ben Rothlisberger Doug Williams Jake Delhomme Earl Morral Mark Rypien Jim Plunkett Ron Jaworski Fran Tarkenton 3xs Jim Kelly 4xs Phil Simms Rex Grossman Bob Griese 3xs Kenny Anderson Boomer Esiason and other guys who suck much worse than this panel have made it to the big show.

 

The patriots have the coach,they should have a decent running game, they have talented wideouts,a young assasin at lb and a questionable dback field and perhaps the best front in defense.

they play the softest schedule in the game.

11-5 is possible and winnign the division should be a bit harder but it should happen.

 

But you know what? All those guys are better than Matt Cassell, who hasn't started a football game since his Senior year of High School. But he'll be alright, because of, what, pregame action against second stringers and vanilla defensive schemes? They struggled against the run last year, which became apparent in games where their opponents didn't have to abandon the run in the second quarter, at times they struggled to run the ball, which will only be harder to do when the secondary doesn't have to put so much attention into stopping the pass. When their defense had to play honest for an entire game, they didn't look great. You say 11-5 but I can find five losses in my opinion on their schedule easily -- at least one against Buffalo, at least one against the Jets, San Diego, Pittsburgh, and Indianapolis, and that's suggesting they win all the games they should, which is near impossible in the NFL. And if you really want to discount Indy and San Diego after week one losses, you have to look at the fact that the Patriots barely beat the worst team in football at home. And really, even though Denver's only going to be an 8-8, 9-7 team, that's still a very tough matchup for the Patriots. This is the NFL... Belichick isn't the only guy with a clue... teams are going to make Cassell beat them until he proves they can.

 

And yeah, ORS, Tom Brady was *only* a 25/15 guy before last year... but if Cassell goes 15/15 or worse, that's 70 points right there alone, and there's a lot of reason to suspect defense really isn't near as good as it was on those 14-2 teams. Cassell can't read a defense or control a game like Tom Brady.

 

I would ask Patriots fans the same question you asked me... either Tom Brady is one of the all-time greats, better than Peyton and all that jazz or he's replaceable by one of the worst QB's in the league. Which is it?

 

They don't go from being a great to a good team... 10-6 is entirely possible... but that doesn't mean they'll be a good team. Just a decent team with an easy schedule.

[Mr Crunchy]

and just as you lose one you should win you will one you should lose

look at denver

41-10 win on monday and sandiego,who got beat by carolina,comes in as a favorite in milehigh??

go figure

the team will have to play better in every facet of the game or theyre going down in flames.

and if you saw joe kapp play or better yet,craig morton play,you'd fantasize about matt cassell.

we shall see

its his turn,bb believes in him and who are we to dispute belicheks success as a coach and an evaluator of talent...he sees this as an oppurtunity.

instead of fredcoleman we have randy moss

instead of givens we got welker

instead of smith we got maroney

instead of wiggins we got watson

so the weapons cassell has are on the field,he just needs to play within himself and they'll be playoff calibre...now if the defense dont show up then this is all irrelevant

[See Red]

Never saw those guys play, unfortunately (or fortunately?)...

 

And should they? The "should loses" seem pretty automatic... Indy, SD, and Pittsburgh.

 

San Diego's a favorite because, well, they've won, like, 7 straight against the Broncos and the last time they hung up about 50 on the Broncos. Although Denver really did impress against Oakland, even when you consider how much Oakland sucks. DeAngelo Hall's a good CB and his attempt at covering Eddie Royal was laughable. Should be fun with him opposite of Brandon Marshall.

[TheKilo]

what logic is that? please explain

 

You feel Pollard's and Wilfork's hit should be interpreted the same way by the NFL (hit below the knee, etc).

 

IOW, you are saying that the perception of both plays should be the same.

 

You feel Pollard's play wasn't dirty.

 

Therefore, you must also feel the same way about Wilfork's.