Guest Masters Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Don't know if you're talking about me, but I posted the buy low, sell high analogy repeatedly at the end of 2007. The rationale was simple: unless DA was a top 10 QB (which he wasn't and common sense told those of us with functioning brains that he wouldn't be), the best organizational decision was to take picks for him, if for no other reason than that he was free to the organization and any return you got for him would be a tremendous return on investment. Too bad Phil was one of those brainless people that saw a top 10 QB in DA. But you have to have a team willing to have signed DA to get those picks. It never happened. There were no picks to take. The only thing out there was the DAL signing him story, then shipping him to BALT. But that would have never worked because DAL would have saddled with the signing bonus money against their cap that year if they signed then traded DA. Bonus money doesn't move w/ a trade. So their was less than likely any truth to that story. You can't blame Phil for a move that wasn't actually there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Stoolers have tagged leftwhich as old and are interested in seeing if they can get Cassell as a backup. source; pro football weekly on the NFL Radio interview this week in review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sez.EJ Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 This helps us.. Cassel will be very expensive. If we are real lucky they keep him due to uncertainty of Brady's knee. This may make DA an attractive cheaper option or even drive up his value. I think we can all agree Savage screwed this up by not trading him last year.. but nothing can be done about that.. DA is still worth a 3rd (maybe a low 2nd) and (thanks Phil) we need picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobalaz Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Stoolers have tagged leftwhich as old w00t! Seriously, Byron would be a great guy to bring in for a season or two to back up Quinn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Stoolers...are interested in seeing if they can get Cassell as a backup. You must have heard this incorrectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 You must have heard this incorrectly. NOT! the Stoolers are also watching how the situation with Baltimore shapes up and if they can resign there LB's if not, they may decide to go after who is left, Suggs or Lewis they dont feel that the Ratbirds will have enough cap to keep both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erie Dawg Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Either way NE wins.... If Brady is not ready they have a proven backup. If Brady is ready and someone else makes an offer and they don't match it they recieve two first round picks, and other teams can make an offer to Cassel up to week 9 or 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Here's a really interesting article that made me a little more skeptical about Cassel being a franchise QB. Maximizing Matt: Shotgun triggered Cassel's second-half surge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPB Dawg Fan Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Here's a really interesting article that made me a little more skeptical about Cassel being a franchise QB. Maximizing Matt: Shotgun triggered Cassel's second-half surge I have been saying all year that Cassel is DA revisited...just with a better team. He had ALL the weapons of a 16-0 team that TOTALLY DOMINATED ...and managed 11 wins....with only a 3-4 record against teams with an over .500 record. Not sure exactly what that proves. He beat up on scrubs with a championship team. It certainly doesn't scream FRANCHISE QB to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeSixPat Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 Here's a really interesting article that made me a little more skeptical about Cassel being a franchise QB. Maximizing Matt: Shotgun triggered Cassel's second-half surge And you SHOULD be skeptical of Cassel - or any QB - if you're going to put him behind an OL that can't protect him. The author of this story seems to be missing the obvious... that the Patriots OL wasn't playing particularly well and that leaving Cassel behind Center was going to get him killled. The criticim of Cassel not seeing the field well in his third start since High School is accurate as well. And this is a surprise to people? And then Greg "Mr. Obvious" Cosell (and yes, he's his nephew) suggests that Cassel isn't as good a QB when his OL doesn't protect him and defenders are swarming around him... and that he has a tendency to run in those situations. Um, yeah - is that a surprise? Are there QBs who are better behind a sucky OL? Probably, but I'm not real keen to have an OL to illustrate that. So yes - adjustments were made, giving Cassel more time by using the shotgun more. That's what good coaches do - make adjustments to cover up the inadequacies of their team - and it paid off in an 11-5 season. And there's no question that Cassel's ability to see the field and react improved as well, as he gained a bit more post-High School experience. But to the point - if Cleveland's OL is pretty bad, I think you'd also want your QB to be working out of a shotgun - and if your coach is not prepared to do that and make necessary adjustments, I wouldn't waste money or draft picks on a good QB. The wiser choice for Cleveland and Mangini probably is not to take any chances and draft a can't miss O Lineman with the top pick anyways. Nothing exciting, but something that will help the team, and not backfire. Mangini and Kokinis will probably do a decent job of picking up those boring players any team needs - it's when they feel themselves on the hot seat that they begin to take risks, like bringin in a Hall of Fame QB well past his prime by promising to name his son after him. The only reason Mangini did that was out of desparation to save his job and the irony was that it got him fired. So I'd probably recommend passing on any high profile QB for the Browns - Super Bowls can and have been won with mediocre QBs if everything else comes together (though to be a consistent contender, ultimately you do need a franchise QB.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.