The Groganator

For all the complaining a segment of the Patriots fan base was doing a month ago about Matt Cassel (I did repeatedly recommend patience), the man has done something that no quarterback in the history of the team has done. Not Steve Grogan, not Drew Bledsoe, not even Tom Brady. Easily the three best quarterbacks in the history of the franchise.

He passed for back to back 400 yard games.

Given the fact that Bledsoe and Brady are the two most prolific passers in the history of the franchise, it's nothing short of amazing that this is the first time in franchise history that a quarterback has accomplished this feat. Of course, last week, in a losing effort, Cassel became the first and only QB in league history to rush for at least 60 yards and pass for at least 400.

While there are those who have wondered out loud whether Cassel should be kept in place of Brady during this two week record setting stretch that the Pats signal caller has had, I am not one of them. Yes, Cassel has shown tremendous development, and is actually better at this point than Brady was at the same point in his development as a starter.

Consider -

After 11 games in 2001, the Patriots were 6-5, but 7-4 in 11 games in which Brady played. Through those 11 games, this is how Brady stacked up -

198 completions on 302 attempts (65.6 percent completions) with 16 touchdowns against 7 interceptions. Brady also rushed the ball 25 times for 36 yards and no touchdowns.

If you want to throw out the Jets game because he was only in for a couple of series, and include, instead, the Browns game so we're only looking at Brady starts, then we're looking at 8-3 through 11 Brady starts with the following numbers -

212 completions on 320 attempts for (66.25 percent) with 16 touchdowns and 9 interceptions. He rushed 29 times for 33 yards.

Cassel through his 11 games (10.75), is 238 of 359 (66.3 percent), with 13 touchdowns and 8 interceptions. Cassel has also rushed 53 times for 199 yards and 2 touchdowns. The team has improved to 7-4.

While it is important to note that Cassel is indeed working with a better receiving corps than Brady did in those years, it's just as important to note that Brady was not playing behind a makeshift (right side of the offensive) line for the first half of those ten or eleven games, nor was he playing through games with the team's top running backs on the shelf for a significant period of time.

That 2001 team's defense gave up an average of 16.625 points per game, meanwhile this year's edition went into this game giving up 19.4. That number went up to 20.2 by the end of the contest against the 'Phins.

Not a reassuring statistic as the team makes a playoff push.

They might make things interesting in the post-season (I still firmly believe they will make the big dance for the chance at the Super Bowl), but if that young defense (and they are young) doesn't figure out how to close out a team on third and long, they're likely to get eliminated before reaching Tampa in February.

But if they don't make it, it won't be Cassel's fault.

Reminiscent of Steve Grogan, Cassel seems to have improved at finding his check-downs and feeling when the pressure is imminent. He's begun to make plays with his feet to either buy time, or to take advantage of great gaping holes up the middle.

Most of all, Cassel has used this opportunity to hit the jackpot.

An unrestricted free agent at the end of the season, Cassel is likely to be closely scrutinized by a number of teams which are likely to do two things - line his pockets, and put him behind an O-line that could get him killed. I'm figuring the only potential suitor that could be a good fit (ie: not get Cassel killed) is going to go through the same hostage situation that Green Bay did this past off-season, and likely stay out of the Cassel sweepstakes because of the Brett Favre potential cap hit. Otherwise, I think Cassel is looking at such bottom-feeding stalwarts as Detroit, Kansas City, San Francisco and depending on the contract situation of their incumbents, I could also see St. Louis, or possibly Seattle come calling (the last two are unlikely due to the money left on the contracts of Marc Bulger and Matt Hasselbeck respectively, but interest wouldn't surprise me).

Picking up the slack

Cassel is still a work in progress, however, signs are encouraging..

I'm not going to post the Brady-Cassel comparison this week - mostly because the Boston Globe has already done it. But it is interesting to note that other media outlets are finally getting that comparing Cassel to Brady '07 isn't the appropriate comp to make. They're finally figuring out that the appropriate comp is for the late-round pick, career back-up getting the start is to compare him to when Brady was the late-round pick, career back-up.

Its about freakin' time.

While I'm not going to repost the numbers here, having provided the link above, I am going to say that it's interesting to note that the numbers through seven games are remarkably similar, and with the exception of in the area of sacks, touchdowns, and interceptions, Cassel leads Brady version .01 in almost every other category - and neither leads the other by any sort of significant number in any category.

It's creepy.

Other thoughts and observations...

The Giants front office is gutless.

Plaxico Burress won't start the game against the Steelers as punishment for actions detrimental to the team - harassing officials last week, not showing up for treatments, and other petulant actions are at issue. Sure, he plays and collects all his salary. Wow. What a punishment.

Would the Giants have just benched Burress for the first couple of plays of the game had the team been playing the Lions? Or would they have suspended him again? I'm guessing the latter.

But against the mighty Steelers? No. It's all hands on deck for that, discipline be damned.

I notice they had no problem suspending him for a game against the lowly Seahawks.

Other boneheads...

Former Jets receiver Don Maynard said some dumb things this past weekend.

"You have 106 coaches in the NFC that's never played pro ball, you got 126 in the AFC that's never played pro ball," Maynard said. "You got 64 coaches that never played college football, so now you know why the knowledge of pro football has gone downhill. They don't even do what we did in offenses and defenses."

Never mind the fact that three of the last five Super Bowl winning coaches never signed a contract to play in the NFL (Bill Belichick, Jon Gruden, Tom Coughlin); never mind the fact that the man for whom the championship trophy is named, Vince Lombardi, never played a down of professional football; or that Maynard's own NFL coach with whom he won a ring - Weeb Ewbank, never played professional football (that's eight rings from five coaches who obviously have no idea what they're doing by Maynard's reckoning - more if you include Green Bay's pre-Super Bowl Championships). Never mind all of that.

Let's just talk about one of the biggest differences in the game - the playbook. When I was in high school in the mid 1980's, we ran a pro-style offense...from the late 1960's and 1970's, with a dash of the 80's thrown in. The closer we got to current day, even then, the more complicated the plays became. This guy probably couldn't decipher today's playbook- so, yeah, he's right, they're not playing the offenses and defensed they did then - they're playing much more complicated schemes.

On second thought, I think I am going to address the boneheaded thought that someone who never played pro football is less qualified. There have been 42 Super Bowls, of those 42 championships 26 rings/trophies went home with 15 (head) coaches that never played pro football. There are only 26 coaches that even have earned the right to wear Super Bowl rings, and 15, essentially 58 percent, haven't played a down in the NFL. They account for 62 percent of the wins in the big game.

More impressively, eight of those coaches that Maynard thinks lack the requisite background account for 19 rings. Thirty-five percent of the coaches on the list account for 45 percent of those wins. Some of the names of the unqualified (Maynard's complaint, not mine):

Vince Lombardi
Weeb Ewbank
Bill Walsh
Joe Gibbs
Bill Parcells
George Seifert
Jimmy Johnson
Mike Shanahan
Bill Belichick

Lombard, Ewbank, Walsh, and Gibbs are all in the Hall of Fame for their coaching acumen. All the others are, at worst, in the discussion.

So what have we learned?

That Don Maynard is a total ass-clown with the football IQ of a brain-dead platypus.

Sigh.

Back

I am back from covering the World Beer Festival in Durham.

I highly recommend the event for any beer fans out there. They hold it at the home of the Durham Bulls - an absolutely beautiful ballpark. We stayed a ten minute walk away at the Morehead Manor Bed and Breakfast. If you ever have reason to be in Durham, I both recommend staying at the B&B and visiting the stadium for a game (season permitting).

Now onto the busy sports news of the last couple of days. I'm going to start with the Pats before I get to the Sox...

I was happy to see the Pats win. There were a number of things that I found encouraging that the team did on Sunday. However, there were times that the offensive line looked overwhelmed, and there were times that the Niners gashed the Patriots in the middle of the defensive line. Those things keep me concerned moving forward.

As does the fact that Cassel has only once thrown the ball away to avoid the sack.

Fairly or unfairly, Cassel will be compared to Tom Brady for the whole season. Unfairly, it will be to the Tom Brady of 2007, not 2001 when Brady, like Cassel, was still wet behind the ears and filling in for an accomplished veteran. I'm not going to make the mistake of comparing him to Brady.07.

No. What I'm going to do is look at what an untested, unproven late round draft-pick does from start to start against what another untested, late round draft pick did when he got his shot.

And the biggest difference between the two? After four appearances, including three starts (for both) Brady had been sacked eight times for 45 yards. Cassel has absorbed 15 sacks for 68 yards - a pace that will get him sacked 60 times during the season (Brady was sacked 41 times in 14 starts/15 games. Even projecting for Cassel's 16 games, Brady still would only have been sacked 47 times). He has to get better at just getting rid of the ball when there's nothing there.

Otherwise, this is how the two compare -

Cassel - 3-1 (2-1 as the starter), 70 of 104 for 707 yards (67.3 completion percentage), 3 TD's, 3 INT's.

Brady - 2-2 (2-1 as the starter and the team was 3-2 overall), 63 of 111 for 664 yards (56.8 completion percentage), 2 TD's, 0 INT's.

Brady's offense had turned the ball over eight times in the four games in which he appeared, to six times for the Cassel led teams.

The other interesting stat lies on the other side of the ball. The defenses in both seasons for the first four games in which they were dealing with the back-up signal caller on offense gave up exactly 79 points. The defense in 2001 forced six turnovers from the fateful Jets game in which Bledsoe injured himself, through to their 29-26 victory over the Chargers (putting the team at -2 in the turnover ratio). This year's defense has forced five (putting this year's team at -1).

As I've said before - I don't expect Cassel to develop into Tom Brady. But I think that Patriot Nation needs to back off. Despite his flaws, and I acknowledge he has 'em and they do worry me, I think we need to be patient with him.

Four of the team's next six opponents make up four of the five worst pass defenses in the league. Throw in a Colts team that seems to be clawing and scrounging for every win it gets, the hardest game between now and week 11 appears to be with the Bills.

If Cassel can guide the team to a 4-2 record during that stretch, not out of the question given the fact that the only team that looks truly dominant right now is playing in the Meadowlands (and I'm not talking about Gang Green), a 7-3 record at game ten puts the Pats in good position for a ten win season, and a likely playoff berth given that the only team in the AFC that looks en route to 12+win potential is Tennessee.

And onto the playoffs...

And so the Red Sox move on.

It seems like they're doing it differently each time.

In 2004 they had to come back from the brink. They did it with veterans - it was Curt Schilling and Derek Lowe and Pedro Martinez. It was David Ortiz, Dave Roberts, Manny Ramirez, Trot Nixon and Kevin Millar. The list goes on, but it was a largely veteran squad of mostly imports that liked to go by the name "the Idiots".

It was appropriate. They were loud, grungy, silly and had a lot of fun.

In 2007 the team absolutely dominated the Angels in the first round, scrapped around with the Indians in the second, winning that series 4-3. In the games the Sox won that round they averaged 10 runs per game while holding the Indians to an average of 2 runs per game. And then the Sox stomped on the hottest team in baseball, sweeping the World Series.

This year the Sox are getting it done with a lot of home-grown talent mixed with mid-season acquisitions. Jon Lester, Manny Delcarmen, Jed Lowrie, Kevin Youkilis, Jacoby Ellsbury, Jason Bay, Mark Kotsay.

This year there are no Colorado Rockies-type teams in the playoffs.

There were the Angels who won more games than any other team in baseball. Three more than the Rays and five more than the Red Sox. They still buy into their own hype, believing they were better than the Red Sox.

Yes, the Red Sox got lucky bounces, and didn't drop balls, and didn't miss the clutch hits - except in game three when they had multiple opportunities to put the game away. They did things that the top teams are expected to do - perform under pressure, make the plays when needed. John Lackey can believe that the Angels are the better team all he wants. It doesn't make it true.

The better team doesn't outright miss getting the glove on routine grounders at short. The centerfielder doesn't pull up and fail to call off the second baseman on a short pop-fly to shallow center, a move that costs the team three runs. The better team's closer doesn't spit the bit in real pressure situations. I could go on, but I won't.

I do want to touch on Jon Lester, though.

He got jobbed out of a win in game four, but that's okay, the team won. Lester has been absolutely dominant in the post season, throwing 22 and 2/3's scoreless innings over three starts. Only one lefty in the history of the sport has thrown more in October - Babe Ruth with 29. Now we're seeing the team head into a potential seven game series against the Rays with a rotation that should see both Josh Beckett and Jon Lester pitch twice if it goes to a seven game series.

While the Rays have been impressive this year, this is new territory for them, but it's old hat for the Olde Town Team. Just because it's old hat, however, doesn't mean it's a sure thing...which brings me to my last thought.

Yes, I want to see the Sox win it all again - but I won't be crushed if the Rays do (I think that the eventual winner of the World Series will come out of the American League). Why, one might ask, wouldn't I be upset at the Rays winning?

Well, I won't lie - I would be disappointed if the Sox didn't make it, but there's a certain poetic MLB flipping of the metaphorical finger to the Steinbrenners should the team with the second lowest payroll in the league walk away with the championship. There's just something beautiful about that. Maybe no more than seeing the Sox win their third in five seasons, but it's still pretty damn good.