A Dog Named Kelso Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I'm pretty sure the Pats will save around $4M from Brady being suspended so they could easily justify paying Cassel. I don't think it changes salary cap figures, does it?
LB3 Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Rex just said that the odds were stacked against Simms making the roster. That, coupled with the prior comments about keeping 3 QBs, tells me that they appear to be keeping all 3. Time will tell of course and we'll know in a couple of days. Just thought I would throw that out there. That's what I'd say if I wanted teams to trade for one of my backups. Let them think they won't be available via cuts.
NickelCity Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 That's what I'd say if I wanted teams to trade for one of my backups. Let them think they won't be available via cuts. I just watched that presser and tbh, what else could he say? It was a thinly veiled question designed to figure out whether Cassel would or wouldn't be on the roster. He could only have answered it like he did.
Coach Tuesday Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Get on my level. I'm sorry for doubting you.
A Dog Named Kelso Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I felt Rex was pretty honest about the competition and how the QB's were performing, the media convoluted a lot though. I think he tries to speak the truth but also plays with his wording, the "we'll most likely keep 3 quarterbacks" never qualified if that meant Sims or not. I do believe Russ Brandon when he goes on record being unhappy about something. The rest of the time he's a gloss-over rainbow-farting unicorns guy. That's ok by me, it's his job. I think Cassel gets released as did Fred in big part because of the salary cap and upcoming FA's. I don't think Rex and FO would have gotten rid of Freddy otherwise. If either Tyrod or EJ show as a potential franchise QB there's that payday upcoming too. I like how people ignore the other part of that statement. He said they will keep the best 53 players regardless of position. Are you saying Simms is better than Cassel?
Doc Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Rex just said that the odds were stacked against Simms making the roster. That, coupled with the prior comments about keeping 3 QBs, tells me that they appear to be keeping all 3. Time will tell of course and we'll know in a couple of days. Just thought I would throw that out there. I just watched that presser and tbh, what else could he say? It was a thinly veiled question designed to figure out whether Cassel would or wouldn't be on the roster. He could only have answered it like he did. Just because the odds are stacked against Simms doesn't mean he can't beat them. If he shows well against the Lions, he makes the team. And I agree Ryan wasn't going to say "he'll be the 3rd guy" and really piss off Cassel.
Beerball Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I bash Cassel as I have watched him play and think he really brings nothing to the table personally. I'm an ABC guy not an EJ lover fwiw. I'm fine w Tyrod. enough OK so you feel that they should wing it with the two young guys and I think it wouldn't hurt keeping Cassel around even if he's just a #3. Is that worthy of "bwahahahahaha'ing" me, telling me that I'm not a realist and that my logic is flawed? enough
1B4IDie Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 With a running QB like Tyrod though, doesn't the injury concern have to cause some pause here? Is another tight end, even one who is a ST contributor, more valuable than that insurance? Not leading questions, just asking. If Tyrod went down and we had EJ, who has injury history, and Simms backing him up, that's concerning. If Aaron Rodgers went down, and the team had to use Scott Tolzien, who has injury history, and Brett Hundley is backing him up, isn't that concerning? If [Name an NFL Starter] went down, and the team had to use [second String QB], who has injury history, and [3rd String QB] is backing him up, isn't that concerning? There aren't 20 people that can play NFL QB on the planet let alone 96. I don't think teams are stressing too much on their 3rd stringer's relevant starting history. If you're down to your 3rd stringer you are F-ed either way.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 If Aaron Rodgers went down, and the team had to use Scott Tolzien, who has injury history, and Brett Hundley is backing him up, isn't that concerning? If [Name an NFL Starter] went down, and the team had to use [second String QB], who has injury history, and [3rd String QB] is backing him up, isn't that concerning? There aren't 20 people that can play NFL QB on the planet let alone 96. I don't think teams are stressing too much on their 3rd stringer's relevant starting history. If you're down to your 3rd stringer you are F-ed either way. That maybe true. But Cassell could as a three.
1B4IDie Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 That maybe true. But Cassell could as a three. I'd rather have Thigpen than Cassel. That is my personal opinion lets see what OBD does.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I'd rather have Thigpen than Cassel. That is my personal opinion lets see what OBD does. I would too.
DerekJ Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Thats right NOBODY expected EJ Manuel to look this good Honestly though, are you surprised? The kid worked his butt off to get where he is.
RocBuffalo Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Maybe they let him get the majority of the 1st team reps in order to see if he improve or do something different then what they already know. Guess he didn't show much, but EJ did......(if thats the case). I think EJ shouldn't be cut because he has shown at least some progression this year.
DerekJ Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 (edited) His ceiling ??? !!! We can walk on his ceiling. Slow twitch and inaccurate.... not much of a ceiling You can't be serious. Have you been sleeping for the past couple of weeks? EJ needs a little more work but he's far from the guy who people wanted to push into a hole and throw dirt over. Edited September 1, 2015 by DerekJ
CSBill Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Again, I would think they put Cassel and EJ on trade wire and see what they can get. But right now who knows. Again, my thought is one (likely EJ) would get traded with other staying (maybe). I also think/thought both could be gone and a backup closer to TT's style would be brought in. Maybe you can get something for EJ, but Cassel, why would anyone trade anything for him?
BobChalmers Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I like how people ignore the other part of that statement. He said they will keep the best 53 players regardless of position. Are you saying Simms is better than Cassel? Simms on the P/S - not the 53.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Maybe you can get something for EJ, but Cassel, why would anyone trade anything for him? Because he's better than half the Qbs in the league? Not that I think they could get much. But if a team was hurting we could get a 7 or maybe something like we trade our 6 for a 5.
Fan in Chicago Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 I like how people ignore the other part of that statement. He said they will keep the best 53 players regardless of position. Are you saying Simms is better than Cassel? Is Bryce Brown better than Fred Jackson ?
A Dog Named Kelso Posted September 1, 2015 Posted September 1, 2015 Is Bryce Brown better than Fred Jackson ? I didn't say I believed him. You that if you are going to go by what he says you should look at all the relevant verbiage ... and to answer your question NO!
eball Posted September 1, 2015 Author Posted September 1, 2015 Is Bryce Brown better than Fred Jackson ? Wrong thread, son. Let's stay on point.
Recommended Posts