Tom Brady's Injury Puts More Than the Pats' Season in Question

Sometimes it gets a bit difficult to write about football from this side of the Atlantic. Cut off from all of the usual journalistic resources, you find yourself forced to call on any number of unorthodox methods to get the information you need.

With one team, though, this is never a problem. Such is the New England Patriots' paranoia about telling anyone anything that might be an advantage to their opponents, you never feel left out by not knowing something, as the chances are that no-one else knows it, either.

Sunday was a case in point. How many other teams, anywhere in the world, would refuse to confirm or deny that their star player had suffered a season-ending injury? And how many would, the very next day, confirm the extent of the injury whilst trying desperately to avoid giving away what the injury was?

Of course, Tom Brady is a special case. Quarterback for an NFL team carries a burden of responsibility unheard of in any other team sport, and Brady's own public profile, combined with the demands and expectations of his team, makes him even more integral to his side than most.

A baseball pitcher may feel that pressure, but not for every play of every game. A soccer goalkeeper might do so during a penalty contest, but for the main part of the game, he has little impact upon the strategic ebb and flow. If you want pressure for every minute of your playing time, then the place to be is definitely behind center.

All of which is why everyone is rushing to write off the Patriots' season now that Brady has no further part to play in it. Which is odd, to say the least. People who have been writing about the game for longer than I have been alive believe that the Patriots minus Brady must equal disaster.

Yet these are the same people who, not two weeks ago, were bemoaning the fact that a side as strong as New England had been handed the easiest season since time began. If the easy games were that easy, why does the absence of Brady matter so much? If he has to take a season out, surely this is the best one of all to take?

It also overlooks another favourite journalistic bugbear—the Belichick factor. There are plenty who would rather eat their own grandmother than give the Patriots' head coach credit for anything—especially after last season—but one thing is very clear: Bill Belichick only backs winners.

If he didn't think that Matt Cassel could step in and replace Brady when needed, would he have drafted him, knowing that he hadn't played quarterback since high school?

If he was that unhappy, would he have kept Cassel for all of these years, when other, more experienced, quarterbacks were available in free agency and would have jumped at the chance to be Brady's backup?

Perhaps most importantly, why would he have kept Cassel and released Matt Gutierrez at the end of August, when the latter clearly had the better preseason? Has anyone considered that maybe, just maybe, the Patriots know something about Cassel that we don't?

Perhaps the Patriots won't make the Super Bowl this year. But don't expect them to stop winning matches just yet.