Brady Replacing Bledsoe

Peter King, in comparing the Patriot situation now, with Matt Cassell replacing Tom Brady, with their situation in 2001, with Tom Brady replacing Matt Cassell, makes a rather strange argument:

Is this the same situation as when the unknown Tom Brady stepped in seven years ago? The temptation is to say yes. The reality is it isn't. Brady had 25 starts at Michigan; Cassel had zero at USC. In 2001, New England actually didn't mind playing Brady, even though it came about in a horrible way, with Bledsoe sustaining internal injuries on the hit by Mo Lewis against the Jets.

The Patriots had grown tired of Bledsoe in 2001, thinking he was too much of a signal-calling maverick rather than going with the flow of what the team had game-planned for all week. Fast-forward to today. Brady is the perfect extension of Belichick on the field, and he's eminently coachable, and he's the perfect leader. My feeling is the Patriots knew they were eventually going to move Bledsoe by early in 2001, and so playing Brady early that year was not so painful. They want Brady to play for the next 10 years, so it's totally different now that Cassel HAS to play.

The Patriots were tired of Bledsoe in 2001? The coaching staff might have been. But King seemingly forgets that a few months before the 2001 season began, they gave Bledsoe a record $100 million contract which would have made him a Patriot for life. Just as they want Brady to play for 10 years now, they wanted Bledsoe to be their star for 10 years in 2001. Brady just made them change their minds.

The situations are not the same for the simple reason that there's only one Tom Brady. Granted, no one knew what Brady would become when he took over in 2001 and was about as unknown as Cassell is now. But no one can expect Cassell to do what Brady did, and that's what makes this situation different. If Brady had come in in 2001 and been nothing more than a somewhat capable backup, the situations might be similar. But he didn't.