PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Clark Judge: Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves


Pages : [1] 2

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 12:01 PM
Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves
May 13, 2009
By Clark Judge
CBSSports.com Senior Writer

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11743195

Five boldest moves

Kansas City hiring Scott Pioli

Some people automatically put this one in the win column. Not me. Not after Charlie Weis fizzled at Notre Dame and Romeo Crennel bombed out in Cleveland. OK, so they were former New England coaches, and Pioli was a decorated GM. They still fall from the same tree. The question I have is this: How much was Pioli responsible for what happened in New England? "I guess we're about to find out," said one NFC general manager.

The good news is that Thomas Dimitroff had New England ties, too, and he circled the bases in his first turn as a GM in Atlanta. The bad news: Pioli's first draft with Kansas City: There are reaches everywhere. He also reversed the team's Get Young Now policy by adding 30-something discards like Bobby Engram, Zach Thomas, Monty Beisel and Mike Vrabel. You can do that when you're at or near the top, like New England. But this is a team that lost 23 of its last 25, for crying out loud.

Five biggest gambles

Kansas City acquiring Matt Cassel

I know what he did with New England. But that was the Patriots, and tell me where you find Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Richard Seymour and Bill Belichick in the 816 area code. Cassel was surrounded by a raft of talent on the field and on the sidelines in New England, and I'm still looking for that support group here. So he produced a couple of 400-yard passing games and won 10 of 15 starts. That was nice. But I want to see him reproduce it here. OK, I know what you're thinking: What do the Chiefs have to lose -- especially when all they surrendered for Cassel and Vrabel was a second-round draft pick? Try this: They're paying Cassel $14.65 million in guaranteed salary. If he turns out to be the next Scott Mitchell I know some bean counters in red suits who will demand explanations.

the Talking Can
05-14-2009, 12:04 PM
um, we signed vets to hold us over for a year, we can't fix every problem at once...we aren't building the team around them...is that really hard to figure out?

and who cares what we're paying Cassel for 1 year?

Rooster
05-14-2009, 12:07 PM
God I hate the offseason.:(

Simply Red
05-14-2009, 12:08 PM
I will say this; this upcoming season will/should be funner to watch, vs other recent seasons.

Mr. Krab
05-14-2009, 12:10 PM
Cassel is not a big problem until we sign him long term. We did pass on a QB in the draft this year but other than that i don't see any real long term downside.

blaise
05-14-2009, 12:10 PM
I give anyone that didn't draft Mark Sanchez an F- for the offseason.

Mojo Jojo
05-14-2009, 12:12 PM
um, we signed vets to hold us over for a year, we can't fix every problem at once...we aren't building the team around them...is that really hard to figure out?

and who cares what we're paying Cassel for 1 year?

I think he is pointing out we are paying a lot for a one year tryout. With no new deal and he does well he may be gone next year, and if he fails we wasted a year at QB. It is a legit question.

Chiefnj2
05-14-2009, 12:14 PM
That's a good article to generate discussion during the off season. I doubt he actually believes anything he wrote.

His list of "smartest" moves, are IMO, the riskiest.

Haynesworth to Washington - Giving a DT a big contract after a contract year? How many of those other big deal FA signings by the Skins have turned out well? Jason Taylor anyone?

Sanchez - Historically, 1st round college QB's with less than 25 starts fail horribly. Sanchez may buck the trend. He seems like a good kid, but it is still a very risky move.

I'd say the same thing for Detroit with Stafford. Lots of questions about the kid and they grossly overpaid him.

Mr. Krab
05-14-2009, 12:14 PM
I think he is pointing out we are paying a lot for a one year tryout. With no new deal and he does well he may be gone next year, and if he fails we wasted a year at QB. It is a legit question.
If he does well this year we will sign him to a long term deal midseason or just tag him again and sign him to a long term deal next offseason.

Gdaddy
05-14-2009, 12:15 PM
Did Pioli steal Judge's girlfriend in highschool or sleep with his sister? He has to be the only person who think's Pioli was a stretch. What a jerk off. Giving up a second for Cassel was completely worth the risk, a second rounder? Come on. We didnt give him a huge contract, Cassel has to play his a$$ off to get the big contract, not sit back and suck like Mitchell did. Plus Cassel has wanted this chance since his days at USC, I absolutely believe he will be ready. he is an immediate step up from Thigpen and worst case scenerio he sucks, the best QB draft in quite some time takes place in 2010.
Bringing in the 30+ guys who are winners was to change the mindset of the Chiefs. These young players have won 4 games over the past two seasons, they need the veteran leadership to push these kids and show them how to be winners.

Judge is a loser...I really like our moves thus far and we havent wasted money on anyone...

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 12:16 PM
I think he is pointing out we are paying a lot for a one year tryout. With no new deal and he does well he may be gone next year, and if he fails we wasted a year at QB. It is a legit question.

As long as we have room under the cap, who cares how much we're paying him?

Would you rather have him on a 7-year deal that we're locked into whether he sucks or not?

It's a ridiculous question. If he plays well for the first few games, they lock him up. If he doesn't, they let him walk.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 12:17 PM
Would you rather have him on a 7-year deal that we're locked into whether he sucks or not?

It's a ridiculous question. If he plays well for the first few games, they lock him up. If he doesn't, they let him walk.
I don't know why Pioli would make that trade if he didn't have every expectation that Cassel is going to be worth locking up.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 12:18 PM
Haynesworth to Washington - Giving a DT a big contract after a contract year? How many of those other big deal FA signings by the Skins have turned out well? Jason Taylor anyone?

How about just considering the history of big-time free agent DT's? They almost never work out. If he pans out in Washington, he'll be the exception to almost every rule, not just one.

SBK
05-14-2009, 12:19 PM
In the NFL the best moves are often the riskiest. Drafting a 1st round QB, getting a coach who failed somewhere else, or had never coached before, promoting someone to a job they've never held.

There are no great moves in the NFL that carry little risk. The moves without risk typically carry very little reward.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 12:19 PM
I don't know why Pioli would make that trade if he didn't have every expectation that Cassel is going to be worth locking up.

I'm sure he has that expectation. But the guy doesn't have a contract, and that's telling, whether people want to acknowledge it or not.

Mr. Krab
05-14-2009, 12:21 PM
I don't know why Pioli would make that trade if he didn't have every expectation that Cassel is going to be worth locking up.Because it was only a 2nd round draft pick for two players. Think what Carl has done with 2nd round draft picks the last 10 year. Maybe Pioli didn't like the QB's in this year's draft enough to make them the 3rd pick of the draft.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 12:23 PM
Because it was only a 2nd round draft pick for two players. Think what Carl has done with 2nd round draft picks the last 10 year. Maybe Pioli didn't like the QB's in this year's draft enough to make them the 3rd pick of the draft.
Its more than just the risk of a 2nd round pick. Its the risk of subsequently not taking a 1st round QB. It's a huge, huge risk.

blaise
05-14-2009, 12:23 PM
How about just considering the history of big-time free agent DT's? They almost never work out. If he pans out in Washington, he'll be the exception to almost every rule, not just one.

They also got great value from Dana Stubblefield and the one or two sacks he had during his Redskin career.

T-post Tom
05-14-2009, 12:43 PM
"Five smartest moves ... Washington adding Albert Haynesworth"

Essentially a four-year, $48 million deal with $41 million in guarantees for a guy with less tackles (last year) than Tamba Hali and a guy that has averaged 3.4 sacks per year over his career? Okay, Haynesworth did get 8.5 sacks last year, but that was an anomaly. He's still a stud at DT, but the 'skins overpaid. He got MORE THAN rushing DE money. Jared Allen, with 14.5 sacks last year (11.5 per year career avg.), got $31M guaranteed. And JMHO, but Haynesworth seems to be the type to pull a Chester McGlockton. But what do I know? You be the clark...er...judge.

Cormac
05-14-2009, 01:08 PM
Rating smartest, boldest, scariest offseason moves
May 13, 2009
By Clark Judge
CBSSports.com Senior Writer

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/11743195

Five boldest moves

Kansas City hiring Scott Pioli

Some people automatically put this one in the win column. Not me. Not after Charlie Weis fizzled at Notre Dame and Romeo Crennel bombed out in Cleveland. OK, so they were former New England coaches, and Pioli was a decorated GM. They still fall from the same tree. The question I have is this: How much was Pioli responsible for what happened in New England? "I guess we're about to find out," said one NFC general manager.

The good news is that Thomas Dimitroff had New England ties, too, and he circled the bases in his first turn as a GM in Atlanta. The bad news: Pioli's first draft with Kansas City: There are reaches everywhere. He also reversed the team's Get Young Now policy by adding 30-something discards like Bobby Engram, Zach Thomas, Monty Beisel and Mike Vrabel. You can do that when you're at or near the top, like New England. But this is a team that lost 23 of its last 25, for crying out loud.


I vehemently disagree with this cheap sensationalist piece of pseudo-journalism.

In order to be a BOLD move, one would have to consider who was replaced, not just who was brought in. We hired (probably) the hottest commodity in FO personnel for a jaded-shell-of-his-former-self-laughing-stock, CP. How is that "bold"? That is the lowest-risk, highest-reward move we could have made. Bold my ass. What we did was OBVIOUS.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 01:13 PM
Its more than just the risk of a 2nd round pick. Its the risk of subsequently not taking a 1st round QB. It's a huge, huge risk.

A risk implies that you're going to lose something you already have. There is ZERO risk in NOT taking a 1st round QB. At all.

Jethopper
05-14-2009, 01:19 PM
OMFG, ROFL, LOL..... Vrabel and Thomas are here to teach a system the younger players are not familiar with.........OBVIOUSLY. Bad journalism.

Tuckdaddy
05-14-2009, 01:47 PM
Pioli is what? Anyone can be dubbed a risk.

Mojo Jojo
05-14-2009, 03:00 PM
As long as we have room under the cap, who cares how much we're paying him?

Would you rather have him on a 7-year deal that we're locked into whether he sucks or not?

It's a ridiculous question. If he plays well for the first few games, they lock him up. If he doesn't, they let him walk.

Here is the problem...we can offer what ever the key is what will he accept mid season? If he is playing like a $20 million dollar QB week 5 does it take $23/$25 million to sign at that point. If I'm the agent after week five or six and things are going well go the FA route. Worst thing to happen is that you are tagged for an uncapped year. Best case is that someone is willing to break the bank. I just don't get all the posters who say sign him mid season. It is a two way street fools.

booger
05-14-2009, 03:08 PM
Judge also wrote this article:

Underappreciated Kuharich deserved better from Chiefs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Caution, this may piss you off...

Underappreciated Kuharich deserved better from Chiefs
Jan. 13, 2009
By Clark Judge
CBSSports.com Senior Writer

Memo to Scott Pioli: Keep Bill Kuharich.

Kuharich is Kansas City's vice president of player personnel, and to say he just got a raw deal is an understatement. Kuharich deserved to be part of the Chiefs' hunt for a general manager, but he wasn't ... and he wasn't because the Chiefs confined their search to applicants outside the club.

So they landed the Patriots' Pioli, and hooray for them.

Now my question is: Where does that leave Kuharich? I suspect only Pioli knows.

If he does what is best for him and his new employer keeps him, he trusts him and he relies on him. Kuharich not only is good at his job; he is so good he deserved to be a candidate for the position Pioli just filled.

But he wasn't, and I'm still not sure why.

Maybe the Chiefs considered him too old. He's 55. Maybe they wanted someone more telegenic. Kuharich is more at home in a sweater and khakis. Or maybe they just wanted a perspective from someone outside the organization, someone more removed from former president Carl Peterson.

"He was collateral damage," one NFC general manager said. "The Chiefs didn't want to go anywhere near someone close to Carl. And that's unfortunate because Kuharich is outstanding."

Well, whatever the reason it was apparent Kuharich didn't pass the physical and that owner Clark Hunt would be sold on someone outside the 816 area code. And that's OK if Hunt also understood that by doing that he eliminated one of his most qualified candidates.

"I want somebody who's a shrewd evaluator of football talent," Hunt said last month. "(His) job will be to think 24/7 about the football team. That's the most important quality."

Pardon me, but I think he just described Kuharich.

Look, I don't know if he could have outpolled Pioli. I don't know that anyone could. But I do know he deserved a chance to make his case because, like Pioli, he knew how to build a football team. He did it when he was general manager with the Saints, and he has done in his nine years with the Chiefs.

Let's start with New Orleans. I know what you're going to tell me: The Saints didn't rebound from their 1990s funk until Kuharich left, and you're right. But this just in: They got good with Kuharich's players.

The foundation of the team that went to the 2000 playoffs was laid by Kuharich, and don't tell me how foolish it was for the Saints to trade away an entire draft class for Ricky Williams.

First, that was an organizational decision, with the owner signing off on it. Second, of the draft picks they sacrificed, only one -- tackle Chris Samuels -- amounted to anything. Third, Williams became a marquee player for the Saints, rushing for 179 yards in a game as a rookie and 1,000 or more yards in two of his three seasons there.

So, yeah, that move worked out. Like other drafts in New Orleans worked out, with four first-rounders under Kuharich going on to Pro Bowls.

When he left after the 1999 season, the Saints were stocked with talent -- much as Tampa Bay was when Tony Dungy departed following the 2002 season. The Saints went from dead last (3-13) in their division in 1999 to first (10-6) a year later, a remarkable achievement that earned Kuharich's successor, Randy Mueller, the league's Executive of the Year.

But the Saints won with many of the players Kuharich chose, which means he was as much Executive of the Year as Mueller.

And let's not forget, it was Kuharich who brought free agent Jake Delhomme to the Saints in 1997. I once remember him telling me he thought the guy was good enough to start for the club. Only he never really had a chance. So he shuffled off to Carolina after Kuharich left ... and took the Panthers to the Super Bowl.

Score another for Kuharich.

Now fast forward to Kansas City. It was Kuharich who ran the pro personnel department that acquired starters like running back Priest Holmes, quarterback Trent Green and wide receiver Eddie Kennison and that swung the deal for tackle Willie Roaf.

It was Kuharich who ran the past three drafts that delivered a raft of starters, including Tamba Hali, Dwayne Bowe, Bernard Pollard, Jarrad Page, Glenn Dorsey, Brandon Flowers and Branden Albert. And it was Kuharich who oversaw a 2008 draft that was universally acclaimed as one of the best anywhere.

Four draft picks became starters, and all but one of the 11 choices played.

Then there was quarterback Tyler Thigpen, whom Kuharich recommended after watching him in a preseason game with Minnesota. The Chiefs claimed him after he was waived, and he started 11 games this season.

So the Chiefs went 2-14. Big deal. This is a tear-down long overdue. They served youth, with so many young players gaining experience that the foundation Kansas City needs to rebuild is firmly established.

Too bad the guy who made it happen isn't.

I don't know what happens to Kuharich now, and I bet he doesn't know, either. Essentially, management has just told him he's gone as far as he can in the organization, and that if he wants a promotion he can start by reaching for the yellow pages.

That's a mistake.

He has the Chiefs on the road to recovery; it just might be time to find the next patient to cure. Maybe he never becomes a general manager anywhere again, but he should at least go where he's appreciated -- and I can't believe that can't be Kansas City.

"What I've always liked about him," one league source said [Rufas Dawes?], "is that he knows what a football player looks like. He doesn't need a stopwatch or a list of measureables. He can just look at a guy and tell."

I remember when Kuharich once told me about an offensive lineman he admired and how he was sure he would be a perfect fit for New Orleans. Yeah, I said, I had heard of Willie Roaf, but I wasn't sure he was a can't-miss prospect. Kuharich was.

Bill Kuharich knew what he was doing then, just as he knows what he's doing now. He deserves a chance to stay with the Chiefs. So give it to him, Scott Pioli.
__________________
.
copied and pasted from this thread
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=200349&highlight=Clark+Judge

Anyong Bluth
05-14-2009, 03:09 PM
um, we signed vets to hold us over for a year, we can't fix every problem at once...we aren't building the team around them...is that really hard to figure out?

and who cares what we're paying Cassel for 1 year?

I'd rep ya if it was possible via mobile device. You summed up exactly what I was thinking while reading is rationale... or lack thereof . The team is hardly hamstrung by any of these moves, minus if they don't pan out, one added year to correct it and the money they dumped for one year, but I feel fairly certain the club will still turn a profit either way...
Posted via Mobile Device

DaWolf
05-14-2009, 03:11 PM
I have a feeling that Clark Judge had some inside buddies with the Chiefs under Carl Peterson, he used to always write very complimentary pieces on the Chiefs. I say this because a few months ago he also wrote a piece saying that Hunt would be an idiot not to strongly consider Kuharick for the GM job. Now that Pioli has cleaned house, Judge probably has no one in the org with whom he has a relationship with, and so I expect the critique of the Chiefs from him to start ramping up...

booger
05-14-2009, 03:15 PM
I say this because a few months ago he also wrote a piece saying that Hunt would be an idiot not to strongly consider Kuharick for the GM job. ...

that was i good article. Help a fellow planeteer out and find it for me could ya?

DaWolf
05-14-2009, 03:36 PM
that was i good article. Help a fellow planeteer out and find it for me could ya?

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5391803

I should correct myself and say he implies that Kuharich should have been given a shot at the GM job and that Pioli should make sure he keeps him around...

Tiger's Fan
05-14-2009, 03:40 PM
The Sanchez fan bois are reaching for anything at this point in time. Must be a terrible existence, hatin on "your favorite team", for any reason whatsoever. Winning will ruin some peoples self esteem.

Mr. Krab
05-14-2009, 03:48 PM
Its more than just the risk of a 2nd round pick. Its the risk of subsequently not taking a 1st round QB. It's a huge, huge risk.
Only if you like Sanchez or Freeman because those are the only guys we passed on.

Valiant
05-14-2009, 03:48 PM
I think he is pointing out we are paying a lot for a one year tryout. With no new deal and he does well he may be gone next year, and if he fails we wasted a year at QB. It is a legit question.

Not really, he would have gotten the money one way or another from the Pats or another team..

It is WORTH it to try it out for a year.. If we/he fail with the experiment we are only on the hook for the year..

And maybe they were not enamored with Sanchez or Stafford?? Pay more money to those two or less to Cassell for one year to see if it works??

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 03:52 PM
A risk implies that you're going to lose something you already have. There is ZERO risk in NOT taking a 1st round QB. At all.
I wasn't aware that the word risk implied that. In fact, I'm going to disagree with you that risk necessarily implies the threat of loss.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 03:54 PM
Only if you like Sanchez or Freeman because those are the only guys we passed on.
1.) You're not making a point, just stating the obvious.

2.) This isn't even connected to what I posted. "Not liking" a player doesn't eliminate the potential of being wrong concerning that player.

Valiant
05-14-2009, 03:59 PM
1.) You're not making a point, just stating the obvious.

2.) This isn't even connected to what I posted. "Not liking" a player doesn't eliminate the potential of being wrong concerning that player.

But what if they were RIGHT on Cassel and those players??

Mr. Krab
05-14-2009, 04:01 PM
1.) You're not making a point, just stating the obvious.

2.) This isn't even connected to what I posted. "Not liking" a player doesn't eliminate the potential of being wrong concerning that player.
If that's your argument then every team risks being wrong every draft pick they make or don't make. They risk being wrong with every free agent they sign or don't sign.

Come on, be honest. This is just another roundabout way for someone to bitch and moan because the Chiefs didn't take Mark Sanchez.

If i was the GM for the Chiefs i would of drafted Sanchez at #3 after i couldn't trade down. Imo it's better to overspend on a QB than a non-Quarterback sacking DE. I would of drafted Sanchez and then tried to put the screwed to the Jets or the Redskins for a trade and if not it would of provided a QBoTF for Cassell to train in his 1 year as a Chief.

But they didn't draft Sanchez so it's time to move on. Get over it.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 04:06 PM
If that's your argument then every team risks being wrong every draft pick they make or don't make. They risk being wrong with every free agent they sign or don't sign.

Uh, isn't this true?

If not, what about it is false?

If I'm not mistaken, it's the job of the organization TO make the right decisions.

Not just a decision.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 04:16 PM
Here is the problem...we can offer what ever the key is what will he accept mid season? If he is playing like a $20 million dollar QB week 5 does it take $23/$25 million to sign at that point. If I'm the agent after week five or six and things are going well go the FA route. Worst thing to happen is that you are tagged for an uncapped year. Best case is that someone is willing to break the bank. I just don't get all the posters who say sign him mid season. It is a two way street fools.

It's a negotiation. If it weren't for the Chiefs, he wouldn't even be in a position to be a starting QB, he'd be a backup in New England collecting $14M just like he'll get here. And if he won't agree to a long-term deal because he wants more money, we tag him.

The WORST case is that he plays like shit and we need to dump him. The scenario you're so against is FAR MORE PALATABLE than locking him up now and having him SUCK.

So take a look in the mirror before you throw out the word "fools".

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 04:18 PM
I wasn't aware that the word risk implied that. In fact, I'm going to disagree with you that risk necessarily implies the threat of loss.

The number 1 definition in the dictionary:

exposure to the chance of injury or loss

You can't lose something you don't have. If Sanchez turns out to be great, we're not out anything, regardless of how you want to look at it.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 04:19 PM
Uh, isn't this true?

If not, what about it is false?

If I'm not mistaken, it's the job of the organization TO make the right decisions.

Not just a decision.

You can't risk something you don't have. They made a decision.

Right or wrong, it's not a RISK, just a decision.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 04:21 PM
You can't risk something you don't have. They made a decision.

Right or wrong, it's not a RISK, just a decision.

I fully disagree.

If you have a chance to sign or draft a player but don't, you're taking a risk.

If you sign or draft a player, you're taking a risk.

Either way, it's a risky business.

Do I or don't I?

Those that take the correct risks are those that own Super Bowl trophies.

BigRock
05-14-2009, 04:31 PM
How much was Pioli responsible for what happened in New England? "I guess we're about to find out," said one NFC general manager.

"He was collateral damage," one NFC general manager said.

tell me where you find Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Richard Seymour and Bill Belichick in the 816 area code.

Well, whatever the reason it was apparent Kuharich didn't pass the physical and that owner Clark Hunt would be sold on someone outside the 816 area code.

Getting a little hacky there, Clark.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 04:32 PM
But what if they were RIGHT on Cassel and those players??

Then they were right. And all will be good in the world. I really have no idea what you're trying to say.

If that's your argument then every team risks being wrong every draft pick they make or don't make. They risk being wrong with every free agent they sign or don't sign.

Well, sort of, I guess. Not really. The issue is only brought up because of the critical importance of the QB position. This was a team that really needed to address the QB position. If they hadn't traded for Cassel then I would have expected to see them draft a 1st round QB.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 04:33 PM
I fully disagree.

If you have a chance to sign or draft a player but don't, you're taking a risk.

If you sign or draft a player, you're taking a risk.

Either way, it's a risky business.

Do I or don't I?

Those that take the correct risks are those that own Super Bowl trophies.

Not taking Mark Sanchez (and let's be honest, because that's entirely what this is about) is NOT taking a risk. Even if he turns out to be good in New York, that's not indicative of whether or not he would have been good here. There's too many variables at work.

We didn't give up anything to NOT draft him, therefore there's no risk. Now if you want to talk about Cassel and his risk, by all means. But there is no risk in not taking somebody. Zero.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 04:34 PM
Well, sort of, I guess. Not really. The issue is only brought up because of the critical importance of the QB position. This was a team that really needed to address the QB position. If they hadn't traded for Cassel then I would have expected to see them draft a 1st round QB.

But they did trade for Cassel, so obviously they feel it has been addressed.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 04:39 PM
You can't risk something you don't have. They made a decision.

Right or wrong, it's not a RISK, just a decision.
That definition you provided said "injury or loss." Loss wasn't necessitated.

You seem to be using risk like one would use the word "bet." I can see how one can't realistically bet what they don't have. But I don't see risk necessarily working in that way. Risk is a probability of sorts arising from uncertainty of outcome.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 04:39 PM
But they did trade for Cassel, so obviously they feel it has been addressed.
Yeah, I said as much way earlier this thread, too.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 04:42 PM
Not taking Mark Sanchez (and let's be honest, because that's entirely what this is about) is NOT taking a risk. Even if he turns out to be good in New York, that's not indicative of whether or not he would have been good here. There's too many variables at work.

We didn't give up anything to NOT draft him, therefore there's no risk. Now if you want to talk about Cassel and his risk, by all means. But there is no risk in not taking somebody. Zero.

Come on.

That like saying taking Todd Blackledge over Dan Marion or Ken O'Brien didn't involve risk.

Every single move that a team makes involves risk. Period.

vailpass
05-14-2009, 04:42 PM
Wonder what kind of article this guy would have written if KC had retained Carl and was heading into the season with Thigpen as the starter?

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 04:44 PM
Wonder what kind of article this guy would have written if KC had retained Carl and was heading into the season with Thigpen as the starter?

Fortunately, we'll never find out.

vailpass
05-14-2009, 04:47 PM
Fortunately, we'll never find out.

No doubt, I'd feel the same way were I you. KC tried to make themselves better and what else can you want as a fan?
Unless/until a team is winning it seems like they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Of course a sports writer has to find something to keep his job going in the offseason.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 07:09 PM
Come on.

That like saying taking Todd Blackledge over Dan Marion or Ken O'Brien didn't involve risk.

Every single move that a team makes involves risk. Period.

They TOOK Todd Blackledge, which is a risk all by itself. Dan Marino and Ken O'Brien have nothing to do with it. An unquantifiable risk is not a risk.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 07:10 PM
That definition you provided said "injury or loss." Loss wasn't necessitated.

You seem to be using risk like one would use the word "bet." I can see how one can't realistically bet what they don't have. But I don't see risk necessarily working in that way. Risk is a probability of sorts arising from uncertainty of outcome.

Yes, injury or loss. By definition you can't lose something you never had, which leaves the word "injury". Are you going to try to tell me that not taking Sanchez "harms" the franchise?

That's RIDICULOUS.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 07:13 PM
Yes, injury or loss. By definition you can't lose something you never had, which leaves the word "injury". Are you going to try to tell me that not taking Sanchez "harms" the franchise?

That's RIDICULOUS.
Yeah, not taking Sanchez could really harm the franchise.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 07:24 PM
Yeah, not taking Sanchez could really harm the franchise.

I'm doing my best not to just laugh.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 07:37 PM
I'm doing my best not to just laugh.
You are putting clownshoes on yourself. How would botching the Cassel vs Sanchez choice not be harmful?

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 07:57 PM
You are putting clownshoes on yourself. How would botching the Cassel vs Sanchez choice not be harmful?

First of all, if there actually WERE a choice between the two, then that's a completely different argument. The RISK is in Cassel, not passing on Sanchez. Passing on Sanchez is not a risk, at all. Again, you can't lose something you don't have.

Second, there was NO CHOICE. They picked up Cassel in February and never sniffed Sanchez, so the "choice" was 100% created by us.

htismaqe
05-14-2009, 07:58 PM
By the way, risk is quantifiable. There's no way to quantify the "harm" of passing on Sanchez because we'll never see him play as a Chief.

Reerun_KC
05-14-2009, 08:01 PM
I'm doing my best not to just laugh.

I am doing my best not to cry.... I want to have a QBoTF and someone that can lead this team for years to come...

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 08:07 PM
First of all, if there actually WERE a choice between the two, then that's a completely different argument. The RISK is in Cassel, not passing on Sanchez. Passing on Sanchez is not a risk, at all. Again, you can't lose something you don't have.

Second, there was NO CHOICE. They picked up Cassel in February and never sniffed Sanchez, so the "choice" was 100% created by us.
OK, I think I see a place where we're differing at. I don't see any difference between taking Cassel and passing on Sanchez. For all intents and purposes, they are the very same thing. The acquisition of Cassel WAS a pass on Sanchez.

chiefzilla1501
05-14-2009, 08:12 PM
Its more than just the risk of a 2nd round pick. Its the risk of subsequently not taking a 1st round QB. It's a huge, huge risk.

It's not a huge, huge risk. It's just a risk. There are several things that have to happen for this Cassel trade to be considered a major failure:
1) Matt Cassel has to bust, which is possible, but he at least has some track record
2) Mark Sanchez has to be a top-flight QB--I think he'll be a decent QB, but there's still uncertainty and bust potential
3) Tyson Jackson has to be a bust--I really don't think this is going to happen

Because keep in mind this isn't just about Cassel vs. Sanchez. This is about Cassel + Jackson vs. Sanchez. If Cassel is a success, this is a good move, no questions asked. If Sanchez is a success and Cassel is not, then this trade is a huge bust; however, if Tyson Jackson ends up being a really good D-Linemen, then this trade only becomes slightly disappointing. If Sanchez is a bust, then this is a great trade for us.

When you look at it this way, there is little chance this trade ends up being a huge mistake.

milkman
05-14-2009, 08:15 PM
Did Pioli steal Judge's girlfriend in highschool or sleep with his sister? He has to be the only person who think's Pioli was a stretch. What a jerk off. Giving up a second for Cassel was completely worth the risk, a second rounder? Come on. We didnt give him a huge contract, Cassel has to play his a$$ off to get the big contract, not sit back and suck like Mitchell did. Plus Cassel has wanted this chance since his days at USC, I absolutely believe he will be ready. he is an immediate step up from Thigpen and worst case scenerio he sucks, the best QB draft in quite some time takes place in 2010.
Bringing in the 30+ guys who are winners was to change the mindset of the Chiefs. These young players have won 4 games over the past two seasons, they need the veteran leadership to push these kids and show them how to be winners.

Judge is a loser...I really like our moves thus far and we havent wasted money on anyone...

I really enjoy it when people who don't have a freakin' clue post shit like they do.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 08:20 PM
It's not a huge, huge risk. It's just a risk. There are several things that have to happen for this Cassel trade to be considered a major failure:
1) Matt Cassel has to bust, which is possible, but he at least has some track record
2) Mark Sanchez has to be a top-flight QB--I think he'll be a decent QB, but there's still uncertainty and bust potential
3) Tyson Jackson has to be a bust--I really don't think this is going to happen

Because keep in mind this isn't just about Cassel vs. Sanchez. This is about Cassel + Jackson vs. Sanchez. If Cassel is a success, this is a good move, no questions asked. If Sanchez is a success and Cassel is not, then this trade is a huge bust; however, if Tyson Jackson ends up being a really good D-Linemen, then this trade only becomes slightly disappointing. If Sanchez is a bust, then this is a great trade for us.

When you look at it this way, there is little chance this trade ends up being a huge mistake.
Even if Sanchez doesn't become a top 10 QB, if Cassel doesn't either, then the trade was awful. I am of the opinion that you don't pass up the chance to draft a QB in the top 5 without a really damn good reason. I'm such a believer in the importance of QBs that if Cassel doesn't win a championship then I wouldn't find the trade to be worth it.

I suppose some of this depends on what the criterion for "success" is.

HemiEd
05-14-2009, 08:51 PM
I will say this; this upcoming season will/should be funner to watch, vs other recent seasons.

This

HemiEd
05-14-2009, 09:03 PM
I am doing my best not to cry.... I want to have a QBoTF and someone that can lead this team for years to come...
Damn you have a short memory, quit underestimating Brodie Croyle.

Buehler445
05-14-2009, 10:29 PM
By the way, risk is quantifiable. There's no way to quantify the "harm" of passing on Sanchez because we'll never see him play as a Chief.

Htis, I think what the other folks are trying to describe is opportunity cost.

If you don't take Sanchez, you're missing out on the oppotunity to gain the benefit of his employment with the Chiefs. I'm pretty sure that's what the other guys are after.

There is an arguement of risk with opportunity costs. If we don't take him, then we risk losing his potential production. It's all a matter of what if's but it's just like anything in the financial world. If you think there is a certain percentage chance you can make a yield a quantified amount, that becomes your opportunity cost. I believe the same can be said about football players. By not taking him, you risk losing his potential production, whatever you have projected that to be.

doomy3
05-14-2009, 10:32 PM
Even if Sanchez doesn't become a top 10 QB, if Cassel doesn't either, then the trade was awful. I am of the opinion that you don't pass up the chance to draft a QB in the top 5 without a really damn good reason. I'm such a believer in the importance of QBs that if Cassel doesn't win a championship then I wouldn't find the trade to be worth it.

I suppose some of this depends on what the criterion for "success" is.

So, you would have held Sanchez to the same standards, I'm sure

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 10:33 PM
So, you would have held Sanchez to the same standards, I'm sure

Wouldn't you?

Top 3 QB? At least an AFC Championship, minimum.

Raised On Riots
05-14-2009, 10:43 PM
It's a negotiation. If it weren't for the Chiefs, he wouldn't even be in a position to be a starting QB, he'd be a backup in New England collecting $14M just like he'll get here. And if he won't agree to a long-term deal because he wants more money, we tag him.

The WORST case is that he plays like shit and we need to dump him. The scenario you're so against is FAR MORE PALATABLE than locking him up now and having him SUCK.

So take a look in the mirror before you throw out the word "fools".

This. And good job.

Not taking Mark Sanchez (and let's be honest, because that's entirely what this is about) is NOT taking a risk. Even if he turns out to be good in New York, that's not indicative of whether or not he would have been good here. There's too many variables at work.

We didn't give up anything to NOT draft him, therefore there's no risk. Now if you want to talk about Cassel and his risk, by all means. But there is no risk in not taking somebody. Zero.

But there's the rub; you CAN'T discuss Cassel and his risk because if you do, some hyper-defensive, pickle-puffing TF will come along and post one of five hundred varieties of "you're just mad because we didn't take Sanchez".

And let me tell you; that's shit's getting old.

I know and have accepted who the Quarterback of this team is. My expectations are for him to lead this team to 5 wins in 2009. I'm NOT being unreasonable.
And if you can't take a joke about Pioli or Cassel, you need to go the nearest Western Outfitter and buy yourself some animal hide to provide your obviously missing skin.

doomy3
05-14-2009, 10:50 PM
Wouldn't you?

Top 3 QB? At least an AFC Championship, minimum.

no, not necessarily. See, I realize that this is a team game and a QB can be great and never win a Super Bowl. This argument that the only QBs who are worth a shit won a Super Bowl is so far overblown on this board, IMO.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 10:51 PM
Htis, I think what the other folks are trying to describe is opportunity cost.

If you don't take Sanchez, you're missing out on the oppotunity to gain the benefit of his employment with the Chiefs. I'm pretty sure that's what the other guys are after.

There is an arguement of risk with opportunity costs. If we don't take him, then we risk losing his potential production. It's all a matter of what if's but it's just like anything in the financial world. If you think there is a certain percentage chance you can make a yield a quantified amount, that becomes your opportunity cost. I believe the same can be said about football players. By not taking him, you risk losing his potential production, whatever you have projected that to be.
I can cede to this terminology, as this is the crux of what I was getting at.

chiefzilla1501
05-14-2009, 10:54 PM
Even if Sanchez doesn't become a top 10 QB, if Cassel doesn't either, then the trade was awful. I am of the opinion that you don't pass up the chance to draft a QB in the top 5 without a really damn good reason. I'm such a believer in the importance of QBs that if Cassel doesn't win a championship then I wouldn't find the trade to be worth it.

I suppose some of this depends on what the criterion for "success" is.

I don't agree for a few reasons:
-If Sanchez isn't a top 10 QB in 4-5 years, then the Chiefs made a great trade regardless of whether Cassel succeeds, assuming Jackson ends up being a solid Defensive Lineman (which I think he's a pretty low-risk player).
-I think this is a clear case of a different bar being set for a first round pick versus a late-round pick. You're basically suggesting that if Cassel ends up being a better QB than Sanchez, but isn't a championship QB, then it's a worthless trade? What I find interesting about that is that I think that if we drafted Sanchez and he never won us a Super Bowl but won us a few playoff games, people would hesitate to call it a wasted pick. I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but Cassel deserves to be measured by the same standard as Sanchez.

Where I do agree is that we need to place a heavier weight on the Cassel vs. Sanchez battle. For example, if Sanchez is much better than Cassel, but Tyson Jackson becomes a pro bowler, the Chiefs still lose. However, I believe that if Sanchez is only slightly better than Cassel, but Jackson becomes a very good pro, then the Chiefs still win out.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 10:55 PM
So, you would have held Sanchez to the same standards, I'm sure
Sure, the expectation is a championship if you draft a QB that high. Anything less is a major disappointment. Definitely.

Though -- and here is where I probably differ -- if that QB were to not deliver a championship, then I'd still think the draft pick was worth it. The team took their shot at a big-time prospect and sometimes that move doesn't work out. I don't have the same tolerance for a QB that was traded for.

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 10:56 PM
Sanchez vs. Cassel is a false comparison that's been set up as if it actually means something.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 10:56 PM
no, not necessarily. See, I realize that this is a team game and a QB can be great and never win a Super Bowl. This argument that the only QBs who are worth a shit won a Super Bowl is so far overblown on this board, IMO.

With the exception of Tom Brady & Brad Johnson, high first round QB's (if not #1 overall) have won the Super Bowl this decade.

Regardless of what you think, the NFL has become such a level playing field that for the most part (exception being the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs), stellar play at the QB position is what separates good teams from Super Bowl teams.

If you don't have a high first round draft pick, your chance of winning the Super Bowl in today's NFL is greatly diminished.

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:00 PM
With the exception of Tom Brady & Brad Johnson, high first round QB's (if not #1 overall) have won the Super Bowl this decade.

Regardless of what you think, the NFL has become such a level playing field that for the most part (exception being the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs), stellar play at the QB position is what separates good teams from Super Bowl teams.

If you don't have a high first round draft pick, your chance of winning the Super Bowl in today's NFL is greatly diminished.

Of the last 10 Super Bowls, 5 were won by quarterbacks not drafted in the first round.

Raised On Riots
05-14-2009, 11:01 PM
Where I do agree is that we need to place a heavier weight on the Cassel vs. Sanchez battle. For example, if Sanchez is much better than Cassel, but Tyson Jackson becomes a pro bowler, the Chiefs still lose. However, I believe that if Sanchez is only slightly better than Cassel, but Jackson becomes a very good pro, then the Chiefs still win out.

With all due respect, that is the most convoluted football theorem that has ever passed before my eyes.
Please explain, because Tyson Jackson in this equation makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 11:01 PM
I don't agree for a few reasons:
-If Sanchez isn't a top 10 QB in 4-5 years, then the Chiefs made a great trade regardless of whether Cassel succeeds, assuming Jackson ends up being a solid Defensive Lineman (which I think he's a pretty low-risk player).
-I think this is a clear case of a different bar being set for a first round pick versus a late-round pick. You're basically suggesting that if Cassel ends up being a better QB than Sanchez, but isn't a championship QB, then it's a worthless trade? What I find interesting about that is that I think that if we drafted Sanchez and he never won us a Super Bowl but won us a few playoff games, people would hesitate to call it a wasted pick. I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but Cassel deserves to be measured by the same standard as Sanchez.

That's a fair position. I disagree with it, though. To me there is a massive difference between taking a shot at a big-time QB prospect in the top 5 and trading for a career backup who, at times, flashed pro-bowl potential (I'm being super-generous, there). The trade was the "safe" way to address the QB situation compared to drafting one. It could wind up being the right move, but taking my Chiefs blinders off and looking at it that way the move feels "safe" at the best and scared at the worst.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 11:02 PM
Of the last 10 Super Bowls, 5 were won by quarterbacks not drafted in the first round.

Gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

Tom Brady accounts for 3, Brad Johnson for 1 and Kurt Warner another.

If you think you can find HOF players like Warner & Brady anywhere, you're sadly mistaken.

And in retrospect, they'd both be taken #1 overall.

Brad Johnson? Not so much.

L.A. Chieffan
05-14-2009, 11:03 PM
Of the last 10 Super Bowls, 5 were won by quarterbacks not drafted in the first round.

fo real yo, kurt warner was an arena league quarterback! we gotta get us one of those

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 11:04 PM
BTW -- I do want to make it known that I'm totally wishing that Matt Cassel has all the success that he possibly could have. I'm not going to be dogging on him every chance I get or gloating over his mistakes or any such bullshit. Just trying to ward off any accusations, seeing as how I am taking a minority position in this thread.

I'd like to think that we can talk about contentious issues like this in the interest of discussion.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 11:06 PM
With the exception of Tom Brady & Brad Johnson, high first round QB's (if not #1 overall) have won the Super Bowl this decade.

Regardless of what you think, the NFL has become such a level playing field that for the most part (exception being the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs), stellar play at the QB position is what separates good teams from Super Bowl teams.

If you don't have a high first round draft pick, your chance of winning the Super Bowl in today's NFL is greatly diminished.
And the NFL becomes more of a passing league with each year, too.

L.A. Chieffan
05-14-2009, 11:06 PM
With all due respect, that is the most convoluted football theorem that has ever passed before my eyes.
Please explain, because Tyson Jackson in this equation makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

we took jackson instead of sanchez because we traded for cassel who replaced brady who was knocked out by pollard who was pushed by sammy morris whos a running back which is the same position as LJ who we ALSO drafted in the first round therefore we should have drafted a fullback.

Buehler445
05-14-2009, 11:06 PM
we took jackson instead of sanchez because we traded for cassel who replaced brady who was knocked out by pollard who was pushed by sammy morris whos a running back which is the same position as LJ who we ALSO drafted in the first round therefore we should have drafted a fullback.

Well played.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 11:06 PM
we took jackson instead of sanchez because we traded for cassel who replaced brady who was knocked out by pollard who was pushed by sammy morris whos a running back which is the same position as LJ who we ALSO drafted in the first round therefore we should have drafted a fullback.
You can pass to a FB every down on Madden. Works great.

L.A. Chieffan
05-14-2009, 11:07 PM
BTW -- I do want to make it known that I'm totally wishing that Matt Cassel has all the success that he possibly could have. I'm not going to be dogging on him every chance I get or gloating over his mistakes or any such bullshit. Just trying to ward off any accusations, seeing as how I am taking a minority position in this thread.

I'd like to think that we can talk about contentious issues like this in the interest of discussion.

taking the safe route. pussy.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 11:08 PM
taking the safe route. pussy.
Considering the alternative is a pack of vicious n00bs ready to add to the Mecca, Hamas, et al body count, yeah.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 11:08 PM
I miss T-Rich :(

L.A. Chieffan
05-14-2009, 11:09 PM
Considering the alternative is a pack of vicious n00bs ready to add to the Mecca, Hamas, et al body count, yeah.

im with ya dawg, FUCK CASSEL!

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 11:09 PM
I miss T-Rich :(
Damnit, Carl :cuss:

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:10 PM
Gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

Tom Brady accounts for 3, Brad Johnson for 1 and Kurt Warner another.

If you think you can find HOF players like Warner & Brady anywhere, you're sadly mistaken.

And in retrospect, they'd both be taken #1 overall.

Brad Johnson? Not so much.

So what? Dilfer wouldn't be a top 10 type of pick either.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 11:10 PM
So what? Dilfer wouldn't be a top 10 pick either.

Dilfer won a Super Bowl.

He lived up to his draft spot.

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:12 PM
Dilfer won a Super Bowl.

He lived up to his draft spot.

That may be the most ridiculous logic ever attempted.

Raised On Riots
05-14-2009, 11:13 PM
With the exception of Tom Brady & Brad Johnson, high first round QB's (if not #1 overall) have won the Super Bowl this decade.

Regardless of what you think, the NFL has become such a level playing field that for the most part (exception being the 2000 Ravens and 2002 Bucs), stellar play at the QB position is what separates good teams from Super Bowl teams.

If you don't have a high first round draft pick, your chance of winning the Super Bowl in today's NFL is greatly diminished.

If I recall correctly, months before the draft the Planet broke down the number of SB wins under the leadership of franchise QB's vs the rest, and the difference was astronomical.

fo real yo, kurt warner was an arena league quarterback! we gotta get us one of those

LMAO

Gee, thanks. :rolleyes:

Tom Brady accounts for 3, Brad Johnson for 1 and Kurt Warner another.

If you think you can find HOF players like Warner & Brady anywhere, you're sadly mistaken.

And in retrospect, they'd both be taken #1 overall.

Brad Johnson? Not so much.

Me lik'em math. Math good.:thumb:

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 11:13 PM
That may be the most ridiculous logic ever attempted.

Go away.

You're ruining the board.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 11:13 PM
So what? Dilfer wouldn't be a top 10 pick either.
The numbers are definitely in the favor of 1st round QBs. When Dilfer & Johnson won, it was because their teams were built a different way -- they had dominant defenses.

The dominant defense approach can definitely work, but its also more difficult to achieve. The numbers bear out that building your team around a real franchise-type QB leads to championship success more often than does building your team around a dominant defense.

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:14 PM
Go away.

You're ruining the board.

Yes, and claiming Dilfer lived up to a top 6 pick is really adding quality to the discussion.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 11:16 PM
The numbers are definitely in the favor of 1st round QBs. When Dilfer & Johnson won, it was because their teams were built a different way -- they had dominant defenses.

The dominant defense approach can definitely work, but its also more difficult to achieve. The numbers bear out that building your team around a real franchise-type QB leads to championship success more often than does building your team around a dominant defense.

But furthermore, the Ravens sucked with Banks under center.

I believe that without a doubt, the Ravens could have repeated had Billick not gone all crazy and released Dilfer in favor of Grbac.

Like it or not, there IS something to be said for a smart game manager for in certain situations.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 11:17 PM
Yes, and claiming Dilfer lived up to a top 6 pick is really adding quality to the discussion.

He won a Super Bowl. He took over after game 5 and rarely made a mistake.

There have been QB's like Marino that throw for 50,000 but it means nothing.

Wise up there, Fucko.

L.A. Chieffan
05-14-2009, 11:18 PM
Yes, and claiming Dilfer lived up to a top 6 pick is really adding quality to the discussion.

So what are you saying? You WANT a shitty QB? The shittier the better? Keep sticking shit behind the center until one day we might luck out with a shitty QB instead of going with good Qbs?

The ol' shitty QB theory. That's fucking interesting man, that's fucking interesting

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:19 PM
The numbers are definitely in the favor of 1st round QBs. When Dilfer & Johnson won, it was because their teams were built a different way -- they had dominant defenses.

The dominant defense approach can definitely work, but its also more difficult to achieve. The numbers bear out that building your team around a real franchise-type QB leads to championship success more often than does building your team around a dominant defense.

That's only true if you massage the "franchise-type" QB definition. Neither Eli nor Dilfer is in that mold, and Big Ben is more game manager than "franchise-type" in my opinion, although he's at least arguable. The reality is that you are, of course, right. You're more likely to get lucky at any position if you draft it higher. That's just common sense, since you have a larger pool to choose from. However, the reality is that of the 3 QBs closest to the "chuck it all around" type of franchise QBs to win Super Bowls in the past 10 years, Only Peyton was a first round pick. Neither Brady nor Warner were.

Your "numbers bear out" argument doesn't actually hold up in recent years, though.

Raised On Riots
05-14-2009, 11:19 PM
He won a Super Bowl. He took over after game 5 and rarely made a mistake.

There have been QB's like Marino that throw for 50,000 but it means nothing.

Wise up there, Fucko.

ROFL

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:19 PM
So what are you saying? You WANT a shitty QB? The shittier the better? Keep sticking shit behind the center until one day we might luck out with a shitty QB instead of going with good Qbs?

The ol' shitty QB theory. That's ****ing interesting man, that's ****ing interesting

I don't think anyone argued that. I know that I didn't.

L.A. Chieffan
05-14-2009, 11:20 PM
That's only true if you massage the "franchise-type" QB definition. Neither Eli nor Dilfer is in that mold, and Big Ben is more game manager than "franchise-type" in my opinion, although he's at least arguable. The reality is that you are, of course, right. You're more likely to get lucky at any position if you draft it higher. That's just common sense, since you have a larger pool to choose from. However, the reality is that of the 3 QBs closest to the "chuck it all around" type of franchise QBs to win Super Bowls in the past 10 years, Only Peyton was a first round pick. Neither Brady nor Warner were.

Your "numbers bear out" argument doesn't actually hold up in recent years, though.

So even though Eli and Ben we're drafted in the first round they're not really first round QBs? You're all over the place man

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:20 PM
He won a Super Bowl. He took over after game 5 and rarely made a mistake.

There have been QB's like Marino that throw for 50,000 but it means nothing.

Wise up there, ****o.

So you want a game manager then?

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:22 PM
So even though Eli and Ben we're drafted in the first round they're not really first round QBs? You're all over the place man

WTF are you talking about? In the NFL today, there are 2 definite franchise quarterbacks: Peyton and Brady. When Warner is healthy, he's arguably a third, and one could argue the "yes" and "no" with Big Ben. That's it. Shit, anyone who watched Eli trying to QB without Burress should understand this.

Raised On Riots
05-14-2009, 11:23 PM
So what are you saying? You WANT a shitty QB? The shittier the better? Keep sticking shit behind the center until one day we might luck out with a shitty QB instead of going with good Qbs?

The ol' shitty QB theory. That's fucking interesting man, that's fucking interesting

I believe Lombardi pioneered that, didn't he?LMAO

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 11:23 PM
So you want a game manager then?

Me? ROFL

No.

But if you think that Matt Cassel is anything but...

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 11:23 PM
That's only true if you massage the "franchise-type" QB definition. Neither Eli nor Dilfer is in that mold, and Big Ben is more game manager than "franchise-type" in my opinion, although he's at least arguable. The reality is that you are, of course, right. You're more likely to get lucky at any position if you draft it higher. That's just common sense, since you have a larger pool to choose from. However, the reality is that of the 3 QBs closest to the "chuck it all around" type of franchise QBs to win Super Bowls in the past 10 years, Only Peyton was a first round pick. Neither Brady nor Warner were.

Your "numbers bear out" argument doesn't actually hold up in recent years, though.
Why? Because of Brady and Warner? You can't plan on lucking into a Hall of Fame QB.

A franchise QB doesn't have to be a "chuck it all around" player. Big Ben is a franchise calibur QB -- they Steelers don't win without that last TD on a pass so pornographically perfect that it dumbfounded me.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 11:24 PM
WTF are you talking about? In the NFL today, there are 2 definite franchise quarterbacks: Peyton and Brady. When Warner is healthy, he's arguably a third, and one could argue the "yes" and "no" with Big Ben. That's it. Shit, anyone who watched Eli trying to QB without Burress should understand this.

You might be a moron.

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:25 PM
Me? ROFL

No.

But if you think that Matt Cassel is anything but...

I'm not the one trying to argue that Dilfer lived up to the #6 pick billing for a QB. You are. As for Cassel, he sure wasn't just a game manager at the end of last season. What he'll be with a different cast around him remains to be seen.

Raised On Riots
05-14-2009, 11:26 PM
Why? Because of Brady and Warner? You can't plan on lucking into a Hall of Fame QB.

A franchise QB doesn't have to be a "chuck it all around" player. Big Ben is a franchise calibur QB -- they Steelers don't win without that last TD on a pass so pornographically perfect that it dumbfounded me.

LMAO That was choice.

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:31 PM
Why? Because of Brady and Warner? You can't plan on lucking into a Hall of Fame QB.

A franchise QB doesn't have to be a "chuck it all around" player. Big Ben is a franchise calibur QB -- they Steelers don't win without that last TD on a pass so pornographically perfect that it dumbfounded me.

You will, of course, win the argument if you discount players who prove your argument wrong. However, take a look at the defenses of the winning teams, and their ranking in terms of points allowed:

1999: 4
2000: 1
2001: 6
2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 23
2007: 17
2008: 1

Only 2 of the defenses weren't top 6.

Reaper16
05-14-2009, 11:41 PM
You will, of course, win the argument if you discount players who prove your argument wrong. However, take a look at the defenses of the winning teams, and their ranking in terms of points allowed:

1999: 4
2000: 1
2001: 6
2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 23
2007: 17
2008: 1

Only 2 of the defenses weren't top 6.
I never said that defense wasn't important. In fact, it appears that a team typically needs both stellar QB play and stellar defensive play to win it all.

QB's still provide the most impact, imo.

Von Dumbass
05-14-2009, 11:41 PM
If he does well this year we will sign him to a long term deal midseason or just tag him again and sign him to a long term deal next offseason.

What if he plays well but refuses to sign longerterm with KC and comes do Denver as a free agent because he wants to play for McDaniels LMAO

I don't want Cassel, but that would be a funny situation.

chiefzilla1501
05-14-2009, 11:48 PM
With all due respect, that is the most convoluted football theorem that has ever passed before my eyes.
Please explain, because Tyson Jackson in this equation makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Because trading a second for Cassel gave the Chiefs the opportunity to use the #3 pick on a player that wasn't a QB.

Therefore:
-Mark Sanchez PLUS guy they would have taken with 2nd round pick

must be compared to:

-Tyson Jackson PLUS Matt Cassel

People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

Just Passin' By
05-14-2009, 11:51 PM
I never said that defense wasn't important. In fact, it appears that a team typically needs both stellar QB play and stellar defensive play to win it all.

QB's still provide the most impact, imo.

To use this as a tangent....

The problem with arguments made by people arguing in the same vein Dane and yourself is that they are really not arguments based in logic as much as they are arguments by people pissed off that the team didn't draft Sanchez. Just for one example, you're sitting here harping on this "better chance with a top pick", but you rebel against the statistics about the number of starts a QB has before getting to the NFL. The reality is that, if you go by the "first round" stuff and other relevant numbers, you'd have wanted to avoid Sanchez at all costs.

Raised On Riots
05-14-2009, 11:52 PM
Because trading a second for Cassel gave the Chiefs the opportunity to use the #3 pick on a player that wasn't a QB.

Therefore:
-Mark Sanchez PLUS guy they would have taken with 2nd round pick

must be compared to:

-Tyson Jackson PLUS Matt Cassel

People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

So basically what you're saying is; whoever gets the ring first wins?

I can live with that.

DaneMcCloud
05-14-2009, 11:59 PM
People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

BFD.

I'd take Mark Sanchez and Max Unger over the duo of Jackson and Cassel any day of the week.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 09:40 AM
I am doing my best not to cry.... I want to have a QBoTF and someone that can lead this team for years to come...

You believing that Cassel can't do it does not make it a fact.

The fact is, Cassel has the potential to be EXACTLY what you're wanting, you just won't give him a chance.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 09:41 AM
OK, I think I see a place where we're differing at. I don't see any difference between taking Cassel and passing on Sanchez. For all intents and purposes, they are the very same thing. The acquisition of Cassel WAS a pass on Sanchez.

You're making a deliberate leap of logic there that I'm not willing to make. It's ENTIRELY possible that even without the Cassel trade, the Chiefs pass on Sanchez. The two are related by circumstance only. There's no facts to suggest otherwise.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 09:43 AM
Even if Sanchez doesn't become a top 10 QB, if Cassel doesn't either, then the trade was awful.

Precisely.

Because the two are completely unrelated, except in some fans' minds.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 09:46 AM
Htis, I think what the other folks are trying to describe is opportunity cost.

If you don't take Sanchez, you're missing out on the oppotunity to gain the benefit of his employment with the Chiefs. I'm pretty sure that's what the other guys are after.

There is an arguement of risk with opportunity costs. If we don't take him, then we risk losing his potential production. It's all a matter of what if's but it's just like anything in the financial world. If you think there is a certain percentage chance you can make a yield a quantified amount, that becomes your opportunity cost. I believe the same can be said about football players. By not taking him, you risk losing his potential production, whatever you have projected that to be.

We never had his potential, therefore it's not ours to risk.

I completely agree with the notion of opportunity cost, but this isn't the stock market. Opportunity cost - the risk of losing out in FUTURE revenue - is QUANTIFIABLE. Suggesting that project his potential production is subjective to the point of being almost absurd.

The "value" of Mark Sanchez can't be determined before he steps on the field, and I would argue can NEVER be determined because he never suited up for THIS team under THESE circumstances.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 09:48 AM
I know and have accepted who the Quarterback of this team is. My expectations are for him to lead this team to 5 wins in 2009. I'm NOT being unreasonable.

Isn't it ironic that I, who am probably viewed as a Cassel apologist, expects MORE out of him than you, a well-known hater? ROFL

I expect at least 6 if not 7 wins out of this team next year. He's played in the NFL, NO excuses.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 09:54 AM
Considering the alternative is a pack of vicious n00bs ready to add to the Mecca, Hamas, et al body count, yeah.

Let's be completely honest here - there was ALOT of name-calling and vitriol coming from the people you're painting to be victims.

That doesn't mean I think it's right - matter of fact I wish they'd both come back - but there's no innocent parties here.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 09:58 AM
Because trading a second for Cassel gave the Chiefs the opportunity to use the #3 pick on a player that wasn't a QB.

Therefore:
-Mark Sanchez PLUS guy they would have taken with 2nd round pick

must be compared to:

-Tyson Jackson PLUS Matt Cassel

People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

Based on what I've heard since the draft, I'm 100% convinced that even if we hadn't taken Cassel we would have taken Jackson anyway.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 09:59 AM
To use this as a tangent....

The problem with arguments made by people arguing in the same vein Dane and yourself is that they are really not arguments based in logic as much as they are arguments by people pissed off that the team didn't draft Sanchez. Just for one example, you're sitting here harping on this "better chance with a top pick", but you rebel against the statistics about the number of starts a QB has before getting to the NFL. The reality is that, if you go by the "first round" stuff and other relevant numbers, you'd have wanted to avoid Sanchez at all costs.

He does have a point here. The history of 1st-round QB's with less than 25 college starts is pretty freaking bad.

Buehler445
05-15-2009, 10:25 AM
We never had his potential, therefore it's not ours to risk.

That's where the arguement of risking potential gains comes into place.


I completely agree with the notion of opportunity cost, but this isn't the stock market. Opportunity cost - the risk of losing out in FUTURE revenue - is QUANTIFIABLE. Suggesting that project his potential production is subjective to the point of being almost absurd.
As far as the stock market goes, while you can quantify it, you can also be wrong. The opportunity cost for getting out of stocks and going into Bonds is much different than it was a year ago. Shit is dynamic. Things change. We can be wrong.

I agree that it is much more difficult to do with personnel, maybe even to the point that we cannot glean any value from it, but we can debate oppotunity cost of players. In fact, we do it all the time.


The "value" of Mark Sanchez can't be determined before he steps on the field, and I would argue can NEVER be determined because he never suited up for THIS team under THESE circumstances.
Understood. And agreed for the most part. But we could project his production. Its just like any other decision. You weigh what you think you can get for a player vs. What you can get out of another. Its just like any other business decision. Cabela's just opened a store in Billings MT. They have projected the store sales, but they don't know what it will be until it actually hits the market. The shit could burn down tomorrow and we get no sales (I'm looking at you Ryan Sims). But there were also other stores we could have built. We forecasted their sales and determined that the opportunity cost for not building in Billings was higher. We could be wrong. The other store may have been a world beater, but based on our forecasts, we chose Billings.

I contend that the same things can be done with personnel. It is a lot harder because there are so many variables, but that doesn't mean we CAN'T think along those lines. We could project the value he would provide with wins/losses, yards, etc. We'll never know what wee might have gotten, but Cabela's won't know what that store would have done either, but that doesn't mean there is no opportunity cost.

As for the argument that opportunity cost can be risked, meh. That's just debatable. I'd have to think on that some more.
Posted via Mobile Device

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 10:30 AM
I contend that the same things can be done with personnel. It is a lot harder because there are so many variables, but that doesn't mean we CAN'T think along those lines. We could project the value he would provide with wins/losses, yards, etc. We'll never know what wee might have gotten, but Cabela's won't know what that store would have done either, but that doesn't mean there is no opportunity cost.

I guess if you really want to think along those lines, then you can certainly come up with logic to justify it. It just seems like such an incredible waste of time and the only people that want to do it are the ones that are still stinging from not taking Sanchez. It seems to be a 100% emotional response but they spend alot of time cooking numbers to make it seem justified.

Buehler445
05-15-2009, 10:38 AM
I guess if you really want to think along those lines, then you can certainly come up with logic to justify it. It just seems like such an incredible waste of time and the only people that want to do it are the ones that are still stinging from not taking Sanchez. It seems to be a 100% emotional response but they spend alot of time cooking numbers to make it seem justified.

No arguement there. I am certainly not advocating its effectiveness, but it is possible.

Heh. Coincidentally, Mecca goes down that road a lot..."We could have had antonio cromartie".

Same shit, different day.
Posted via Mobile Device

MahiMike
05-15-2009, 10:46 AM
Albert Haynesworth just signed for a bizillion dollars in DC and he can't even throw a pass. I think Cassel was the bargain of the decade.

dj56dt58
05-15-2009, 10:55 AM
dumping Carl for Pioli was a HUGE risk let me tell you..

CoMoChief
05-15-2009, 11:12 AM
I give anyone that didn't draft Mark Sanchez an F- for the offseason.

Hey whats up Mecca.

CoMoChief
05-15-2009, 11:14 AM
Albert Haynesworth just signed for a bizillion dollars in DC and he can't even throw a pass. I think Cassel was the bargain of the decade.

Haynesworth also played like the best defensive player in the NFL, not saying he deserves it, but positional value I guess can be argued one way or another.

Short Leash Hootie
05-15-2009, 11:16 AM
I never thought I'd see the day a drafturbator would start posting threads referencing Clark fucking Judge LMAO

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 11:16 AM
To use this as a tangent....

The problem with arguments made by people arguing in the same vein Dane and yourself is that they are really not arguments based in logic as much as they are arguments by people pissed off that the team didn't draft Sanchez. Just for one example, you're sitting here harping on this "better chance with a top pick", but you rebel against the statistics about the number of starts a QB has before getting to the NFL. The reality is that, if you go by the "first round" stuff and other relevant numbers, you'd have wanted to avoid Sanchez at all costs.
I'm aware of the history and don't deny it. I watch Sanchez and see a QB that isn't going to be plagued by the problems that most QBs with limited starts have. Sanchez' major strengths -- mechanics, footwork, "it" factor -- will almost ensure his ability to play NFL football at a high level.

You're making a deliberate leap of logic there that I'm not willing to make. It's ENTIRELY possible that even without the Cassel trade, the Chiefs pass on Sanchez. The two are related by circumstance only. There's no facts to suggest otherwise.
It was possible that the Chiefs don't trade for Cassel and also pass on Sanchez, yes. It was possible that Pioli saw Thigpen and considered him a legit starting QB. It was possible that Pioli is a complete idiot unfit for running a team. He isn't, though.

I fear we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the "oppurtunity cost" issue because trying to understand your viewpoint is going to give me an aneurysm.

Let's be completely honest here - there was ALOT of name-calling and vitriol coming from the people you're painting to be victims.

That doesn't mean I think it's right - matter of fact I wish they'd both come back - but there's no innocent parties here.
Everyone knows this. It goes without saying. They didn't leave because of people name-calling them back.

the Talking Can
05-15-2009, 11:19 AM
and Big Ben is more game manager than "franchise-type" in my opinion


can't believe people still peddle this retarded crap on the planet...

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 11:25 AM
can't believe people still peddle this retarded crap on the planet...

Meet JPB, SensibleChiefsfan, KCBubb and a slew of other n00bs...

SBK
05-15-2009, 11:32 AM
I don't see the purpose in wishing we had Sanchez anymore. I wanted Stafford as bad as anyone, but the only way he'll ever make it to KC is if he sucks and we sign him as a backup. Same with Sanchez. David Carr and Joey Harrington are what these guys would have to be for us to have them now....

Lets roll with who we got.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 12:18 PM
It was possible that the Chiefs don't trade for Cassel and also pass on Sanchez, yes. It was possible that Pioli saw Thigpen and considered him a legit starting QB. It was possible that Pioli is a complete idiot unfit for running a team. He isn't, though.

I fear we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the "oppurtunity cost" issue because trying to understand your viewpoint is going to give me an aneurysm.

My viewpoint can be boiled down to just a few words:

Saying we're [insert negative comment here] because we didn't draft Sanchez is ridiculous.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 12:25 PM
can't believe people still peddle this retarded crap on the planet...

Unlike many others, I don't consider "game manager" to be an insult. The Steelers utilize their QB like one deliberately, and we don't really know how well Roethlisberger would function if he played outside that type of system for an entire season. I personally don't think he'd show himself to be in the Brady/P. Manning class. You seem to disagree. C'est la vie.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 12:39 PM
Evidently, the definition of franchise QB is now determined by whether or not you've won a Super Bowl.

Ben Roethlisberger is a good QB, but let's get real here - he's not going to carry a team when the chips are down. He needs a good running game and strong defense to do his thing. When the game is completely on him, more often than not, he doesn't get it done.

jAZ
05-15-2009, 12:47 PM
um, we signed vets to hold us over for a year, we can't fix every problem at once...we aren't building the team around them...is that really hard to figure out?

and who cares what we're paying Cassel for 1 year?

This. Ditto. Yep.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 01:01 PM
Evidently, the definition of franchise QB is now determined by whether or not you've won a Super Bowl.

Ben Roethlisberger is a good QB, but let's get real here - he's not going to carry a team when the chips are down. He needs a good running game and strong defense to do his thing. When the game is completely on him, more often than not, he doesn't get it done.

Yep.

That's why he only has 2 Super Bowl victories instead of 5.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:04 PM
Yep.

That's why he only has 2 Super Bowl victories instead of 5.

Are you being sarcastic?

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 01:06 PM
Are you being sarcastic?

Yes, very.

Come on, Dude. Arguing that Rothlisberger isn't a Franchise QB? Are you serious?

Have you SEEN his shitty offensive line? Do you know just how much of a beating the guy has taken since entering the league?

Did you see his TD throw to win the Super Bowl?

I am just absolutely shocked that you'd argue otherwise.

He's a Man among boys out there and is every bit as responsible for their two Super Bowl wins as their defense.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:09 PM
Yes, very.

Come on, Dude. Arguing that Rothlisberger isn't a Franchise QB? Are you serious?

Have you SEEN his shitty offensive line? Do you know just how much of a beating the guy has taken since entering the league?

Did you see his TD throw to win the Super Bowl?

I am just absolutely shocked that you'd argue otherwise.

So Super Bowls is now the measuring stick for QB's. Got it. Somebody might want to let Dan Marino know, but other than that, definition change noted.

And yes, I've seen his line. And I saw the pass (singular) he made in the Super Bowl. I've also seen him MANY times in regular season games WILT in the same circumstances.

It's obvious that the term "franchise" QB is subjective enough that Matt Cassel will NEVER qualify in some people's eyes, making further discussion on this topic moot.

Bitch on!

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 01:13 PM
My viewpoint can be boiled down to just a few words:

Saying we're [insert negative comment here] because we didn't draft Sanchez is ridiculous.

You know, I didn't want to get involved in this "Sanchez vs. Cassel" thing but here goes:

The reason why there is so much risk involved in passing on Sanchez is simple: Pedigree.

Sanchez was the number one high school recruit the year he came out. He practiced and played in a pro-style offense at USC for four years. He started 16 games for one of the best teams in that nation, bar none and put up stellar numbers. Had it not been for false rape allegations, he'd have had two years under his belt and would have undoubtedly gone number one overall.

Cassel on the other hand hadn't played started since high school. He spent four years on the bench at USC and three years on the bench at New England. He was a 7th round draft pick that barely even made number two QB over Matt Gutierrez in August 2008. He started 15 games in the NFL for the best team in the league and don't fool yourself, if Tom Brady hadn't gone down in game one, there would have been a different Super Bowl champion in 2008.

So, if I'm looking at my QB of the future, do I go with the guy that has an excellent pedigree and is coming off an phenomenal performance in a bowl game or do I go with the guy that's 5 years older and has only played in 15 games in 8 years.

In my mind, it's a no brainer. And since the Chiefs passed on the guy with the greater pedigree, there is certain and absolute risked involved in that decision.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 01:14 PM
So Super Bowls is now the measuring stick for QB's. Got it. Somebody might want to let Dan Marino know, but other than that, definition change noted.

And yes, I've seen his line. And I saw the pass (singular) he made in the Super Bowl. I've also seen him MANY times in regular season games WILT in the same circumstances.

It's obvious that the term "franchise" QB is subjective enough that Matt Cassel will NEVER qualify in some people's eyes, making further discussion on this topic moot.

Bitch on!

Wilt? Excuse me?

And how does discussing Rothlisberger's "Franchise QB worthiness" equate to "bitching" about Matt Cassel?

I think you need a break, Dude.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:15 PM
You know, I didn't want to get involved in this "Sanchez vs. Cassel" thing but here goes:

The reason why there is so much risk involved in passing on Sanchez is simple: Pedigree.

Sanchez was the number one high school recruit the year he came out. He practiced and played in a pro-style offense at USC for four years. He started 16 games for one of the best teams in that nation, bar none and put up stellar numbers. Had it not been for false rape allegations, he'd have had two years under his belt and would have undoubtedly gone number one overall.

Cassel on the other hand hadn't played started since high school. He spent four years on the bench at USC and three years on the bench at New England. He was a 7th round draft pick that barely even made number two QB over Matt Gutierrez in August 2008. He started 15 games in the NFL for the best team in the league and don't fool yourself, if Tom Brady hadn't gone down in game one, there would have been a different Super Bowl champion in 2008.

So, if I'm looking at my QB of the future, do I go with the guy that has an excellent pedigree and is coming off an phenomenal performance in a bowl game or do I go with the guy that's 5 years older and has only played in 15 games in 8 years.

In my mind, it's a no brainer. And since the Chiefs passed on the guy with the greater pedigree, there is certain and absolute risked involved in that decision.

I don't at all disagree. But it's all in the past now. What's wrong with HOPING that Cassel can be the franchise QB we need? Does passing on Sanchez sting so much that people can't get over it?

Pretty fucking laughable if you ask me.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:16 PM
Wilt? Excuse me?

And how does discussing Rothlisberger's "Franchise QB worthiness" equate to "bitching" about Matt Cassel?

I think you need a break, Dude.

Take a look at this thread, dude. The discussion about Roethlisberger started as an attack on Cassel. There's been nothing but thinly-veiled bitching about Cassel since the day we passed on Sanchez. I wasn't just talking about you.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 01:17 PM
I don't at all disagree. But it's all in the past now. What's wrong with HOPING that Cassel can be the franchise QB we need? Does passing on Sanchez sting so much that people can't get over it?

It's been less than three weeks, first off.

And if Sanchez goes on to have an incredible career in NY I'd say that people will NEVER get over it.

See Blackledge over Marino for proof.

Pretty fucking laughable if you ask me.

Personally, I don't find it to be a laughing matter, whatsoever.

To each his own.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 01:19 PM
I don't at all disagree. But it's all in the past now. What's wrong with HOPING that Cassel can be the franchise QB we need? Does passing on Sanchez sting so much that people can't get over it?

Pretty fucking laughable if you ask me.
Nothing wrong with hoping. I don't like the assertion that an honest off-season discussion, that has for the most part lacked the vitriol that people disliked when Mecca or Hamas would take up this issue, is somehow equivalent to being "unable to get over" Sanchez.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:21 PM
It's been less than three weeks, first off.

And if Sanchez goes on to have an incredible career in NY I'd say that people will NEVER get over it.

See Blackledge over Marino for proof.

It could have been three HOURS, it doesn't change the fact that NONE of us have any control over it.

Personally, I don't find it to be a laughing matter, whatsoever.

To each his own.

Some people get way too bent out of shape over a game that's supposed to be entertainment. Perhaps I'm just jaded, but I'm WAY past complaining about every move the team makes.

And on that tangential note, I keep seeing references to the fact that this year's n00bs have ruined the board. The constant negativity has done it's share of damage as well.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:23 PM
Nothing wrong with hoping. I don't like the assertion that an honest off-season discussion, that has for the most part lacked the vitriol that people disliked when Mecca or Hamas would take up this issue, is somehow equivalent to being "unable to get over" Sanchez.

Because certain people evidently can't discuss it without taking backhanded swipes at other posters. And no, I'm not talking about you.

Take a look at the last few posts - it's me, you, and Dane disagreeing - without ANY vitriol. Hell, you and I have been arguing about this for over TWENTY FOUR HOURS without any shouting or name calling.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 01:24 PM
Some people get way too bent out of shape over a game that's supposed to be entertainment. Perhaps I'm just jaded, but I'm WAY past complaining about every move the team makes.

I've got a whole lot more youthful energy left to channel into surly negativity. Sports have already made me an unhappy, bitter husk of a person, but I'm too committed to stop now. I'm no quitter.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 01:26 PM
Take a look at the last few posts - it's me, you, and Dane disagreeing - without ANY vitriol. Hell, you and I have been arguing about this for over TWENTY FOUR HOURS without any shouting or name calling.
That's good, right? Like, its fine that we can have this argument? I hope that it is.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:26 PM
I've got a whole lot more youthful energy left to channel into surly negativity. Sports have already made me an unhappy, bitter husk of a person, but I'm too committed to stop now. I'm no quitter.

ROFL

I've got plenty of "real life" to piss me off. I lost my vested interest in football a few years ago. Hell, I'm fairly certain it was the day Vermeil's boys pissed away that game to Philly at home.

If it weren't for this place and the discussion, I'm not sure I'd even follow it that closely anymore.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 01:27 PM
It could have been three HOURS, it doesn't change the fact that NONE of us have any control over it.

Well, that's what a discussion forum is for, right? To present our own point of view of an issue, decision, action or inaction of our beloved football team. And if the subject is continually brought up, then I'd assume that it would be continually discussed.

As much as you'd like it to just go away, it won't. I assume that it will be a sticking point until Cassel proves himself to be worthy of passing on Sanchez. Which to this point, is far from proven.

Some people get way too bent out of shape over a game that's supposed to be entertainment. Perhaps I'm just jaded, but I'm WAY past complaining about every move the team makes.

Then don't. No one's forcing you to participate, pro or con.

And on that tangential note, I keep seeing references to the fact that this year's n00bs have ruined the board. The constant negativity has done it's share of damage as well.

LOL. That's a reference to multiple neg reps I've received from a certain n00b who would leave that message with nearly each and every post I'd make in a certain thread.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:27 PM
That's good, right? Like, its fine that we can have this argument? I hope that it is.

Absomahlutely.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 01:29 PM
Because certain people evidently can't discuss it without taking backhanded swipes at other posters. And no, I'm not talking about you.

Take a look at the last few posts - it's me, you, and Dane disagreeing - without ANY vitriol. Hell, you and I have been arguing about this for over TWENTY FOUR HOURS without any shouting or name calling.

And this is exactly the reason why some folks have left recently.

There are several n00bs that have entered discussion intent on name-calling and busting balls. Guys with less than 500 posts just ripping away at people. Personally, I'll rip right back (as would Hamas) but Mecca, CC and some of the other guys just aren't cut out for it and decided to bail.

It's a shame, really.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 01:31 PM
ROFL

I've got plenty of "real life" to piss me off. I lost my vested interest in football a few years ago. Hell, I'm fairly certain it was the day Vermeil's boys pissed away that game to Philly at home.

Ugh. That game was infuriating. I had just finished up a matinee performance of The Diviners at NWMSU that day, and I snuck out of set take-down to go eat with my family. That game was on the TV and it was just brutal to watch.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:33 PM
Well, that's what a discussion forum is for, right? To present our own point of view of an issue, decision, action or inaction of our beloved football team. And if the subject is continually brought up, then I'd assume that it would be continually discussed.

By all means, yes. I didn't ask anybody to stop posting. In fact, a couple of the worst "offenders" are guys I wish would come back.

As much as you'd like it to just go away, it won't. I assume that it will be a sticking point until Cassel proves himself to be worthy of passing on Sanchez. Which to this point, is far from proven.

The fact that the two are going to be continually compared is ridiculous. What happens if we don't trade for Cassel and STILL pass on Sanchez? Sanchez isn't a Chief, wasn't a Chief, and probably won't ever be a Chief. Cassel should be judged on his own merits - what Sanchez does from here on out is irrelevant.

Then don't. No one's forcing you to participate, pro or con.

Again, I'm not suggesting anybody should not post. It's all part of the discussion. If we all agreed on everything, this place would be pretty boring.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 01:35 PM
And this is exactly the reason why some folks have left recently.

There are several n00bs that have entered discussion intent on name-calling and busting balls. Guys with less than 500 posts just ripping away at people. Personally, I'll rip right back (as would Hamas) but Mecca, CC and some of the other guys just aren't cut out for it and decided to bail.

It's a shame, really.
It wasn't the name-calling that caused people those guys to leave. It was the constant assault of telling them that they weren't allowed to criticize Pioli at all. A lot of posters, many of them these n00bs/dupes with less than 500 posts, wanted a more positive environment (which is fair, I suppose). But to achieve it, they chose to make anything that seemed "negative" at all an unforgivable sin.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 01:38 PM
The fact that the two are going to be continually compared is ridiculous. What happens if we don't trade for Cassel and STILL pass on Sanchez?

Then Thigpen will always be compared to Sanchez & Cassel.

Pioli had to address the QB situation. He had a number of options to pick from. He chose to acquire Cassel. The other options, especially in the short term, are always going to followed for the "what if?" factor. It may not be fair, but its simply a fact that the comparison is going to be made.

doomy3
05-15-2009, 01:38 PM
And this is exactly the reason why some folks have left recently.

There are several n00bs that have entered discussion intent on name-calling and busting balls. Guys with less than 500 posts just ripping away at people. Personally, I'll rip right back (as would Hamas) but Mecca, CC and some of the other guys just aren't cut out for it and decided to bail.

It's a shame, really.


I don't think I've ever seen one person call CC a name.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:47 PM
And this is exactly the reason why some folks have left recently.

There are several n00bs that have entered discussion intent on name-calling and busting balls. Guys with less than 500 posts just ripping away at people. Personally, I'll rip right back (as would Hamas) but Mecca, CC and some of the other guys just aren't cut out for it and decided to bail.

It's a shame, really.

I'm just gonna say this and then leave this bomb of a topic alone, because I came back in the middle of it and didn't see completely the genesis of the issue, but I saw alot of attacks on said "n00bs" that didn't seem to be provoked.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:48 PM
Then Thigpen will always be compared to Sanchez & Cassel.

Pioli had to address the QB situation. He had a number of options to pick from. He chose to acquire Cassel. The other options, especially in the short term, are always going to followed for the "what if?" factor. It may not be fair, but its simply a fact that the comparison is going to be made.

Thigpen was already on the roster, so until Pioli actually did something, neither Cassel nor Sanchez were "options" except in the minds of the fans and some of the media.

If Pioli had no intention of drafting Sanchez, he wasn't ever an option.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 01:49 PM
I don't think I've ever seen one person call CC a name.

CC wasn't cut out for all of the name-calling and vitriol surrounding the Sanchez/Stafford/Cassel debate.

chiefzilla1501
05-15-2009, 01:50 PM
Yes, very.

Come on, Dude. Arguing that Rothlisberger isn't a Franchise QB? Are you serious?

Have you SEEN his shitty offensive line? Do you know just how much of a beating the guy has taken since entering the league?

Did you see his TD throw to win the Super Bowl?

I am just absolutely shocked that you'd argue otherwise.

He's a Man among boys out there and is every bit as responsible for their two Super Bowl wins as their defense.

Here's the thing about Big Ben...

Franchise QB, definitely. But he IS a game manager. There's no way you can get away with throwing for barely 3,000 yards with limited rushing yards playing for, let's say, the Cardinals. Take away a dominant defense, and Ben is probably a 9-7 QB who can win IF your defense can put you in a great position to win a the end of the game--in those situations, he's the second QB in the NFL I'd want (behind Brady).

From the perspective, I think he's slightly overrated. Let's make a comparison. Brady arguably complemented an outstanding defense in the 90's. Like Ben, he was a franchise QB that was a game manager that can win games in the clutch. The difference is, as the Pats' defense declined, Brady was asked to take the team over, and he did just that--he moved from game manager to a guy who took over games; from 3,000 yards passing to about 4,000 yards passing easily. Ben hasn't made that transition. I know it's not just about #'s, but can you seriously tell me that 17 TDs and 15 INTs would win a Super Bowl with Indy's defense or especially Detroit or KC's or New Orleans'?

It's not to say that he can't do it. But I've seen limited evidence to suggest that he can take over games consistently when his defense isn't outstanding. Maybe he makes a Brady-like transformation, but I still believe that QBs who consistently make the playoffs on 3,000 yard seasons are the definition of game managers.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:53 PM
It wasn't the name-calling that caused people those guys to leave. It was the constant assault of telling them that they weren't allowed to criticize Pioli at all. A lot of posters, many of them these n00bs/dupes with less than 500 posts, wanted a more positive environment (which is fair, I suppose). But to achieve it, they chose to make anything that seemed "negative" at all an unforgivable sin.

It's the ebb and flow of Chiefsplanet. We've certainly had people leave over the years due to the opposite - people choosing to make anything "positive" an unforgivable sin.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 01:55 PM
Thigpen was already on the roster, so until Pioli actually did something, neither Cassel nor Sanchez were "options" except in the minds of the fans and some of the media.

If Pioli had no intention of drafting Sanchez, he wasn't ever an option.
You don't think Sanchez was an option, ever? Pioli ruled out Sanchez as a draft pick before ever evaluating him? He HAD to have been an option at somepoint. If there is anything that I've consistently read about Pioli is that he is thorough.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 01:59 PM
You don't think Sanchez was an option, ever? Pioli ruled out Sanchez as a draft pick before ever evaluating him? He HAD to have been an option at somepoint. If there is anything that I've consistently read about Pioli is that he is thorough.

Without knowing what Pioli thought/thinks about Sanchez, the only connection is in our minds. There's no factual evidence suggesting Sanchez was ever an option. Which is why stewing about passing on him seems so absurd. For all we know, Pioli said the same thing some of the Sanchez-haters have said - less than 25 starts.

chiefzilla1501
05-15-2009, 02:03 PM
BFD.

I'd take Mark Sanchez and Max Unger over the duo of Jackson and Cassel any day of the week.

That's just your opinion. I think it's a lot closer than you would believe.

Jackson carries much higher positional value than Unger. And Sanchez is not a lock to succeed, while Cassel is not a lock to bust.

But essentially, that's the draft duo we're talking about here. Frankly, I still don't understand why people are so tough on Cassel. Yes, he has Moss and Welker, but I don't remember people saying that Palmer was effective because he had Chad Johnson/Housh, or Big Ben only won his first Super Bowl because he had Hines Ward/Burress. And if you watch tape of games, you will see that NE's line is not nearly as good as advertised--they are only as good as they are because Brady is really that good.

I can understand that Cassel makes you nervous. I'm uncertain about him too. But you have to admit that the critics are harsher than they should be. I know you've said he's going to be a game manager, but what leads you to believe that? What does he have that Sanchez doesn't? He's got a hell of a work ethic, above average arm strength, accuracy, and mobility, flawless mechanics, and great leadership. Yes, Sanchez has slightly better upside, but he also has a lot more downside risk. I can understand that there's doubt about Cassel, but I think people make arguments for him that they would never make for first round picks. Just my opinion.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 02:07 PM
That's just your opinion. I think it's a lot closer than you would believe.

Jackson carries much higher positional value than Unger. And Sanchez is not a lock to succeed, while Cassel is not a lock to bust.

But essentially, that's the draft duo we're talking about here. Frankly, I still don't understand why people are so tough on Cassel. Yes, he has Moss and Welker, but I don't remember people saying that Palmer was effective because he had Chad Johnson/Housh, or Big Ben only won his first Super Bowl because he had Hines Ward/Burress. And if you watch tape of games, you will see that NE's line is not nearly as good as advertised--they are only as good as they are because Brady is really that good.

I can understand that Cassel makes you nervous. I'm uncertain about him too. But you have to admit that the critics are harsher than they should be. I know you've said he's going to be a game manager, but what leads you to believe that? What does he have that Sanchez doesn't? He's got a hell of a work ethic, above average arm strength, accuracy, and mobility, flawless mechanics, and great leadership. Yes, Sanchez has slightly better upside, but he also has a lot more downside risk. I can understand that there's doubt about Cassel, but I think people make arguments for him that they would never make for first round picks. Just my opinion.

I honestly think it stems from the fact that most of the people you're talking about didn't want Cassel and did want Sanchez.

Like I said before, I think it's going to be very, very hard for Cassel to ever be much in some people's minds because they've set the bar high enough the won't ever be wrong.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 02:13 PM
but I think people make arguments for him that they would never make for first round picks. Just my opinion.
Probably because there is going to be little tolerance for mistakes. He's 27 years old, he's not a big-time prospect fresh out of college.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 02:14 PM
I honestly think it stems from the fact that most of the people you're talking about didn't want Cassel and did want Sanchez.

Like I said before, I think it's going to be very, very hard for Cassel to ever be much in some people's minds because they've set the bar high enough the won't ever be wrong.

I hope that Cassel succeeds. Absolutely.

But if the decision were up to ME (and it's clearly not), I would have chosen Sanchez/Unger over Jackson/Cassel.

I've posted "my" mock draft in the draft forum. It would have address every need on the offensive line, TE, WR, K and most importantly, QB. We would have had an offense that would grow together for the next 5 years and beyond (with Bowe, Charles, Albert & Cottam).

That's not how it worked out. I'm not "bitching" about it. I'm voicing my opinion.

After all, that's what this forum is for; voicing our opinions.

Unless somehow I missed the memo after Pioli was hired and we're all now supposed to fall in line like a bunch of lemmings.

And even then, I'd voice my opinion

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 02:21 PM
And this is exactly the reason why some folks have left recently.

There are several n00bs that have entered discussion intent on name-calling and busting balls. Guys with less than 500 posts just ripping away at people. Personally, I'll rip right back (as would Hamas) but Mecca, CC and some of the other guys just aren't cut out for it and decided to bail.

It's a shame, really.

I trust you see the irony of your post.

JASONSAUTO
05-15-2009, 02:28 PM
You don't think Sanchez was an option, ever? Pioli ruled out Sanchez as a draft pick before ever evaluating him? He HAD to have been an option at somepoint. If there is anything that I've consistently read about Pioli is that he is thorough.

i've thought about this quite a bit and maybe pioli saw enough of sanchez BEFORE taking our job that he already knew what he thought, so as GM of the chiefs sanchez never was an option. like i have said MANY times pioli either knew he was getting cassel or had a VERY good idea he was. look back at the opening presser, when asked about the QB situation he smiles and says he has something in mind. In my opinion he knew that was cassel

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 02:31 PM
I trust you see the irony of your post.

ROFL

I'd take Hamas, CC and Mecca over you and all the other n00bs any day of the week.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 02:32 PM
Probably because there is going to be little tolerance for mistakes. He's 27 years old, he's not a big-time prospect fresh out of college.

There's going to be a lot of disappointed people, then, because this Chiefs team isn't very talented right now, no matter who you put at QB. 5 wins won't be a miracle or anything, but it could still be a successful season for this team. With the Chiefs facing the schedule they have, it could be a very bad season in terms of wins and losses, even if the team is much improved.

It's not an exact barometer, obviously, but Vegas has the over/under for the Chiefs at 5.5 wins right now, and even the Lions are at 5.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 02:33 PM
ROFL

I'd take Hamas, CC and Mecca over you and all the other n00bs any day of the week.

That has nothing at all to do with my point. The point was that you do precisely what you are complaining the "n00bs" have been doing.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 02:34 PM
There's going to be a lot of disappointed people, then, because this Chiefs team isn't very talented right now, no matter who you put at QB. 5 wins won't be a miracle or anything, but it could still be a successful season for this team. With the Chiefs facing the schedule they have, it could be a very bad season in terms of wins and losses, even if the team is much improved.

It's not an exact barometer, obviously, but Vegas has the over/under for the Chiefs at 5.5 wins right now, and even the Lions are at 5.

5 wins WILL be a miracle. Are you kidding me?

Shit right tackle. Old guards. Shit center. ONE WR (with the dropsies). OLD RB. NO pass rush. OLD linebackers. Suspect secondary.

NEW coaching staff. FIRST TIME head coach.

If you think that 5 wins is a given, you're smokin' too much crack.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 02:36 PM
That has nothing at all to do with my point. The point was that you do precisely what you are complaining the "n00bs" have been doing.

Yeah, because I'M the n00b that's been insulting all of those people (including me and OTWP58).

Yeah, right.

Try again, n00b.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 02:38 PM
i've thought about this quite a bit and maybe pioli saw enough of sanchez BEFORE taking our job that he already knew what he thought, so as GM of the chiefs sanchez never was an option. like i have said MANY times pioli either knew he was getting cassel or had a VERY good idea he was. look back at the opening presser, when asked about the QB situation he smiles and says he has something in mind. In my opinion he knew that was cassel

Valid arguments could, and were, made for trading for Cassel and for drafting Sanchez. Neither side of either decision knows for certain that their opinion is the correct one.

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 02:43 PM
Unless somehow I missed the memo after Pioli was hired and we're all now supposed to fall in line like a bunch of lemmings.

It's these kinds of comments that lead to it. Agreeing with what the team is doing - or in my case, accepting it as reality and moving on - does not make one a lemming.

doomy3
05-15-2009, 02:46 PM
And this is exactly the reason why some folks have left recently.

There are several n00bs that have entered discussion intent on name-calling and busting balls. Guys with less than 500 posts just ripping away at people. Personally, I'll rip right back (as would Hamas) but Mecca, CC and some of the other guys just aren't cut out for it and decided to bail.

It's a shame, really.

I'm no n00b, but this is hysterical. I don't believe you actually believe this, but if you do I must wonder if you are reading the same board I am.

This entire offseason was spent by the majority of the posters who had been around for awhile calling everyone names for ANY draft take that didn't involve drafting a QB at #3. Most of the time, there wasn't reasonable discussion in threads, not because of the n00bs, but because every thread turned into the same "hilarious" posts about true fans, calling players/Pioli Jesus, calling everyone retarded, telling people to die, etc. This was EVERY thread. If anything, the only n00b that has had a negative impact on the board is DCS/RoR because he does all this shit to the extreme to try to gain approval from you guys.

But to see you try to pretend to be some sort of victim is mind-boggling.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 02:51 PM
It's these kinds of comments that lead to it. Agreeing with what the team is doing - or in my case, accepting it as reality and moving on - does not make one a lemming.

That's you're choice.

But let's not deny the fact that many people (including myself) were singled out for not "accepting it" and having a differing opinion.

Some people were more vocal about it than others and were vilafied for it.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 02:54 PM
Yeah, because I'M the n00b that's been insulting all of those people (including me and OTWP58).

Yeah, right.

Try again, n00b.

Calling people "n00b" as an insult sets up confrontation from the very beginning. Also, my insults have generally been confined to a small group of people who've insulted me first. You just happen to be one of them because you seem to think you should be allowed to insult others without them firing back.

chiefzilla1501
05-15-2009, 02:54 PM
Probably because there is going to be little tolerance for mistakes. He's 27 years old, he's not a big-time prospect fresh out of college.

Agreed. But the irony is that if we assume hypothetically that Brees never got injured in San Diego and that the Chargers ended up shopping Rivers, you would NEVER hear nearly as much disappointedness from a team that landed Rivers, even though Cassel's had a full season under his belt while Rivers at that point had only 1 mediocre game under his belt. You're absolutely right on that and it's something I'll never really understand. I just hope that people are willing to at least give Cassel more than a half-season to start making judgment calls about him.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 02:54 PM
I'm no n00b, but this is hysterical. I don't believe you actually believe this, but if you do I must wonder if you are reading the same board I am.

Apparently not.

But to see you try to pretend to be some sort of victim is mind-boggling.

Victim? I couldn't give a flying fuck what you or those people or anyone else thinks of me or my opinion.

But to deny that I wasn't singled out means you are either ill-informed or you're trying to spin the truth.

How many times do I/did I have to read "Mecca/Hamas/Dane/OTWP" as a group?

I'll tell ya: Far too many times to count.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 02:55 PM
Calling people "n00b" as an insult sets up confrontation from the very beginning. Also, my insults have generally been confined to a small group of people who've insulted me first. You just happen to be one of them because you seem to think you should be allowed to insult others without them firing back.

If you're insulted by the phrase "n00b", then you're in for a long, tough ride here at the 'Planet.

doomy3
05-15-2009, 02:58 PM
Apparently not.



Victim? I couldn't give a flying fuck what you or those people or anyone else thinks of me or my opinion.

But to deny that I wasn't singled out means you are either ill-informed or you're trying to spin the truth.

How many times do I/did I have to read "Mecca/Hamas/Dane/OTWP" as a group?

I'll tell ya: Far too many times to count.

I don't know. I rarely see you mentioned in the same breath as any of those guys except for Hamas because you two are just adsjoles to everyone. OTWP, I would never compare you two. He knows a lot about football.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 03:03 PM
I don't know. I rarely see you mentioned in the same breath as any of those guys except for Hamas because you two are just adsjoles to everyone. OTWP, I would never compare you two. He knows a lot about football.

And people call me a dick.

ROFL

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 03:03 PM
That's you're choice.

But let's not deny the fact that many people (including myself) were singled out for not "accepting it" and having a differing opinion.

Some people were more vocal about it than others and were vilafied for it.

Dane, I've been called a Carl apologist since the days of the KC Star BB.

The idea that this is unique and directed only at those that question the team is, frankly, HYSTERICAL.

The "negative" crowd has been the MAJORITY here for the 8 of the last 9 years, and now that the tide is changing a bit, people want to take their ball and go home?

Seriously, that's just asinine.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 03:06 PM
Dane, I've been called a Carl apologist since the days of the KC Star BB.

The idea that this is unique and directed only at those that question the team is, frankly, HYSTERICAL.

The "negative" crowd has been the MAJORITY here for the 8 of the last 9 years, and now that the tide is changing a bit, people want to take their ball and go home?

Seriously, that's just asinine.

I'm referring to what's happened over the course of the past few months since Pioli's been hired.

Not the entire history of Chiefsplanet.

And while I agree it's been controlled by the "negative crowd", I think that has more to do with folks being tired of Carl Peterson's never-ending regime than with the actual players and coaches.

keg in kc
05-15-2009, 03:06 PM
Dane, I've been called a Carl apologist since the days of the KC Star BB.So have I. Most of the time, if you made any comment that wasn't blistering Carl (and I made plenty of those, too...), said any move was in any way positive based on what I thought of the move itself, it was go straight to "king carl lover" or "true fan" (okay, i don't think I've ever been called a true fan, so I exaggerate) do not pass go, do not collect 200 bucks.

Then, ironically, in the last year or two, the latter half of the Hermpocalypse, if I said anything negative I was labeled a Carl basher.

I'm so confused.

People love their sweeping generalizations, I guess.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 03:08 PM
If you're insulted by the phrase "n00b", then you're in for a long, tough ride here at the 'Planet.

You do like to just ignore the points being made by other people, don't you? You're bitching about the "n00bs" and their insults when the very name you're calling them is used as an insult. It's not about how I personally feel, it's about your hypocrisy.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 03:12 PM
You do like to just ignore the points being made by other people, don't you? You're bitching about the "n00bs" and their insults when the very name you're calling them is used as an insult. It's not about how I personally feel, it's about your hypocrisy.

ROFL

Feel that tickle in your vag?

JFC.

The term "n00b" has been used since the beginning of this forum. It's used ALL OVER the internet. You are NEW aren't you? You don't have 1,000 posts, do you?

The fact that you'd be offended is actually hilarious.

Otter
05-15-2009, 03:12 PM
People love their sweeping generalizations, I guess.

I don't know how I put up with all you dumbasses for almost 10 years.

keg in kc
05-15-2009, 03:15 PM
I don't know how I put up with all you dumbasses for almost 10 years.Because you're just one of the flock, baaaatter.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 03:23 PM
ROFL

Feel that tickle in your vag?

JFC.

The term "n00b" has been used since the beginning of this forum. It's used ALL OVER the internet. You are NEW aren't you? You don't have 1,000 posts, do you?

The fact that you'd be offended is actually hilarious.

It's not about how I personally feel, as I noted. The term doesn't offend me. I find it pathetic, and I feel that it says a lot more about the lack of any valid reply by the poster who uses it than it does about anything else. However, you are the one complaining about the "n00b" crowd driving off established posters while overlooking how those "n00b" posters have been getting treated here. It starts with the very use of the term and just continues from there.

Raised On Riots
05-15-2009, 03:26 PM
I don't see the purpose in wishing we had Sanchez anymore. I wanted Stafford as bad as anyone, but the only way he'll ever make it to KC is if he sucks and we sign him as a backup. Same with Sanchez. David Carr and Joey Harrington are what these guys would have to be for us to have them now....

Lets roll with who we got.

I'm trying to, but every time I think I'm out, they_________________!
(fill in the blank)

I don't at all disagree. But it's all in the past now. What's wrong with HOPING that Cassel can be the franchise QB we need? Does passing on Sanchez sting so much that people can't get over it?

Pretty fucking laughable if you ask me.

Who keeps bringing up Sanchez? Not me! If we have a flop season, is it the fault of Mark Sanchez? I guarantee you some dipshit will magically tie the two together!
I'll enjoy watching all three QB's play football until it's time for the Chiefs to play against them.
Is there a problem with that?

i've thought about this quite a bit and maybe pioli saw enough of sanchez BEFORE taking our job that he already knew what he thought, so as GM of the chiefs sanchez never was an option. like i have said MANY times pioli either knew he was getting cassel or had a VERY good idea he was. look back at the opening presser, when asked about the QB situation he smiles and says he has something in mind. In my opinion he knew that was cassel

SAUTO is correct. See below:

Thigpen was already on the roster, so until Pioli actually did something, neither Cassel nor Sanchez were "options" except in the minds of the fans and some of the media.

Pioli had no intention of drafting Sanchez, he wasn't ever an option.

FYP.

No Pioli in KC w/o a healthy Brady in NE, and Cassel available.
Fact, done deal, get over it.


And Sanchez is not a lock to succeed, while Cassel is not a lock to bust.



ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

Where DID YOU get your Magic 8-Ball?! I want one!!!


I don't know. I rarely see you mentioned in the same breath as any of those guys except for Hamas because you two are just adsjoles to everyone. OTWP, I would never compare you two. He knows a lot about football.

Can you cry some more? I really like it when you cry like a little girl; it's awesome!

Raised On Riots
05-15-2009, 03:33 PM
It's not about how I personally feel, as I noted. The term doesn't offend me. I find it pathetic, and I feel that it says a lot more about the lack of any valid reply by the poster who uses it than it does about anything else. However, you are the one complaining about the "n00b" crowd driving off established posters while overlooking how those "n00b" posters have been getting treated here. It starts with the very use of the term and just continues from there.

THIS IS A FOOTBALL FORUM.

If you want "civilized" on the scale of which seems to be your ideal, I'm sure PBS has a website and board dedicated to "Masterpiece Theater".

Register today!:rolleyes:

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 03:44 PM
THIS IS A FOOTBALL FORUM.

If you want "civilized" on the scale of which seems to be your ideal, I'm sure PBS has a website and board dedicated to "Masterpiece Theater".

Register today!:rolleyes:

You gotta keep up:

And this is exactly the reason why some folks have left recently.

There are several n00bs that have entered discussion intent on name-calling and busting balls. Guys with less than 500 posts just ripping away at people. Personally, I'll rip right back (as would Hamas) but Mecca, CC and some of the other guys just aren't cut out for it and decided to bail.

It's a shame, really.

Raised On Riots
05-15-2009, 03:46 PM
You gotta keep up:

I don't give a damn if you and the 12 Apostles call me a douchebag every hour on the hour!

Some people have skin and can play, others don't.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 03:52 PM
I don't give a damn if you and the 12 Apostles call me a douchebag every hour on the hour!

Some people have skin and can play, others don't.

How is that something opposed to any point I've made? Dane is bemoaning the loss of his beloved Hamas, among others. He's pinning it largely on the "n00bs" and their attacks. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of Dane. As I'm sure you noticed in my dealings with both Hamas and Dane, I don't wilt when people call me names.

Raised On Riots
05-15-2009, 04:23 PM
How is that something opposed to any point I've made? Dane is bemoaning the loss of his beloved Hamas, among others. He's pinning it largely on the "n00bs" and their attacks. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of Dane. As I'm sure you noticed in my dealings with both Hamas and Dane, I don't wilt when people call me names.

He missed the true point. The true point is that "idiot" should replace the word "n00b" in this case. You can be a n00b and not be an idiot, but they've been few and far in between.

And like I said before, there wasn't enough plant life( non-idiots )on the Planet to sustain the needs of Mecca and Hamas, so they split.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 04:51 PM
He missed the true point. The true point is that "idiot" should replace the word "n00b" in this case. You can be a n00b and not be an idiot, but they've been few and far in between.

And like I said before, there wasn't enough plant life( non-idiots )on the Planet to sustain the needs of Mecca and Hamas, so they split.

In the time I've been here, the "idiots" have been far more insightful and knowledgeable than Hamas seemed to be. I've seen posts where people praised his knowledge, but he surely kept his knowledge well hidden this offseason, at least on this main board.

For the record, given that the team finally canned the leadership that almost everyone here hated, brought in a man considered among the very best to be GM, and brought in a new starting QB, it's absurd for people like Mecca, Hamas and company to be complaining when people want to give that group the benefit of the doubt and really don't want every thread to turn into a buzzkill. They are defying human nature, and they should know better. Hamas with his "strike #", and Mecca seemingly doing his best Eeyore impression about almost everything the team was doing, placed themselves in a position where it was a virtual guarantee that they'd be opposed when they posted. "True Fan", "Jesus" and the rest of the derogatories of that sort were certainly not brought up by others and aimed at them: it was the other way around.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 04:55 PM
In the time I've been here, the "idiots" have been far more insightful and knowledgeable than Hamas seemed to be. I've seen posts where people praised his knowledge, but he surely kept his knowledge well hidden this offseason, at least on this main board.

For the record, given that the team finally canned the leadership that almost everyone here hated, brought in a man considered among the very best to be GM, and brought in a new starting QB, it's absurd for people like Mecca, Hamas and company to be complaining when people want to give that group the benefit of the doubt and really don't want every thread to turn into a buzzkill. They are defying human nature, and they should know better. Hamas with his "strike #", and Mecca seemingly doing his best Eeyore impression about almost everything the team was doing, placed themselves in a position where it was a virtual guarantee that they'd be opposed when they posted. "True Fan", "Jesus" and the rest of the derogatories of that sort were certainly not brought up by others and aimed at them: it was the other way around.

Wow, talk about missing the point.

You just go ahead and continue to give the Chiefs "the benefit of the doubt".

I, on the other hand, will not.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 05:01 PM
Wow, talk about missing the point.

You just go ahead and continue to give the Chiefs "the benefit of the doubt".

I, on the other hand, will not.

I didn't miss the point at all. On the other hand, you've ignored it multiple times on this thread. I really don't care whether you give the team the benefit of the doubt or not. However, if you bitch about every move the team makes, and you do it in such a way that you belittle those that don't agree with you, you should expect people to bitch at you and return the favor. It's really that simple.

doomy3
05-15-2009, 05:17 PM
Can you cry some more? I really like it when you cry like a little girl; it's awesome!

Where exactly was I crying? I think your reading comprehension needs a tune up, as well as your overall persona.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 05:29 PM
I didn't miss the point at all. On the other hand, you've ignored it multiple times on this thread. I really don't care whether you give the team the benefit of the doubt or not. However, if you bitch about every move the team makes, and you do it in such a way that you belittle those that don't agree with you, you should expect people to bitch at you and return the favor. It's really that simple.

You're beginning to really annoy me.

Where have I "bitched" in this thread, Fuckhead?

If you perceive the opposite of cheerleading to be "bitching", you just need to shut the fuck up right now.

Just Passin' By
05-15-2009, 05:33 PM
You're beginning to really annoy me.

Where have I "bitched" in this thread, ****head?

If you perceive the opposite of cheerleading to be "bitching", you just need to shut the **** up right now.

And, once again, you miss the point.

Tiger's Fan
05-15-2009, 05:34 PM
I hope that Cassel succeeds. Absolutely.

But if the decision were up to ME (and it's clearly not), I would have chosen Sanchez/Unger over Jackson/Cassel.

I've posted "my" mock draft in the draft forum. It would have address every need on the offensive line, TE, WR, K and most importantly, QB. We would have had an offense that would grow together for the next 5 years and beyond (with Bowe, Charles, Albert & Cottam).

That's not how it worked out. I'm not "bitching" about it. I'm voicing my opinion.

After all, that's what this forum is for; voicing our opinions.

Unless somehow I missed the memo after Pioli was hired and we're all now supposed to fall in line like a bunch of lemmings.

And even then, I'd voice my opinion

Between your "not bitching" opinions about EVERYTHING, Hamas striking Pioli out constantly, and Mecca, with his irrefutable draft board, it's little wonder that all you're left to relate to on this board is that fucking idiot DCS. You are solidly a moron of the highest order, and most people on here laugh at your attempts to be condecending to folks you're not remotely as intelligent as.

It's a shame daddies money kept you from getting the proper beatdown you richly needed, and I'm sure, deserved as a young man. Maybe that way you would have grown to be a real man, instead of the sniveling little pussy you are today. What a joke.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 05:36 PM
Between your "not bitching" opinions about EVERYTHING, Hamas striking Pioli out constantly, and Mecca, with his irrefutable draft board, it's little wonder that all you're left to relate to on this board is that fucking idiot DCS. You are solidly a moron of the highest order, and most people on here laugh at your attempts to be condecending to folks you're not remotely as intelligent as.

It's a shame daddies money kept you from getting the proper beatdown you richly needed, and I'm sure, deserved as a young man. Maybe that way you would have grown to be a real man, instead of the sniveling little pussy you are today. What a joke.
Nice attempt at sounding tough. Take off the clownshoes.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 05:36 PM
Between your "not bitching" opinions about EVERYTHING, Hamas striking Pioli out constantly, and Mecca, with his irrefutable draft board, it's little wonder that all you're left to relate to on this board is that fucking idiot DCS. You are solidly a moron of the highest order, and most people on here laugh at your attempts to be condecending to folks you're not remotely as intelligent as.

Hmmm. I think you'd find that most people here would disagree with your assessment but I'd kindly advise you to FUCK yourself.

Enjoy!

It's a shame daddies money kept you from getting the proper beatdown you richly needed, and I'm sure, deserved as a young man. Maybe that way you would have grown to be a real man, instead of the sniveling little pussy you are today. What a joke.

ROFL

My parents are wealthy now? ROFL

I'm a pussy and need a beatdown? Is this a threat?

And the only joke around here, Buster, is you.

Fuck off.

Tiger's Fan
05-15-2009, 05:39 PM
Nice attempt at sounding tough. Take off the clownshoes.

Frankly, I'm shocked that YOU would come running to the rescue of a putz like Dane. Shocked I tell you.

Tiger's Fan
05-15-2009, 05:41 PM
Hmmm. I think you'd find that most people here would disagree with your assessment but I'd kindly advise you to **** yourself.

Enjoy!



ROFL

My parents are wealthy now? ROFL

I'm a pussy and need a beatdown? Is this a threat?

And the only joke around here, Buster, is you.

**** off.

If you have the balls to do so, start a poll asking if people on this board think you're a pathetic joke. I'll wait.

doomy3
05-15-2009, 05:42 PM
If you have the balls to do so, start a poll asking if people on this board think you're a pathetic joke. I'll wait.

He doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about him. He says it in every thread so everyone knows.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 05:45 PM
Frankly, I'm shocked that YOU would come running to the rescue of a putz like Dane. Shocked I tell you.
I'm not so much defending Dane as I am just disliking a post of yours. That happens a lot, btw. You're a Godawful poster.

bdeg
05-15-2009, 05:47 PM
Oh the hypocrisy. if you're going to constantly throw stones(often for no reason(Dane)), don't get mad when people throw them back. if you call me an idiot, be able to prove i'm an idiot.

you alternate between complaining about 'n00bs' starting fights, and then admit you start so many fights for so little reason, it must be an act, an online persona so outside the realm of realistic possibility we should know by default you're joking. which is it?

you claim hostility is running off quality members, how much of this hostility is generated by yourself?

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 05:49 PM
Frankly, I'm shocked that YOU would come running to the rescue of a putz like Dane. Shocked I tell you.

Internet tough guys are cool.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 05:50 PM
He doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks about him. He says it in every thread so everyone knows.

Why do you even bother? I guess you must be bored with your life.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 05:51 PM
Oh the hypocrisy. if you're going to constantly throw stones(often for no reason(Dane)), don't get mad when people throw them back. if you call me an idiot, be able to prove i'm an idiot.



Go ahead point out where I've "constantly" thrown "stones" without any reason.

I'll be waiting.

Nice work on Everette Brown, BTW. He was certainly worth the third pick in the draft.

doomy3
05-15-2009, 05:51 PM
Why do you even bother? I guess you must be bored with your life.

I was just helping your out so you didn't have to explain it for the 10000000000th time.

You're welcome.

Tiger's Fan
05-15-2009, 05:54 PM
I'm not so much defending Dane as I am just disliking a post of yours. That happens a lot, btw. You're a Godawful poster.

You're constantly defending the honor of Mecca, Dane, Hamas, OTWP and the like. That really makes you a wonderful poster, and an asset to the board. Sorry you never took up thinking for yourself. If you did, you may find that people are willing to listen to what you have to say. But if hanging with the "cool kids" is your thing, go with it. Just don't deny being an apologist for the assholes on this board. That just makes you look stupid.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 05:54 PM
You're constantly defending the honor of Mecca, Dane, Hamas, OTWP and the like. That really makes you a wonderful poster, and an asset to the board. Sorry you never took up thinking for yourself. If you did, you may find that people are willing to listen to what you have to say. But if hanging with the "cool kids" is your thing, go with it. Just don't deny being an apologist for the assholes on this board. That just makes you look stupid.

Says the biggest asshole.

Well, at least you're familiar with assholes.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 05:55 PM
If you have the balls to do so, start a poll asking if people on this board think you're a pathetic joke. I'll wait.

Yeah.

Like we need to do this for the third time?

Go search the archives for your answer, Son.

Tiger's Fan
05-15-2009, 05:56 PM
Yeah.

Like we need to do this for the third time?

Go search the archives for your answer, Son.

You were the one denying the fact. I already knew the answer.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 05:57 PM
You were the one denying the fact. I already knew the answer.

Which is?

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 06:02 PM
You're constantly defending the honor of Mecca, Dane, Hamas, OTWP and the like. That really makes you a wonderful poster, and an asset to the board. Sorry you never took up thinking for yourself. If you did, you may find that people are willing to listen to what you have to say. But if hanging with the "cool kids" is your thing, go with it. Just don't deny being an apologist for the assholes on this board. That just makes you look stupid.
You're coming on here with less than 1,000 posts and less than ten posts that don't make you look like a drooling simian and trying to lecture me about contributing to the board? Get the fuck out of here.

The worst part is that you think you're clever.

Tiger's Fan
05-15-2009, 06:03 PM
Which is?

You're an asshole. Water is wet.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 06:05 PM
You're an asshole. Water is wet.

ROFL

You obviously missed the point, Tough Guy.

I'm glad you had a poor upbringing and your daddy kicked the shit out of you everyday because you're SUCH a man now.

ROFL

Tiger's Fan
05-15-2009, 06:06 PM
You're coming on here with less than 1,000 posts and less than ten posts that don't make you look like a drooling simian and trying to lecture me about contributing to the board? Get the **** out of here.

The worst part is that you think you're clever.

Oh yes, lets get to post counts, since that means anything other than I have a life, and you waste company time and money. What do we do next, compare cock size? OK, if you wanna, but why make yourself look worse than you already do?

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 06:06 PM
I was just helping your out so you didn't have to explain it for the 10000000000th time.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

It seems I only need to do this in regards to the n00bs.

For some reason, I rub them the wrong way.

:hmmm:

(And maybe a few others).

LMAO

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 06:07 PM
Oh yes, lets get to post counts, since that means anything other than I have a life, and you waste company time and money. What do we do next, compare cock size? OK, if you wanna, but why make yourself look worse than you already do?

Wow, you ARE a tough guy!

I'm impressed!

And belittling someone for having thousands of posts on a message board.

That's a good one! I'll have to remember that!

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 06:08 PM
Oh yes, lets get to post counts, since that means anything other than I have a life, and you waste company time and money. What do we do next, compare cock size? OK, if you wanna, but why make yourself look worse than you already do?
Look, you'll win if we compare cock sizes. I must say, for an orangutan you have remarkably good English.

Tiger's Fan
05-15-2009, 06:10 PM
Wow, you ARE a tough guy!

I'm impressed!

And belittling someone for having thousands of posts on a message board.

That's a good one! I'll have to remember that!

You'd know if the time came. I'm quite certain as to what you are. The difference between you and me is anything I say on here I can say to anyones face. You, not so much. And with that, I'm out on friday night!

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 06:11 PM
You'd know if the time came. I'm quite certain as to what you are. The difference between you and me is anything I say on here I can say to anyones face. You, not so much. And with that, I'm out on friday night!

ROFL

Then clearly, you don't know a fucking thing about me, Hillbilly.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 06:14 PM
You'd know if the time came. I'm quite certain as to what you are. The difference between you and me is anything I say on here I can say to anyones face. You, not so much. And with that, I'm out on friday night!
Have fun at the Eagles club tonight. Play some Joe Diffie over the jukebox for me.

DaneMcCloud
05-15-2009, 06:15 PM
Have fun at the Eagles club tonight. Play some Joe Diffie over the jukebox for me.

He's my new favorite poster.

He's just so tough and cool.

orange
05-15-2009, 06:20 PM
Look, you'll win if we compare cock sizes. I must say, for an orangutan you have remarkably good English.

There's no evidence he's an orangutan. Leave us out of this.

Reaper16
05-15-2009, 06:23 PM
There's no evidence he's an orangutan. Leave us out of this.
He's too dumb to even be a Broncos fan. You're right, and I apologize.

His posting is more indicative of an Eastern Lowland Gorilla. My mistake.

Pioli Zombie
05-15-2009, 07:43 PM
I give anyone that didn't draft Mark Sanchez an F- for the offseason.

Yeah you don't pass on a Heisman winner and holder of as many NCAA passing records as Sanchez has in his unparalled college career.
Posted via Mobile Device

Mecca
05-15-2009, 07:45 PM
Yeah you don't pass on a Heisman winner and holder of as many NCAA passing records as Sanchez has in his unparalled college career.
Posted via Mobile Device

So you think guys like Colt Brennan and Timmy Chang were great prospects?

Raised On Riots
05-15-2009, 07:48 PM
In the time I've been here, the "idiots" have been far more insightful and knowledgeable than Hamas seemed to be. I've seen posts where people praised his knowledge, but he surely kept his knowledge well hidden this offseason, at least on this main board.

For the record, given that the team finally canned the leadership that almost everyone here hated, brought in a man considered among the very best to be GM, and brought in a new starting QB, it's absurd for people like Mecca, Hamas and company to be complaining when people want to give that group the benefit of the doubt and really don't want every thread to turn into a buzzkill. They are defying human nature, and they should know better. Hamas with his "strike #", and Mecca seemingly doing his best Eeyore impression about almost everything the team was doing, placed themselves in a position where it was a virtual guarantee that they'd be opposed when they posted. "True Fan", "Jesus" and the rest of the derogatories of that sort were certainly not brought up by others and aimed at them: it was the other way around.

Masterpiece Theater.

Where exactly was I crying? I think your reading comprehension needs a tune up, as well as your overall persona.

I disagree.

Nice attempt at sounding tough. Take off the clownshoes.

Hymen is a jizz-lobbing, hit and douche artist like Mikey; utterly pointless, completely useless, and a fine punching bag.

Look, you'll win if we compare cock sizes. I must say, for an orangutan you have remarkably good English.

ROFL

You'd know if the time came. I'm quite certain as to what you are. The difference between you and me is anything I say on here I can say to anyones face. You, not so much. And with that, I'm out on friday night!

Well, have a good time at 'Missy B's", and don't let the lob hit you in the eye! 4321
http://streetview.merchantcircle.com/480X360/8/6/1/1/5178611.JPG

Raised On Riots
05-15-2009, 07:49 PM
So you think guys like Colt Brennan and Timmy Chang were great prospects?

Hey Hey!

Welcome back! :toast:

htismaqe
05-15-2009, 09:24 PM
I'm referring to what's happened over the course of the past few months since Pioli's been hired.

Not the entire history of Chiefsplanet.

And while I agree it's been controlled by the "negative crowd", I think that has more to do with folks being tired of Carl Peterson's never-ending regime than with the actual players and coaches.

So was I. The last few weeks are utterly ironic, considering how this place used to be.

The pendulum swings back and forth - some day soon, negativity will once again rule the day.

Buehler445
05-15-2009, 09:27 PM
So was I. The last few weeks are utterly ironic, considering how this place used to be.

The pendulum swings back and forth - some day soon, negativity will once again rule the day.

Hopefully not before the organization wins 10 straight super bowls.