PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs Will Cassel lead us to a playoff win?


BossChief
11-15-2009, 03:12 AM
I want to see what the majority of the board feels on this topic. Feel free to wait till after the Raiders game if you so choose.

Count Alex's Losses
11-15-2009, 04:00 AM
Yes.

michaelj_58
11-15-2009, 05:01 AM
we have to get to one first!

Warrior5
11-15-2009, 05:05 AM
Maybe next season, when the Chiefs actually become a real team again.

milkman
11-15-2009, 08:28 AM
Maybe next season, when the Chiefs actually become a real team again.

Next season?

It's too early to be smoking crack, isn't it?

MadMax
11-15-2009, 08:30 AM
Next season?

It's too early to be smoking crack, isn't it?




97.3% of crack smokers haven't even been to bed yet. :D

boogblaster
11-15-2009, 08:32 AM
yes ..... but prolly in two years ......

Bane
11-15-2009, 08:52 AM
Maybe in 2-3 years,but I doubt it.He might hand it,or dump it off to a RB enough to see us in the playoffs,but I don't see him "leading" us anywhere.Sorry Cassel-ites......

RJ
11-15-2009, 09:08 AM
Not a knock directly on Cassel, but I don't see him still being the QB by the time this team makes the playoffs. The Chiefs have to get better, some other teams have to regress, Cassel has to stay healthy and perform well enough to keep his job; oh, and then there would be that part about actually winning a playoff game.

The odds tell me no. Hopefully the odds will be defied.

cdcox
11-15-2009, 09:11 AM
You can win a lot of playoff games with a bad QB. You can even win a Super Bowl: see Trent Dilfer.

The real question is do you think Cassel has the potential to be a HOF quarterback. Teams that have one of those have the best chance of putting together a team that can consistently contend for the league championship. If the answer is no, Cassel is the wrong guy.

Bane
11-15-2009, 09:19 AM
You can win a lot of playoff games with a bad QB. You can even win a Super Bowl: see Trent Dilfer.

The real question is do you think Cassel has the potential to be a HOF quarterback. Teams that have one of those have the best chance of putting together a team that can consistently contend for the league championship. If the answer is no, Cassel is the wrong guy.

Yeah but the question was will Cassel lead us to a playoff win.That implies that he will be take command of the offense and be the reason we win that said playoff game.With what I've seen of Cassel so far,theres no question at all to me,the answer is no.

Baconeater
11-15-2009, 09:28 AM
No, but it won't completely be his fault. This backwards-ass organization has so far to go before it can even think about sniffing a playoff berth that he likely will be retired before it happens.

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 09:33 AM
You can win a lot of playoff games with a bad QB. You can even win a Super Bowl: see Trent Dilfer.

The real question is do you think Cassel has the potential to be a HOF quarterback. Teams that have one of those have the best chance of putting together a team that can consistently contend for the league championship. If the answer is no, Cassel is the wrong guy.

What if the answer is so fucking laughable that it's impossible even to get to the level of "fuck no"?

Ebolapox
11-15-2009, 09:38 AM
le sigh. I fucking hope so. I'll take a playoff win. a lombardi would be even nicer, but we can't hope for much here.

Royal Fanatic
11-15-2009, 09:41 AM
The premise of this thread is flawed because Matt Cassel isn't the problem with the Chiefs.

Matt Cassel is not Peyton Mannning or Tom Brady or Drew Brees or Brett Favre or Ben Roethlisberger. He's also not JaMarcus Russell or Derek Anderson or Jake Helhomme.

He's a decent quarterback who can take you to the playoffs if he has a good supporting cast. He'll never be a Hall of Famer, but guess what: Hall of Fame quarterbacks don't come along every day. Anyone who spends his time obsessing about Matt Cassel is completely missing the point: the Chiefs have to get A LOT BETTER at 21 other positions before they can even think about making the playoffs. They've already addressed the quarterback position for the foreseeable future. Deal with it.

Would I have preferred to see them draft Sanchez? Yes. But there's no guarantee that Sanchez or any other rookie will lead you to the promised land. Pioli picked Cassel. It's a hell of a lot more important now for him to build a team around him than to constantly second guess the quarterback decision.

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 09:43 AM
To follow up on cdcox's post, in all seriousness I believe the fair question should be:

Can this QB win you a SB?

There is a BIG difference between this and asking, "Can you win a SB with this QB."

chiefzilla1501
11-15-2009, 09:43 AM
Will Cassel lead the Chiefs to the playoffs? Probably not.

Can he be a QB that manages a playoff win if you give him a powerful running game and a great defense? I don't see why not. Love him or hate him, he's done very well in late game situations. I could see him being a guy who can finish a game off if the defense puts him in a position to win.

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 09:46 AM
The premise of this thread is flawed because Matt Cassel isn't the problem with the Chiefs.

Matt Cassel is not Peyton Mannning or Tom Brady or Drew Brees or Brett Favre or Ben Roethlisberger. He's also not JaMarcus Russell or Derek Anderson or Jake Helhomme.

He's a decent quarterback who can take you to the playoffs if he has a good supporting cast. He'll never be a Hall of Famer, but guess what: Hall of Fame quarterbacks don't come along every day. Anyone who spends his time obsessing about Matt Cassel is completely missing the point: the Chiefs have to get A LOT BETTER at 21 other positions before they can even think about making the playoffs. They've already addressed the quarterback position for the foreseeable future. Deal with it.

Would I have preferred to see them draft Sanchez? Yes. But there's no guarantee that Sanchez or any other rookie will lead you to the promised land. Pioli picked Cassel. It's a hell of a lot more important now for him to build a team around him than to constantly second guess the quarterback decision.

Hey, Dayton. Good to see you posting.

Now try not to be a complete fucking dumbass this off-season with your moves for the franchise. In short, do everything opposite of your gut instincts.

Baconeater
11-15-2009, 09:46 AM
To follow up on cdcox's post, in all seriousness I believe the fair question should be:

Can this QB win you a SB?

There is a BIG difference between this and asking, "Can you win a SB with this QB."
No, the fair question is this:

Can this organization win a SB?

Because if the answer is no, any other arguments regarding personnel are pointless.

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 09:48 AM
No, the fair question is this:

Can this organization win a SB?

Because if the answer is no, any other arguments regarding personnel are pointless.

Well, if you don't think we have the ownership in place to allow the GM to make the necessary moves, then I agree with this statement.

Right now, however, I need more evidence to make that damning of an accusation against Clark.

stevieray
11-15-2009, 09:50 AM
No, the fair question is this:

Can this organization win a SB?

Because if the answer is no, any other arguments regarding personnel are pointless.pretty much..

..another question would be will the organization ever put him in a situaton to win a playoff game.

chiefzilla1501
11-15-2009, 09:51 AM
Well, if you don't think we have the ownership in place to allow the GM to make the necessary moves, then I agree with this statement.

Right now, however, I need more evidence to make that damning of an accusation against Clark.

Agreed. For as much shit as he gets, he fired a powerful GM and hired a guy most considered to be the best GM on the market.

Things haven't worked out as expected. But I think Pioli/Hunt deserve at least 3-5 years to figure this thing out. That doesn't mean we should excuse mistakes. But it amazes me how many are out there to crucify these guys.

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 09:53 AM
Agreed. For as much shit as he gets, he fired a powerful GM and hired a guy most considered to be the best GM on the market.

Things haven't worked out as expected. But I think Pioli/Hunt deserve at least 3-5 years to figure this thing out. That doesn't mean we should excuse mistakes. But it amazes me how many are out there to crucify these guys.

It's clear that Hunt backed the Brinks truck up to get Pioli, so I find it hard to believe that Scott won't be equipped with the necessary tools to do his job. If he's not going to be...why waste all the money in the first place? Makes no fucking sense.

Royal Fanatic
11-15-2009, 10:03 AM
Hey, Dayton. Good to see you posting.

Now try not to be a complete fucking dumbass this off-season with your moves for the franchise. In short, do everything opposite of your gut instincts.
I'm planning to bring in a bunch more guys who might hit up 20 home runs and strike out 150 times. You good with that?

Baconeater
11-15-2009, 10:04 AM
Agreed. For as much shit as he gets, he fired a powerful GM and hired a guy most considered to be the best GM on the market.

Things haven't worked out as expected. But I think Pioli/Hunt deserve at least 3-5 years to figure this thing out. That doesn't mean we should excuse mistakes. But it amazes me how many are out there to crucify these guys.
Oh, ok, so the fans should all keep happily shelling out for season tickets and $8 beers for 3-5 years while Mr Executive of the Year tries to "figure it out". Gotcha.

chiefzilla1501
11-15-2009, 10:07 AM
Oh, ok, so the fans should all keep happily shelling out for season tickets and $8 beers for 3-5 years while Mr Executive of the Year tries to "figure it out". Gotcha.

I never said that. I've been very critical of Pioli and there are a lot of moves that have pissed me off.

But you have to be on crack to think that the team Pioli inherited is 3-5 years away from being where it needs to be, regardless of who is the GM. Anyone who expects results sooner has unreasonable expectations.

bevischief
11-15-2009, 10:08 AM
Next season?

It's too early to be smoking crack, isn't it?

No not really...

milkman
11-15-2009, 10:10 AM
No not really...

I'll defer to your clear expertise on the subject.

bevischief
11-15-2009, 10:12 AM
I'll defer to your clear expertise on the subject.

ROFL

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 10:15 AM
I'm planning to bring in a bunch more guys who might hit up 20 home runs and strike out 150 times. You good with that?

As long as they have a sub .300 OBP, I'm good.

Fuck statistics, really. Who knows how "they" figure those things...

Mr. Laz
11-15-2009, 10:18 AM
Way too early for this kind of shit.

It depends far more on Pioli and Haley than it does on Cassel.

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 10:26 AM
The premise of this thread is flawed because Matt Cassel isn't the problem with the Chiefs.

Matt Cassel is not Peyton Mannning or Tom Brady or Drew Brees or Brett Favre or Ben Roethlisberger. He's also not JaMarcus Russell or Derek Anderson or Jake Helhomme.

He's a decent quarterback who can take you to the playoffs if he has a good supporting cast. He'll never be a Hall of Famer, but guess what: Hall of Fame quarterbacks don't come along every day. Anyone who spends his time obsessing about Matt Cassel is completely missing the point: the Chiefs have to get A LOT BETTER at 21 other positions before they can even think about making the playoffs. They've already addressed the quarterback position for the foreseeable future. Deal with it.

Would I have preferred to see them draft Sanchez? Yes. But there's no guarantee that Sanchez or any other rookie will lead you to the promised land. Pioli picked Cassel. It's a hell of a lot more important now for him to build a team around him than to constantly second guess the quarterback decision.

This type of logical reasoning will get you nowhere here, you need to learn to be way more pissy about things and whine about what didn't happen 5 months ago even though there is no way to change that now.

Start using terms like Ego, The right 53, as well as 22 guys off the street.That will grease the wheels of acceptance here for you.

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 10:33 AM
Start using terms like The right 53, as well as 22 guys off the street.That will grease the wheels of acceptance here for you.

Ego aside, the above is ironic.

Noss
11-15-2009, 10:50 AM
Playoffs? Playoffs?? Their just trying to win a game!

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 10:51 AM
Ego aside, the above is ironic.

Not really, one phrase is practically urban legend that is treated as fact and the other is so misconstrued it is ridiculous.

I am sure the right 53 means they expected to have the right 53 this year and contend for a SB.

Tribal Warfare
11-15-2009, 10:52 AM
The premise of this thread is flawed because Matt Cassel isn't the problem with the Chiefs.

Matt Cassel is not Peyton Mannning or Tom Brady or Drew Brees or Brett Favre or Ben Roethlisberger. He's also not JaMarcus Russell or Derek Anderson or Jake Helhomme.

He's a decent quarterback who can take you to the playoffs if he has a good supporting cast. He'll never be a Hall of Famer, but guess what: Hall of Fame quarterbacks don't come along every day. Anyone who spends his time obsessing about Matt Cassel is completely missing the point: the Chiefs have to get A LOT BETTER at 21 other positions before they can even think about making the playoffs. They've already addressed the quarterback position for the foreseeable future. Deal with it.

Would I have preferred to see them draft Sanchez? Yes. But there's no guarantee that Sanchez or any other rookie will lead you to the promised land. Pioli picked Cassel. It's a hell of a lot more important now for him to build a team around him than to constantly second guess the quarterback decision.

So essentially your saying you are complacent with an above average game manager, and concede that Cassel isn't a franchise QB

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 10:53 AM
I am sure the right 53 means they expected to have the right 53 this year and contend for a SB.

And no one has parodied the phrase to this effect, either.

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 10:53 AM
So essentially your saying you are complacent with an above average game manager, and concede that Cassel isn't a franchise QB

Yea that's exactly what he was saying. LMAO.

Tribal Warfare
11-15-2009, 10:55 AM
Yea that's exactly what he was saying. LMAO.

Well, if Cassel isn't among the category he's debating then that's exactly what he is saying

Bane
11-15-2009, 10:55 AM
<object style="height: 344px; width: 425px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p3-eavMSBnk"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p3-eavMSBnk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></object>

chiefzilla1501
11-15-2009, 10:57 AM
So essentially your saying you are complacent with an above average game manager, and concede that Cassel isn't a franchise QB

You're going to be continually disappointed if you keep wanting a QB to be Big Ben, Brady, or Manning. Few are. Doesn't mean you can't be a franchise QB. Eli is a lot more of an average game manager than Philip Rivers, and I'd take Eli 8 days a week over Rivers.

Tribal Warfare
11-15-2009, 10:58 AM
You're going to be continually disappointed if you keep wanting a QB to be Big Ben, Brady, or Manning. Few are.

and they all won SBs, hence the reason why building a team for a championship is difficult to pull off.

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 11:08 AM
and they all won SBs, hence the reason why building a team for a championship is difficult to pull off.

Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have won SB''s as well. That doesn't mean I want that type of QB but it also tells you the QB doesn't have to be elite.

Tribal Warfare
11-15-2009, 11:11 AM
Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have won SB''s as well. That doesn't mean I want that type of QB but it also tells you the QB doesn't have to be elite.


http://www.sportspool.com/football/nfl_history/nfl_football_league_records_superbowlwinners.php

mediocre QBs are the best!!!!!!!!!!!! look at both teams that made SBs at least one has had a stellar QB on the average.

jspchief
11-15-2009, 11:20 AM
Oh, ok, so the fans should all keep happily shelling out for season tickets and $8 beers for 3-5 years while Mr Executive of the Year tries to "figure it out". Gotcha.Didn't take long for some fans to long for the Carl Peterson days.

milkman
11-15-2009, 11:32 AM
Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have won SB''s as well. That doesn't mean I want that type of QB but it also tells you the QB doesn't have to be elite.

But those teams had elite talent elsewhere, and with a better QB, could/should have won more than one SB, especially the Ravens.

Putting an elite QB out there, or even one who is just below that level, gives you a better chance to win a championships, and to compete at a championship level for an extended period of time.

milkman
11-15-2009, 11:34 AM
Didn't take long for some fans to long for the Carl Peterson days.

I highly doubt that there's more than a handfull of idiots pining for the Carl Peterson days.

What we are pining for is Pioli to show us he is something other than the Hoodie's glorified ballwasher.

baitism
11-15-2009, 12:50 PM
In other news, 65% of Chiefs fans are delusional.

JASONSAUTO
11-15-2009, 12:53 PM
Well, if Cassel isn't among the category he's debating then that's exactly what he is saying

so only future hall of famers are now considered as "franchise qbs"? WOW the definition changes with the day

Tribal Warfare
11-15-2009, 01:01 PM
so only future hall of famers are now considered as "franchise qbs"? WOW the definition changes with the day


http://football.about.com/cs/superbowl/a/sbquarterbacks.htm

look at the average of HOFers on both teams that made it, so yeah a team who has QB who can take a team year in and year on his own steam could be called a HOFer. look at the list of starters in SB through the years



(*) = age at time of Super Bowl

I - 1/15/67
Bart Starr, Green Bay Packers - Alabama (*33)
Len Dawson, Kansas City Chiefs - Purdue (31)

II - 1/14/68
Bart Starr, Green Bay Packers - Alabama (34)
Daryle Lamonica, Oakland Raiders - Notre Dame (26)

III - 1/12/69
Joe Namath, New York Jets - Alabama (25)
Earl Morrall, Baltimore Colts - Michigan State (34)

IV - 1/11/70
Len Dawson, Kansas City Chiefs - Purdue (34)
Joe Kapp, Minnesota Vikings - California (31)

V - 1/17/71
Johnny Unitas, Baltimore Colts - Louisville (37)
Craig Morton, Dallas Cowboys - California (27)

VI - 1/16/72
Roger Staubach, Dallas Cowboys - Navy (29)
Bob Griese, Miami Dolphins - Purdue (26)

VII - 1/14/73
Bob Griese, Miami Dolphins - Purdue (27)
Bill Kilmer, Washington Redskins - UCLA (33)

VIII - 1/13/74
Bob Griese, Miami Dolphins - Purdue (28)
Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota Vikings - Georgia (33)

IX - 1/12/75
Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh Steelers - Louisiana Tech (26)
Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota Vikings - Georgia (34)

X - 1/18/76
Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh Steelers - Louisiana Tech (27)
Roger Staubach, Dallas Cowboys - Navy (33)

XI - 1/9/77
Ken Stabler, Oakland Raiders - Alabama (31)
Fran Tarkenton, Minnesota Vikings - Georgia (36)

XII - 1/15/78
Roger Staubach, Dallas Cowboys - Navy (35)
Craig Morton, Denver Broncos - California (34)

XIII - 1/21/79
Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh Steelers - Louisiana Tech (30)
Roger Staubach, Dallas Cowboys - Navy (36)

XIV - 1/20/80
Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh Steelers - Louisiana Tech (31)
Vince Ferragamo, Los Angeles Rams - California, Nebraska (25)

XV - 1/25/81
Jim Plunkett, Oakland Raiders - Stanford (33)
Ron Jaworski, Philadelphia Eagles - Youngstown State (29)

XVI - 1/24/82
Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers - Notre Dame (25)
Ken Anderson, Cincinnati Bengals - Augustana (IL) (32)

XVII - 1/30/83
Joe Theismann, Washington Redskins - Notre Dame (33)
David Woodley, Miami Dolphins - Louisiana State (24)

XVIII - 1/22/84
Jim Plunkett, Los Angeles Raiders - Stanford (36)
Joe Theismann, Washington Redskins - Notre Dame (34)

XIX - 1/20/85
Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers - Notre Dame (28)
Dan Marino, Miami Dolphins - Pittsburgh (23)

XX - 1/26/86
Jim McMahon, Chicago Bears - BYU (26)
Tony Eason, New England Patriots - Illinois (26)

XXI - 1/25/87
Phil Simms, New York Giants - Morehead State (32)
John Elway, Denver Broncos - Stanford (26)

XXII - 1/31/88
Doug Williams, Washington Redskins - Grambling (32)
John Elway, Denver Broncos - Stanford (27)

XXIII - 1/22/89
Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers - Notre Dame (32)
Boomer Esiason, Cincinnati Bengals - Maryland (27)

XXIV - 1/28/90
Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers - Notre Dame (33)
John Elway, Denver Broncos - Stanford (29)

XXV - 1/27/91
Jeff Hostetler, New York Giants - West Virginia (29)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills - Miami (FL) (30)

XXVI - 1/26/92
Mark Rypien, Washington Redskins - Washington State (30)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills - Miami (FL) (31)

XXVII - 1/31/93
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys - Oklahoma, UCLA (26)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills - Miami (FL) (32)

XXVIII - 1/30/94
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys - Oklahoma, UCLA (27)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills - Miami (FL) (33)

XXIX - 1/29/95
Steve Young, San Francisco 49ers - BYU (33)
Stan Humphries, San Diego Chargers - NE Louisiana (29)

XXX - 1/28/96
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys - Oklahoma, UCLA (29)
Neil O'Donnell, Pittsburgh Steelers - Maryland (29)

XXXI - 1/26/97
Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers - Southern Mississippi (27)
Drew Bledsoe, New England Patriots - Washington State (24)

XXXII - 1/25/98
John Elway, Denver Broncos - Stanford (37)
Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers - Southern Mississippi (28)

XXXIII - 1/31/99
John Elway, Denver Broncos - Stanford (38)
Chris Chandler, Atlanta Falcons - Washington (33)

XXXIV - 1/30/00
Kurt Warner, St. Louis Rams - Northern Iowa (28)
Steve McNair, Tennessee Titans - Alcorn State (26)

XXXV - 1/28/01
Trent Dilfer, Baltimore Ravens - Fresno State (28)
Kerry Collins, New York Giants - Penn State (28)

XXXVI - 2/3/02
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - Michigan (24)
Kurt Warner, St. Louis Rams - Northern Iowa (30)

XXXVII - 1/26/03
Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Florida State (34)
Rich Gannon, Oakland Raiders - Delaware (37)

XXXVIII - 2/1/04
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - Michigan (26)
Jake Delhomme, Carolina Panthers - Louisiana-Lafayette (29)

XXXVIX - 2/6/05
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - Michigan (27)
Donovan McNabb, Philadelphia - Syracuse (28)

XL - 2/5/06
Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers - Miami (OH) (23)
Matt Hasselbeck, Seattle - Boston College (30)

XLI - 2/4/07
Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts - Tennessee (30)
Rex Grossman, Chicago Bears - Florida (26)

XLII - 2/3/08
Eli Manning, New York Giants - Ole Miss (27)
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - Michigan (30)

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 01:03 PM
But those teams had elite talent elsewhere, and with a better QB, could/should have won more than one SB, especially the Ravens.

Putting an elite QB out there, or even one who is just below that level, gives you a better chance to win a championships, and to compete at a championship level for an extended period of time.

Those teams could have won multiple SB's with a Trent Green caliber QB. You don't have to have a HOF QB to be successful and the odds of finding one are not good.

I want a franchise QB as much as the next guy but to take the attitude that we are wasting our time doing anything else until we draft the next Manning is ridiculous and that seems to be the attitude of a lot of people around here.

cdcox
11-15-2009, 01:05 PM
so only future hall of famers are now considered as "franchise qbs"? WOW the definition changes with the day

If you don't think your QB has a chance to be a HOFer while he is playing, he's not a franchise QB.

Tribal Warfare
11-15-2009, 01:07 PM
Those teams could have won multiple SB's with a Trent Green caliber QB. You don't have to have a HOF QB to be successful and the odds of finding one are not good.



right check out the list, most of those guys who played in the SB are in the HOF

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 01:07 PM
http://football.about.com/cs/superbowl/a/sbquarterbacks.htm

look at the average of HOFers on both teams that made it, so yeah a team who has QB who can take a team year in and year on his own steam could be called a HOFer. look at the list of starters in SB through the years









XXIV - 1/28/90
Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers - Notre Dame (33)
John Elway, Denver Broncos - Stanford (29)

XXV - 1/27/91
Jeff Hostetler, New York Giants - West Virginia (29)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills - Miami (FL) (30)

XXVI - 1/26/92
Mark Rypien, Washington Redskins - Washington State (30)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills - Miami (FL) (31)

XXVII - 1/31/93
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys - Oklahoma, UCLA (26)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills - Miami (FL) (32)

XXVIII - 1/30/94
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys - Oklahoma, UCLA (27)
Jim Kelly, Buffalo Bills - Miami (FL) (33)

XXIX - 1/29/95
Steve Young, San Francisco 49ers - BYU (33)
Stan Humphries, San Diego Chargers - NE Louisiana (29)

XXX - 1/28/96
Troy Aikman, Dallas Cowboys - Oklahoma, UCLA (29)
Neil O'Donnell, Pittsburgh Steelers - Maryland (29)

XXXI - 1/26/97
Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers - Southern Mississippi (27)
Drew Bledsoe, New England Patriots - Washington State (24)

XXXII - 1/25/98
John Elway, Denver Broncos - Stanford (37)
Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers - Southern Mississippi (28)

XXXIII - 1/31/99
John Elway, Denver Broncos - Stanford (38)
Chris Chandler, Atlanta Falcons - Washington (33)

XXXIV - 1/30/00
Kurt Warner, St. Louis Rams - Northern Iowa (28)
Steve McNair, Tennessee Titans - Alcorn State (26)

XXXV - 1/28/01
Trent Dilfer, Baltimore Ravens - Fresno State (28)
Kerry Collins, New York Giants - Penn State (28)

XXXVI - 2/3/02
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - Michigan (24)
Kurt Warner, St. Louis Rams - Northern Iowa (30)

XXXVII - 1/26/03
Brad Johnson, Tampa Bay Buccaneers - Florida State (34)
Rich Gannon, Oakland Raiders - Delaware (37)

XXXVIII - 2/1/04
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - Michigan (26)
Jake Delhomme, Carolina Panthers - Louisiana-Lafayette (29)

XXXVIX - 2/6/05
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - Michigan (27)
Donovan McNabb, Philadelphia - Syracuse (28)

XL - 2/5/06
Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers - Miami (OH) (23)
Matt Hasselbeck, Seattle - Boston College (30)

XLI - 2/4/07
Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts - Tennessee (30)
Rex Grossman, Chicago Bears - Florida (26)

XLII - 2/3/08
Eli Manning, New York Giants - Ole Miss (27)
Tom Brady, New England Patriots - Michigan (30)

Since 1990 I count 15 non elite QB's in the SB.

Tribal Warfare
11-15-2009, 01:09 PM
Since 1990 I count 15 non elite QB's in the SB.



I said look at either side at least one has a HOFer on it on the average, nice wat to twist what I said.

milkman
11-15-2009, 01:10 PM
Those teams could have won multiple SB's with a Trent Green caliber QB. You don't have to have a HOF QB to be successful and the odds of finding one are not good.

I want a franchise QB as much as the next guy but to take the attitude that we are wasting our time doing anything else until we draft the next Manning is ridiculous and that seems to be the attitude of a lot of people around here.

I understand that you don't necessarily need franchise QBs, and that a Trent Green type could win a SB when surrounded by talent.

But I don't believe that anyone thinks we're wasting our time until we draft the next Manning.

They are, however, frustrated by the fact this franchise doesn't even attempt to find that franchise QB.

Trading for a career backup is not an attempt to secure a franchise type QB.

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 01:10 PM
McNair, in his prime, was elite.

And I'd take E. Manning every single day.

cdcox
11-15-2009, 01:15 PM
Those teams could have won multiple SB's with a Trent Green caliber QB. You don't have to have a HOF QB to be successful and the odds of finding one are not good.

I want a franchise QB as much as the next guy but to take the attitude that we are wasting our time doing anything else until we draft the next Manning is ridiculous and that seems to be the attitude of a lot of people around here.

If Trent Green had won 2 SB, and had double the number of productive years, he'd be a very strong contender for the HOFer. He stays healthy for the Ram's first SB run, and it could have been.

Trent didn't have the strongest arm, but his down field accuracy and pocket presence are a much better than Cassel's, differences in OL not withstanding.

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 01:19 PM
McNair, in his prime, was elite.

And I'd take E. Manning every single day.

You are entitled to your opinion but at this point Eli is not elite and is looking more avg without Burress.

McNair was definitely above avg but not elite. If you want to call McNair elite then you better call Tent Green elite because Trent had better numbers than McNair when they were playing at the same time.

McNair started 41 games more than Trent and only threw 12 more TD's.

Here is a link to their career numbers.

http://www.nfl.com/players/stevemcnair/profile?id=MCN033803

http://www.nfl.com/players/trentgreen/profile?id=GRE367521

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 01:20 PM
If Trent Green had won 2 SB, and had double the number of productive years, he'd be a very strong contender for the HOFer. He stays healthy for the Ram's first SB run, and it could have been.

Trent didn't have the strongest arm, but his down field accuracy and pocket presence are a much better than Cassel's, differences in OL not withstanding.

Trent threw 23 picks his first year in KC with a better o-line and the leading rusher in the NFL that year. It took him some time to get going.

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 01:21 PM
You are entitled to your opinion but at this point Eli is not elite and is looking more avg without Burress.

McNair was definitely above avg but not elite. If you want to call McNair elite then you better call Tent Green elite because Trent had better numbers than McNair when they were playing at the same time.

McNair started 41 games more than Trent and only threw 12 more TD's.

Here is a link to their career numbers.

http://www.nfl.com/players/stevemcnair/profile?id=MCN033803

http://www.nfl.com/players/trentgreen/profile?id=GRE367521

It's not an arguable point to say that Green put up damn good numbers. He did. And he had a tremendous amount of heart.

My reservation with Green was that he didn't seem to have the "it" factor as much as other QBs, especially someone like McNair.

Manning gets far too much abuse on this board.

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 01:29 PM
It's not an arguable point to say that Green put up damn good numbers. He did. And he had a tremendous amount of heart.

My reservation with Green was that he didn't seem to have the "it" factor as much as other QBs, especially someone like McNair.

Manning gets far too much abuse on this board.

I love the "it" factor.

Nothing like using something that cannot be measured, cannot be quantified, and cannot be proven to make your point.

McNair had more "it" than Green. Yup I see it now.

milkman
11-15-2009, 01:31 PM
You are entitled to your opinion but at this point Eli is not elite and is looking more avg without Burress.

McNair was definitely above avg but not elite. If you want to call McNair elite then you better call Tent Green elite because Trent had better numbers than McNair when they were playing at the same time.

McNair started 41 games more than Trent and only threw 12 more TD's.

Here is a link to their career numbers.

http://www.nfl.com/players/stevemcnair/profile?id=MCN033803

http://www.nfl.com/players/trentgreen/profile?id=GRE367521

Yeah, Green put up some great numbers, but when you needed plays in critical situations, I'd take McNair every tme.

That is what separates a franchise QB from the rest, at least for me.

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 01:32 PM
I love the "it" factor.

Nothing like using something that cannot be measured, cannot be quantified, and cannot be proven to make your point.

McNair had more "it" than Green. Yup I see it now.

Yeah, unfortunately most effective arguments resist absolutes.

Pioli Zombie
11-15-2009, 01:33 PM
You can win a lot of playoff games with a bad QB. You can even win a Super Bowl: see Trent Dilfer.

The real question is do you think Cassel has the potential to be a HOF quarterback. Teams that have one of those have the best chance of putting together a team that can consistently contend for the league championship. If the answer is no, Cassel is the wrong guy.
Ok, so qho is this Hall of Fame quarterback the Chiefs should have gotten?
Posted via Mobile Device

milkman
11-15-2009, 01:34 PM
I love the "it" factor.

Nothing like using something that cannot be measured, cannot be quantified, and cannot be proven to make your point.

McNair had more "it" than Green. Yup I see it now.

"It" can not be defined, measured, quatified.

But when you watch the game, "It" isn't hard to see.

Brady, Manning, Reothlisberger have "It".

Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, Staubaugh, Starr to name a few had "It".

Green didn't have "It".

DeezNutz
11-15-2009, 01:34 PM
Ok, so qho is this Hall of Fame quarterback the Chiefs should have gotten?
Posted via Mobile Device

Is this post in earnest?

cdcox
11-15-2009, 01:35 PM
Trent threw 23 picks his first year in KC with a better o-line and the leading rusher in the NFL that year. It took him some time to get going.

He also had 7.2 yards per attempt, and had over 3500 yards passing. Those are big league stats. He was a productive QB that threw way too many INTs. I don't see any kind of positive I can say about Cassel that shows potential for him to be a top 5 to 10 QB, which is what Green was from 2003 - 2005.

Granted Cassel averaged 7.2 ypa last year, but he was throwing to Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Those are big YAC receivers. I think Green in his prime in that offense would have had a good shot at the SB.

BossChief
11-15-2009, 01:38 PM
Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have won SB''s as well. That doesn't mean I want that type of QB but it also tells you the QB doesn't have to be elite.those teams had two of the top five defenses of all time FCS.

Trent threw 23 picks his first year in KC with a better o-line and the leading rusher in the NFL that year. It took him some time to get going.
Trent wasnt a pussy, he put the deep ball up with consistency and made his mistakes trying to make a play for his team. Up to this point, Cassel is gunshy.

If our defense was even average during 03 and 05...we have a shot at a superbowl IMO.

I dont understand why people want to change the goalposts of the threads question. If the clear answer to you is no, then say it. No need to sugar coat it, it is what it is.

If Cassel cant LEAD us to a playoff win, he is not the guy in your mind. Simple as that.

Dont dance around the elephant in the room because you are afraid of facing it.

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 01:39 PM
He also had 7.9 yards per attempt, and had over 3500 yards passing. Those are big league stats. He was a productive QB that threw way too many INTs. I don't see any kind of positive I can say about Cassel that shows potential for him to be a top 5 to 10 QB, which is what Green was from 2003 - 2005.

Granted Cassel averaged 7.2 ypa last year, but he was throwing to Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Those are big YAC receivers. I think Green in his prime in that offense would have had a good shot at the SB.

I am not arguing Green wasn't a great QB I am just saying he didn't come out the gate kicking ass and he had better talent around him than this team has.

He did have some shit receivers his first year though.

Marcellus
11-15-2009, 01:40 PM
those teams had two of the top five defenses of all time FCS.


Trent wasnt a pussy, he put the deep ball up with consistency and made his mistakes trying to make a play for his team. Up to this point, Cassel is gunshy.

If our defense was even average during 03 and 05...we have a shot at a superbowl IMO.

I dont understand why people want to change the goalposts of the threads question. If the clear answer to you is no, then say it. No need to sugar coat it, it is what it is.

If Cassel cant LEAD us to a playoff win, he is not the guy in your mind. Simple as that.

Dont dance around the elephant in the room because you are afraid of facing it.

I voted yes who is moving the goal post?

chiefzilla1501
11-15-2009, 01:43 PM
"It" can not be defined, measured, quatified.

But when you watch the game, "It" isn't hard to see.

Brady, Manning, Reothlisberger have "It".

Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, Staubaugh, Starr to name a few had "It".

Green didn't have "It".

Y'know, when I saw Cassel last year, I thought he had "it." That's something that's really been disappointing to me. He needs to stop moping around every time he gets hit and he needs to play with the kind of fire he played with the first 1 or 2 weeks.

Pioli Zombie
11-15-2009, 01:44 PM
Is this post in earnest?
Yes. Who is this Hall of fame franchise qb the Chiefs should have gotten. Because really the alternative to Cassel was Mark Sanchez. Hall of Fame franchise qb? Yeah, um, NOT!
Posted via Mobile Device

BossChief
11-15-2009, 01:45 PM
"It" can not be defined, measured, quatified.

But when you watch the game, "It" isn't hard to see.

Brady, Manning, Reothlisberger have "It".

Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, Staubaugh, Starr to name a few had "It".

Green didn't have "It".

my "it" factor with QBs is this:

Does he lead you back into games after falling behind?

Does his best play come in the fourth quarter, especially if you are behind?

Thats pretty much it.

After that, it is all details that are common.

Heart cant be coached!

milkman
11-15-2009, 01:46 PM
Y'know, when I saw Cassel last year, I thought he had "it." That's something that's really been disappointing to me. He needs to stop moping around every time he gets hit and he needs to play with the kind of fire he played with the first 1 or 2 weeks.

I saw some things from Cassel that were positive, but I didn't see "It".

"It" includes an ability to overcome the mistakes around him, and there were a couple of games he simply didn't let a couple of mistakes by his receivers roll off his back, and lead his team from there.

ChiefsCountry
11-15-2009, 02:03 PM
Heart says yes but my head says no. If Cassel was a true stud he would have took a very talented New England team to the playoffs.
Posted via Mobile Device

Pioli Zombie
11-15-2009, 02:12 PM
Heart says yes but my head says no. If Cassel was a true stud he would have took a very talented New England team to the playoffs.
Posted via Mobile Device

In his first year playing. Whatever. The fact is, dumbass, they were 11-5. It was a historic anamoly they didn't make the playoffs. The second 11-5 team ever (85 Broncos) and first since the cuurent format started in 1990 to not make the playoffs. But again, whatever.
Posted via Mobile Device

BossChief
11-15-2009, 02:20 PM
I voted yes who is moving the goal post?

the people saying "this isnt a fair question because....."

Not you specifically. No offense intended.

That is a horseshit way to approach this type of question. If the answer is no why cant people just say it?

BossChief
11-15-2009, 02:23 PM
Heart says yes but my head says no. If Cassel was a true stud he would have took a very talented New England team to the playoffs.
Posted via Mobile Device

this is unfair, they went 11-5 and his performance down the stretch should have gotten them into the playoffs.

Not his fault they were one of the only teams in nfl history to go 11-5 and not make it.

Thats a crazy year, when a team with 2 wins gets the 3rd overall pick and in the same year an 11-5 team didnt make the playoffs and another team that was 8-8 did.

thats fucked up

Rausch
11-15-2009, 02:24 PM
Since 1990 I count 15 non elite QB's in the SB.

So in the last 20 years there was a non elite QB in the SB 15 times.


That's 3/4ths the time.

Of course if you're wanting to win the game the odds greatly favor the elite QB's...

Pioli Zombie
11-15-2009, 02:33 PM
This should be a headline to one of Tribal Warfares posted articles. ITS BETTER TO HAVE A HALL OF FAME QUARTERBACK.
Posted via Mobile Device