PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs How good would this team be if we'd taken Sanchez instead of Cassel?


Mr. Flopnuts
10-18-2010, 02:58 PM
Sorry, it had to be done. Would've saved $50 million with Sanchez/Maualuga vs. Jackson/Cassel. That much is for sure.

Chiefs Rool
10-18-2010, 02:59 PM
A lot better

Bane
10-18-2010, 03:00 PM
2 years ahead of where we are now IMO,and in a very good way.

BossChief
10-18-2010, 03:01 PM
Depends, is Sanchez a legally abiding unicorn?

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

KCUnited
10-18-2010, 03:01 PM
How much water could this team walk on if we had taken Aaron Curry and Tim Tebow?

BossChief
10-18-2010, 03:02 PM
How much water could this team walk on if we had taken Aaron Curry and Tim Tebow?
doesnt matter, we have the DexFactor

BITCHES

JohnnyV13
10-18-2010, 03:05 PM
Sorry, it had to be done. Would've saved $50 million with Sanchez/Maualuga vs. Jackson/Cassel. That much is for sure.

I would have taken Sanchez had I been GM.

I liked Sanchez because of his high intelligence and high completion percentage. I, of course, would have liked to see more college starts; but, he played in big time games at SC.

Then, our biggest need would have been 2nd pass rusher; but, that's an easier need to fill.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2010, 03:07 PM
Hard to say how much better we would be NOW. Wouldnt be any worse. We would be looking great for the foreseeable future though.

Pawnmower
10-18-2010, 03:08 PM
Brian Bosworth & Todd Marinovich and kept them safe/healthy/out of trouble

beach tribe
10-18-2010, 03:09 PM
Would we be better? Well yeah, but I really don't think we would be that much better off. I don't think Sanchez is anything more than a game manager. Sorry.

If we end up with a Locker or Mallet, I will thank God for the Matt Cassel trade.

Mecca
10-18-2010, 03:13 PM
Why would anyone want Jake Locker? He's an athlete trying to play QB, he's less developed than Vick was, that's just asking for a bust.

KCtotheSB
10-18-2010, 03:15 PM
How mindnumbing would this scenario still be if we talk about it 651381 times rather than 651380?

BossChief
10-18-2010, 03:15 PM
Im not gonna play revisionist history here, I would have passed on Sanchez.

I was wrong about him, but in my fantasy world we would have drafted:

Orakpo
Maualuga
Magee
Tennant

Berry (only passing on Clausen at 5 because we would still have Thigpen, who I am still a fan of TBH)
Clausen
Cody
Asamoah
Moeaki

That leaves a lot of holes for other draft picks too, but Im not gonna get into all that right now.

JohnnyV13
10-18-2010, 03:16 PM
I don't think we get a shot at Locker, Mallet or Luck. We might get a shot at Gabbert, but he's one of those college spread QB's.

SPATCH
10-18-2010, 03:16 PM
Why would anyone want Jake Locker? He's an athlete trying to play QB, he's less developed than Vick was, that's just asking for a bust.

You're muff cabbage

HonestChieffan
10-18-2010, 03:16 PM
beer would still be 7.75 at games

Mecca
10-18-2010, 03:17 PM
How mindnumbing would this scenario still be if we talk about it 651381 times rather than 651380?

There's only so many topics to cover, so we have to talk about the good ones a lot.

Mecca
10-18-2010, 03:18 PM
You're muff cabbage

LOL, I question how often the people that like him have seen him. He's awful in the pocket, he's alright outside of the pocket, his footwork is horrendous which is why he has no accuracy. We're basically talking about a less accurate more athletic Jake Plummer, who wants that in the first round?

doomy3
10-18-2010, 03:35 PM
Would we be better? Well yeah, but I really don't think we would be that much better off. I don't think Sanchez is anything more than a game manager. Sorry.

If we end up with a Locker or Mallet, I will thank God for the Matt Cassel trade.

Yep. Just because there was a rookie available that happened to play QB, doesn't mean that he would make us better. Hell, many around here wanted us to take Jimmy Clausen at #5. If having Cassel for a couple years gets us this far and then we can draft a legitimate difference maker at QB, then sign me up.

Munson
10-18-2010, 03:39 PM
Sanchez is the guy I wanted KC to draft in the first place. We could have finally had a franchise qb instead of another journeyman. I think this team would be infinitely better off had we gotten Sanchez instead of Jackson.

Sofa King
10-18-2010, 03:47 PM
If i'm going with fantasy situations, i would have picked Montana and Rice.

BryanBusby
10-18-2010, 03:50 PM
LOL, I question how often the people that like him have seen him. He's awful in the pocket, he's alright outside of the pocket, his footwork is horrendous which is why he has no accuracy. We're basically talking about a less accurate more athletic Jake Plummer, who wants that in the first round?

Fuck if I know, dawg. and people thought last years QB class was awful lol

keg in kc
10-18-2010, 04:09 PM
I'm not sure we would be any better. His performance during the '09 regular season was even worse than Cassel's. And had he been here his season would have ended with that, because the Chiefs did not field the league's top defense. So no playoff games, much less playoff wins. We're basically in exactly the same position going into 2010 as we were in reality: a QB who's shown no signs of competence leading a 4-win team.

Let's go even deeper, say we start him from the get-go in 2009, we're installing a new offense two weeks before the season with a rookie QB, and Todd Haley's coaching him instead of Matt Cavanaugh. Is he going to perform as well under those conditions as he did with the Jets (we'll just throw out the fact that he was awful during the regular season in NYC...)?

I am not in any way suggesting that Cassel is in any way a better quarterback, nor am I trying to discourage the idea of going young at QB. What I am trying to do is interject a little logic into this. The 2009 Chiefs would still have been a 4-win team with Sanchez. Sanchez would likely not be the same QB here that he is developing into in NY, because he'd be playing on a loser, and he wouldn't have shown any flashes in the playoffs. No confidence builder, no team builder, no momentum builder. My guess is that this point in time, instead of being a better team, we'd probably have the exact same record, and be having the same exact discussions, although instead of bitching about the 60 million dollar man, people would be bitching about our first round bust. Because I think a big part of who Sanchez is right now is the team he's on. The situation is working out, and I don't think it would have gone the same way here.

Tribal Warfare
10-18-2010, 04:14 PM
Would we be better? Well yeah, but I really don't think we would be that much better off. I don't think Sanchez is anything more than a game manager. Sorry.

If we end up with a Locker or Mallet, I will thank God for the Matt Cassel trade.


I'd stear clear from away, the cat has all the physical potential in the world, but his decision making in the clutch is on par with Ryan Leaf.

ChiefsCountry
10-18-2010, 04:14 PM
I don't think Sanchez is anything more than a game manager. Sorry.


ROFL

Mr. Flopnuts
10-18-2010, 04:20 PM
Locker is definitely not the answer, but Mecca is still bitter about losing to ______ < Jake Plummer a couple of weeks ago.

-King-
10-18-2010, 04:29 PM
We would be better. But at the same time, we'd be better if I was quarterback instead of Cassel, so the whole Sanchez thing is moot to me.

He had two very good games on week 3 and 4 and then shitted the bed hard yesterday. So it's not like he's lighting the world up. He's still living off the defense and running game. Kinda like Matt Cassel except a bit better.
Posted via Mobile Device

BryanBusby
10-18-2010, 04:51 PM
Sanchez was yet still able to throw enough of an accurate pass to draw a PI call when the game was on the line. Cassel? Moon pass.

beach tribe
10-18-2010, 04:57 PM
ROFL

Laugh all you want.

55% Comp perc. 6.22 ypa.

Game manager.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=12482

Pioli Zombie
10-18-2010, 04:58 PM
Oh great. Suck and Suckier.

-King-
10-18-2010, 04:59 PM
We would be better. But at the same time, we'd be better if I was quarterback instead of Cassel, so the whole Sanchez thing is moot to me.

He had two very good games on week 3 and 4 and then shitted the bed hard yesterday. So it's not like he's lighting the world up. He's still living off the defense and running game. Kinda like Matt Cassel except a bit better.
Posted via Mobile Device

kysirsoze
10-18-2010, 04:59 PM
I don't think we get a shot at Locker, Mallet or Luck. We might get a shot at Gabbert, but he's one of those college spread QB's.

Like Bradford?? Sign me up.

philfree
10-18-2010, 05:06 PM
Our O line sucked so bad last year that Sanchex wouldn't have finished the season and would most likely already be ruined. That's one thing about Cassel. He can take alot of abuse. We wouldn't be any better.


PhilFree:arrow:

ChiefsCountry
10-18-2010, 05:11 PM
Our O line sucked so bad last year that Sanchex wouldn't have finished the season and would most likely already be ruined. That's one thing about Cassel. He can take alot of abuse. We wouldn't be any better.


PhilFree:arrow:

:shake:

Thats just stupid.

BryanBusby
10-18-2010, 05:13 PM
We would be better. But at the same time, we'd be better if I was quarterback instead of Cassel, so the whole Sanchez thing is moot to me.

He had two very good games on week 3 and 4 and then shitted the bed hard yesterday. So it's not like he's lighting the world up. He's still living off the defense and running game. Kinda like Matt Cassel except a bit better.
Posted via Mobile Device

That bye week sure can be a formidable foe!

LaChapelle
10-18-2010, 05:13 PM
He didn't come across as the most confident on Hard Knocks
the beating and picks he would of had here they'd be calling for his head
then again the experience could of hardened him -no right or wrong answer

Pasta Giant Meatball
10-18-2010, 05:15 PM
No, it really didn't. This is like beating a dead horse.

Brock
10-18-2010, 05:18 PM
LOL, I question how often the people that like him have seen him. He's awful in the pocket, he's alright outside of the pocket, his footwork is horrendous which is why he has no accuracy. We're basically talking about a less accurate more athletic Jake Plummer, who wants that in the first round?

You sure had Bradford nailed last year, so your opinion is definitely one to listen to.

Count Zarth
10-18-2010, 05:18 PM
Laugh all you want.

55% Comp perc. 6.22 ypa.

Game manager.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?playerId=12482

Yep.

Sanchez is in his second year in the league and he's already at Cassel's level.

Only going to get better.

philfree
10-18-2010, 05:36 PM
:shake:

Thats just stupid.


If we hadn't traded for Cassel I would have been fine with Sanchex as our draft pick but it was a moot point. And to think that he wouldn't have any problems with our shitty o line is stupid. And this horse has been beat to death so many times that it's stupid.

Really though if we had Sanchex we'd be on our way to the SB.

And everybody who is not stupid knows that.:):rolleyes:


PhilFree:arrow:

-King-
10-18-2010, 10:05 PM
That bye week sure can be a formidable foe!

What?

-King-
10-18-2010, 10:06 PM
Yep.

Sanchez is in his second year in the league and he's already at Cassel's level.

Only going to get better.

He's already at Cassel level? WTF? Thats like saying... Lacrosse is already at womens basketball level.

It's not really a complement.


And what makes you say that Sanchez is only going to get better? Cause I sure don't see it.

Count Zarth
10-18-2010, 10:07 PM
And what makes you say that Sanchez is only going to get better? Cause I sure don't see it.

He's a second year starter. Logic, try it.

-King-
10-18-2010, 10:09 PM
He's a second year starter. Logic, try it.

So is Cassel. Whats your point?

Sanchez had 2 good games and then played like Cassel yesterday. And now we're crowning him? He hasn't proven shit in his career.

Count Zarth
10-18-2010, 10:12 PM
So is Cassel.

FAIL

Cassel is a third-year starter and has been in the league for 6 years.

-King-
10-18-2010, 10:14 PM
FAIL

Cassel is a third-year starter and has been in the league for 6 years.

He came into the 2008 season as a backup. But thats neither here nor there.

Sanchez still hasn't shown shit other than he can hand the ball off real nicely to Thomas Jones, Shonn Greene, and LT.

Count Zarth
10-18-2010, 10:16 PM
He came into the 2008 season as a backup. But thats neither here nor there.

Sanchez still hasn't shown shit other than he can hand the ball off real nicely to Thomas Jones, Shonn Greene, and LT.

Yes, 9 TD, 2 INT, not impressive at all.

-King-
10-18-2010, 10:17 PM
Yes, 9 TD, 2 INT, not impressive at all.

Cassels only slightly worse at 7 TDs and 3 INTs. And thats with a bye week.

Count Zarth
10-18-2010, 10:18 PM
Cassels only slightly worse at 7 TDs and 3 INTs. And thats with a bye week.

So Cassel is not at the level of a 2nd year starter, despite being 28.

Terrific.

-King-
10-18-2010, 10:20 PM
So Cassel is not at the level of a 2nd year starter, despite being 28.

Terrific.

:doh!: I wasn't pointing that out to defend Cassel, but to show that Sanchez's numbers aren't all that great. Sanchez is better than Cassel. But better =/= good.

SNR
10-18-2010, 10:27 PM
:doh!: I wasn't pointing that out to defend Cassel, but to show that Sanchez's numbers aren't all that great. Sanchez is better than Cassel. But better =/= good.I thought you were trying to prove that Sanchez isn't going to improve?

RustShack
10-18-2010, 10:31 PM
Keep doubting Tyson Jackson!!!

When he comes back, the DL of Dorsey-Smith-Jackson is going to straight rape!

ILikeBigTiddys
10-18-2010, 11:20 PM
Dude, we'd be so much better. Its not even funny

Shaid
10-18-2010, 11:26 PM
I'm still not sold on him but I definitely would have taken him there and then traded Cassel to Denver for their first. :D

Shaid
10-18-2010, 11:29 PM
Yes, 9 TD, 2 INT, not impressive at all.

Dude, you can't go with just stats. He's had a ton of bad throws that could have been picks. I'm definitely not saying Cassel's better, I'm just not sold on the Sanchez yet. We'll see.

ILikeBigTiddys
10-18-2010, 11:31 PM
Dude, you can't go with just stats. He's had a ton of bad throws that could have been picks. I'm definitely not saying Cassel's better, I'm just not sold on the Sanchez yet. We'll see.

Dude, are we watching the same games?

Shaid
10-18-2010, 11:48 PM
Dude, are we watching the same games?

You didn't see the ridiculous amount of deflections against Denver that easily could have been interceptions? How about the fact that they showed an entire clip during the game showing just how many other tipped passes he has gotten lucky on throughout the course of the year. It's like watching Matt Cassel's early games last year. Again, I am NOT saying Cassel is better. I'm just saying I'm not impressed with Sanchez yet.

wheeler08
10-19-2010, 12:02 AM
I watched Hard Knocks, and really doubted the Jets would do anything this year because I though Sanchez looked like shit in preseason, then they come out flat against the Ravens on Monday night in prob one of the most boring-est games I've ever seen. Then he comes out like gang busters the rest of the year. I like him, but would have been worried drafting him coming out of college early.

And I don't understand the hard-on over Locker. Doesn't his team have a losing record? And every time I see his stats they are just average.
I didn't understand the excitement over Clausen either, didn't Moore start the last game instead of him?

Consistent1
10-19-2010, 12:39 AM
I'm not sure we would be any better. His performance during the '09 regular season was even worse than Cassel's. And had he been here his season would have ended with that, because the Chiefs did not field the league's top defense. So no playoff games, much less playoff wins. We're basically in exactly the same position going into 2010 as we were in reality: a QB who's shown no signs of competence leading a 4-win team.

Let's go even deeper, say we start him from the get-go in 2009, we're installing a new offense two weeks before the season with a rookie QB, and Todd Haley's coaching him instead of Matt Cavanaugh. Is he going to perform as well under those conditions as he did with the Jets (we'll just throw out the fact that he was awful during the regular season in NYC...)?

I am not in any way suggesting that Cassel is in any way a better quarterback, nor am I trying to discourage the idea of going young at QB. What I am trying to do is interject a little logic into this. The 2009 Chiefs would still have been a 4-win team with Sanchez. Sanchez would likely not be the same QB here that he is developing into in NY, because he'd be playing on a loser, and he wouldn't have shown any flashes in the playoffs. No confidence builder, no team builder, no momentum builder. My guess is that this point in time, instead of being a better team, we'd probably have the exact same record, and be having the same exact discussions, although instead of bitching about the 60 million dollar man, people would be bitching about our first round bust. Because I think a big part of who Sanchez is right now is the team he's on. The situation is working out, and I don't think it would have gone the same way here.

This is a great post. Sanchez got put in a nice situation there last year without a doubt. He got experience in playoff scenarios, has a pretty nice line on top of their D, the team spent money on weapons, etc. He might have looked terrible to this day if he were in KC.

CoMoChief
10-19-2010, 02:02 AM
Better? Absolutely...in the long run.

No so sure Sanchez (now) is playing that much better than Cassel is. The thing to remember is that the Jets are a VERY good team, which shit loads of talent and multiple pro bowlers. Sanchez gets to play with...

Braylon Edwards
Santonio Holmes
Jerricho Cotchery
Brad Smith
Dustin Keller
LaDanian Tomlinson
Shonn Greene
Tony Richardson
DBrick Ferguson
Nick Mangold

And don't forget their defense that creates TO's and gets the ball back in the offense's hands. Sanchez has more support around him than probably any other QB in football and yet he's putting up marginal #'s at very best. His TD/INT ratio (9/2) is good, but he's avg about 175 pyg w/ 56% comp %. BUT that team is a run-first pound it in your ass kinda team, they're 2nd in the NFL in rushing.

Rausch
10-19-2010, 02:13 AM
So far Sanchez has been Joe Namath in super bowl II.

EVERY WEEK...

kysirsoze
10-19-2010, 02:15 AM
I could read this whole thread....

... or I could just flog my nuts with a fire extinguisher.


:hmmm:

Pioli Zombie
10-19-2010, 04:40 AM
Shit and Shitier.

Chiefnj2
10-19-2010, 06:15 AM
KC should have given Cassel and the #5 pick to St Louis for Bradford and gotten a real QB, and not have a liability in pass coverage.

SenselessChiefsFan
10-19-2010, 06:32 AM
Sorry, it had to be done. Would've saved $50 million with Sanchez/Maualuga vs. Jackson/Cassel. That much is for sure.

Worse. We would be worse on offense and defense.

This isn't to say that Sanchez won't be better than Cassel. My view of Sanchez has improved, and my view of Cassel has declined. So, three years from now, this is a different question.

However, the Jets have much more surrounding talent. It has allowed Sanchez to perform well. If he were here, he doesn't have the same amount of talent. This isn't excuse making, this is reality. Sanchez should have had five picks in the first half of Sunday's game against Denver. If you saw the game, you know that I am 100% honest here.

I think he would be throwing even more INT's here, trying to make plays that aren't there. Cassel, like it or not, does a good job of playing inside the game plan. He is willing to do whatever it takes to win a game. If that means dink and dunk, he does. I don't think Sanchez would handle that very well.

JMO.

Now, on defense, Vrabel, like it or not, is another coach on the field. While he is a liability from a purely talent standpoint at this time..... he is instrumental in the development and cohesiveness of this team. I don't think the defense is where it is without him.

So, where are we right now? Worse.

I am not saying that is a bad thing. Frankly, if the Chiefs were worse, they get another high draft pick, and it certainly looks like Sanchez can be a franchise QB at some point, and that Cassel's ceiling is much lower.

Frosty
10-19-2010, 07:54 AM
LOL, I question how often the people that like him have seen him. He's awful in the pocket, he's alright outside of the pocket, his footwork is horrendous which is why he has no accuracy. We're basically talking about a less accurate more athletic Jake Plummer, who wants that in the first round?

I was thinking Thigpen with a stronger arm but I like your analogy better. Plummer was a better passer in college but they played pretty similarly.

TheGuardian
10-19-2010, 08:47 AM
Worse. We would be worse on offense and defense.

This isn't to say that Sanchez won't be better than Cassel. My view of Sanchez has improved, and my view of Cassel has declined. So, three years from now, this is a different question.

However, the Jets have much more surrounding talent. It has allowed Sanchez to perform well. If he were here, he doesn't have the same amount of talent. This isn't excuse making, this is reality. Sanchez should have had five picks in the first half of Sunday's game against Denver. If you saw the game, you know that I am 100% honest here.

I think he would be throwing even more INT's here, trying to make plays that aren't there. Cassel, like it or not, does a good job of playing inside the game plan. He is willing to do whatever it takes to win a game. If that means dink and dunk, he does. I don't think Sanchez would handle that very well.

JMO.

Now, on defense, Vrabel, like it or not, is another coach on the field. While he is a liability from a purely talent standpoint at this time..... he is instrumental in the development and cohesiveness of this team. I don't think the defense is where it is without him.

So, where are we right now? Worse.

I am not saying that is a bad thing. Frankly, if the Chiefs were worse, they get another high draft pick, and it certainly looks like Sanchez can be a franchise QB at some point, and that Cassel's ceiling is much lower.

This is a great take on it.

Sanchez is in a great situation for him. He doesn't have to win games, and as you noted looked fucking horrible in the game last week against Denver.

But he has maybe the leagues best defense, and a great ground game to fall back on. He doesn't have to win games, and Schotty gives him easy reads to go through. I personally don't think he will ever be a franchise QB the way that Brady or Manning are franchise QB's. He's just not going to be that. He can be a solid guy in the right situation like he is now, but I think that is his ceiling as well.

Sweet Daddy Hate
10-19-2010, 10:52 AM
Jeezus, even I'm sick of this. Can we just ditch Moe Kessel and call it good?

TheGuardian
10-19-2010, 10:54 AM
Jeezus, even I'm sick of this. Can we just ditch Moe Kessel and call it good?

A legit question is, who actually looks like a real option this offseason? This team really is a QB away from contending IMO. Maybe another dynamic pass rusher to go with Hali. You add another good pass rusher opposite of Hali and put a legit QB on here and we're probably 5-0 right now.

JASONSAUTO
10-19-2010, 10:54 AM
I'M not going to argue the point but will ask how we would have saved 50 million.

Sweet Daddy Hate
10-19-2010, 10:58 AM
A legit question is, who actually looks like a real option this offseason? This team really is a QB away from contending IMO. Maybe another dynamic pass rusher to go with Hali. You add another good pass rusher opposite of Hali and put a legit QB on here and we're probably 5-0 right now.

I'd take a chance on Ponder in round 2 if we could get him.

OnTheWarpath58
10-19-2010, 10:59 AM
I'M not going to argue the point but will ask how we would have saved 50 million.

I think he's assuming that Cassel is going to see most of his contract.

We wouldn't have paid a 2nd round pick that money.

LaChapelle
10-19-2010, 11:03 AM
Some of the bloom is coming off Aaron Rodgers rose
so it'w way to early to crown Sanchise

Chiefnj2
10-19-2010, 11:07 AM
Sanchez? That's so 2009.

I thought it was all about Clausen.

jidar
10-19-2010, 11:15 AM
LOL, I question how often the people that like him have seen him. He's awful in the pocket, he's alright outside of the pocket, his footwork is horrendous which is why he has no accuracy. We're basically talking about a less accurate more athletic Jake Plummer, who wants that in the first round?

I agree.

Every time I watch Locker highlights I find myself really wondering what all the hype is about. Even his highlight reels don't show anything that makes me think he would make a good NFL QB. He's obviously a great college QB, but he does it by doing all of the things that don't work in the NFL.

Edit: Andrew Luck on the other hand looks pretty good.

milkman
10-19-2010, 11:24 AM
Sanchez is the guy I wanted KC to draft in the first place. We could have finally had a franchise qb instead of another journeyman. I think this team would be infinitely better off had we gotten Sanchez instead of Jackson.

The fact is, had Cassel been the guy that Pioli thought he was, and not the guy that many of thought, he'd be a legitimate franchise QB.

Getting a guy at 26 years old still offers you the chance for 10-12 years, or more, of production.

The problem is, Cassel isn't that guy.

Sweet Daddy Hate
10-19-2010, 11:24 AM
I agree.

Every time I watch Locker highlights I find myself really wondering what all the hype is about. Even his highlight reels don't show anything that makes me think he would make a good NFL QB. He's obviously a great college QB, but he does it by doing all of the things that don't work in the NFL.

Edit: Andrew Luck on the other hand looks pretty good.

Luck would be great for our dink and dunk style, but I don't see us being in a position to get him.

Mecca
10-19-2010, 11:33 AM
I agree.

Every time I watch Locker highlights I find myself really wondering what all the hype is about. Even his highlight reels don't show anything that makes me think he would make a good NFL QB. He's obviously a great college QB, but he does it by doing all of the things that don't work in the NFL.

Edit: Andrew Luck on the other hand looks pretty good.

Washington looks better on offense when they stop trying to make him be a drop back pro style QB and basically let him be an option QB, what's that say?

milkman
10-19-2010, 11:36 AM
Our O line sucked so bad last year that Sanchex wouldn't have finished the season and would most likely already be ruined. That's one thing about Cassel. He can take alot of abuse. We wouldn't be any better.


PhilFree:arrow:

:shake:

Thats just stupid.

Actually, it's not stupid, which is why I wanted to draft Sanchez and let him warm the bench for at least a season (though my actual preference would hvae been two seasons).

We have become too impatient in developing QBs in the NFL.

There are some that can come in and play right away.

But one with the college experience of Sanchez, or lack overall thereof, is not one of those guys.

The one thing I liked about Jeff Fisher was the patience he showed in developing Steve McNair.

JASONSAUTO
10-19-2010, 11:39 AM
I think he's assuming that Cassel is going to see most of his contract.

We wouldn't have paid a 2nd round pick that money.

probably so. and we paid jackson the same money as sanchez soooo....


my bad

Rausch
10-19-2010, 11:42 AM
Actually, it's not stupid, which is why I wanted to draft Sanchez and let him warm the bench for at least a season (though my actual preference would hvae been two seasons).

We have become too impatient in developing QBs in the NFL.

There are some that can come in and play right away.

But one with the college experience of Sanchez, or lack overall thereof, is not one of those guys.

The one thing I liked about Jeff Fisher was the patience he showed in developing Steve McNair.

Exactly.

THAT is how you groom a QB.

Rivers, Rodgers, Schaub, etc. They didn't start day one. They had time to sit and learn.

Didn't hurt them any...

milkman
10-19-2010, 11:46 AM
KC should have given Cassel and the #5 pick to St Louis for Bradford and gotten a real QB, and not have a liability in pass coverage.

As long as we're playing "What if".

I was never a Bradford fan in college, but I did say that I thought he would be a good system QB in the NFL, and Weis's system is built for a QB like Bradford.

What if Bradford had declared last year?

Would Pioli have traded for Cassel, or would he have gladly taken Bradford with the #3 overall, or Stafford, if the Lions had elected to take Bradford?

Sweet Daddy Hate
10-19-2010, 11:49 AM
Man, was I wrong about Bradford...:shake:

TheGuardian
10-19-2010, 12:17 PM
Man, was I wrong about Bradford...:shake:

I think a lot of people are saying that right about now.

McCoy didn't look horrible against a great defense this past weekend either. But I will always think that kid is a vag for what he did in the BCS champ game....

keg in kc
10-19-2010, 12:23 PM
As long as we're playing "What if".

I was never a Bradford fan in college, but I did say that I thought he would be a good system QB in the NFL, and Weis's system is built for a QB like Bradford.

What if Bradford had declared last year?

Would Pioli have traded for Cassel, or would he have gladly taken Bradford with the #3 overall, or Stafford, if the Lions had elected to take Bradford?I still wish we'd traded up in 2008 for Matt Ryan.

Who knows, this is looking like a strong draft, QB and otherwise, so we may end up with a better answer than all of them.

Or else we'll go 9-7, lose at Arrowhead the first week of the playoffs, and start 2011 with Matt Cassel and his awesome martyriffic 180 yards/game (assuming he throws for enough yards the rest of the year to raise the average up to that).

keg in kc
10-19-2010, 12:27 PM
Actually, it's not stupid, which is why I wanted to draft Sanchez and let him warm the bench for at least a season (though my actual preference would hvae been two seasons).

We have become too impatient in developing QBs in the NFL.

There are some that can come in and play right away.

But one with the college experience of Sanchez, or lack overall thereof, is not one of those guys.That was exactly why I wasn't ever in favor of taking him at 3. Top 5 picks - and top 5 contracts (although that may change...) - require those players to produce immediately. You just can't afford to take projects there. I have never, ever said that Sanchez could not or would not be a good quarterback, simply that I would never take him in that range. I saw him as groom on the bench for a year or two kind of guy.

(I also never would have taken Jackson...).

I'm not sure the guy who wouldn't have made the biggest difference in retrospect is BJ Raji, and I was completely against taking him at the time, for the smoking and work ethic questions.

milkman
10-19-2010, 12:27 PM
I still wish we'd traded up in 2008 for Matt Ryan.

Who knows, this is looking like a strong draft, QB and otherwise, so we may end up with a better answer than all of them.

Or else we'll go 9-7, lose at Arrowhead the first week of the playoffs, and start 2011 with Matt Cassel and his awesome martyriffic 180 yards/game (assuming he throws for enough yards the rest of the year to raise the average up to that).

I was more impressed with Ryan as a rookie than I have been since.

He's not bad, but he hasn't yet grown into the QB that I thought he would after his rookie season.

But then, he hasn't yet played 30 games as a pro, so he could really blossom.

keg in kc
10-19-2010, 12:30 PM
I was more impressed with Ryan as a rookie than I have been since.

He's not bad, but he hasn't yet grown into the QB that I thought he would after his rookie season.

But then, he hasn't yet played 30 games as a pro, so he could really blossom.This is a big season for him.

Flacco, too.

milkman
10-19-2010, 12:32 PM
That was exactly why I wasn't ever in favor of taking him at 3. Top 5 picks - and top 5 contracts (although that may change...) - require those players to produce immediately. You just can't afford to take projects there. I have never, ever said that Sanchez could not or would not be a good quarterback, simply that I would never take him in that range...

(I also never would have taken Jackson...).

I'm not sure the guy who wouldn't have made the biggest difference in retrospect is BJ Raji, and I was completely against taking him at the time, for the smoking and work ethic questions.

I think you have to evaluate each QB on an individula basis, and take the contract out of the evaluation process altogether.

If you believe that a QB has franchise QB potential (as I did with Sanchez), you take him even if you believe he should be btought along slowly.

By his third season, he'll only be 25.

But after trading for Cassel, and knowing that Sanchez was out of the mix, Raji was the guy I wanted.

Mr. Flopnuts
10-19-2010, 12:41 PM
For the record, this was just one of a bunch of parody threads created yesterday. The Sanchez ship sailed a long time ago. The 50 million stat is interesting though for anyone who thinks Clark is a tight ass that won't spend money. It's also a good stat showing just how high Pioli was on Cassel.

BAtheBEAST
10-19-2010, 01:46 PM
Stars & Strikes! Branden Albert and Leonard Pope of the Chiefs are hosting a charity bowling event to benefit the Make-A-Wish-Foundation on Tuesday, November 2nd from 6-9 PM at Lucky Strikes Lane on Grand Boulevard. $20 cash includes your bowling and shoes. Bowl alongside Derrick Johnson, Brandon Flowers and other Chiefs all for a great cause!

keg in kc
10-19-2010, 03:00 PM
I think you have to evaluate each QB on an individula basis, and take the contract out of the evaluation process altogether.

If you believe that a QB has franchise QB potential (as I did with Sanchez), you take him even if you believe he should be btought along slowly.I think that only works if you're a team in a position to groom a QB. Similar to a point I made earlier in another thread, the Jets had already built a defense and a running game, so they were at a place where they could try to hand-hold a QB through his growing pains. The Chiefs were not, not in 2009, which is why, I think, they went with a veteran (who they've had to hand hold, in the end, but that's beside the point...). I think Kansas City may be in a very good position for that in 2011, however, essentially the same spot that the Jets were in last year.

I've said it before and I believe it wholeheartedly: Sanchez would not have developed here the way he did in New York. He had a better team around him to begin with, and the perfect setup for the conservative development of a QB. We didn't have the defense, and we didn't have the running game (Charles was a mid-season discovery...). We also didn't have the offensive line.

I know some people argue that you get the QB first and then build the team around him, but I think that's more likely the road to David Carr than it is the road to Peyton Manning. I would rather build the team first, and then ease the young QB in. Let a veteran take the abuse during the early years of the rebuild. Build a defense, build a running game, then start to turn the offense from martyball into something balanced and championship-worthy.

Just the way I'd approach it...

Sweet Daddy Hate
10-19-2010, 03:15 PM
I think that only works if you're a team in a position to groom a QB. Similar to a point I made earlier in another thread, the Jets had already built a defense and a running game, so they were at a place where they could try to hand-hold a QB through his growing pains. The Chiefs were not, not in 2009, which is why, I think, they went with a veteran (who they've had to hand hold, in the end, but that's beside the point...). I think Kansas City may be in a very good position for that in 2011, however, essentially the same spot that the Jets were in last year.

I've said it before and I believe it wholeheartedly: Sanchez would not have developed here the way he did in New York. He had a better team around him to begin with, and the perfect setup for the conservative development of a QB. We didn't have the defense, and we didn't have the running game (Charles was a mid-season discovery...). We also didn't have the offensive line.

I know some people argue that you get the QB first and then build the team around him, but I think that's more likely the road to David Carr than it is the road to Peyton Manning. I would rather build the team first, and then ease the young QB in. Let a veteran take the abuse during the early years of the rebuild. Build a defense, build a running game, then start to turn the offense from martyball into something balanced and championship-worthy.

Just the way I'd approach it...

Which may in fact be the way this was all meant to play out on the contingency side of Cassel's contract and longevity with the Chiefs.

philfree
10-19-2010, 03:41 PM
I was more impressed with Ryan as a rookie than I have been since.

He's not bad, but he hasn't yet grown into the QB that I thought he would after his rookie season.

But then, he hasn't yet played 30 games as a pro, so he could really blossom.

He's had 36 starts so this is definately a big year for him.


PhilFree:arrow:

BigChiefFan
10-19-2010, 04:18 PM
Which may in fact be the way this was all meant to play out on the contingency side of Cassel's contract and longevity with the Chiefs.
I've contended that from the get-go. I think some sell Pioli short sometimes-the guy knows what he's doing.

milkman
10-19-2010, 05:58 PM
I think that only works if you're a team in a position to groom a QB. Similar to a point I made earlier in another thread, the Jets had already built a defense and a running game, so they were at a place where they could try to hand-hold a QB through his growing pains. The Chiefs were not, not in 2009, which is why, I think, they went with a veteran (who they've had to hand hold, in the end, but that's beside the point...). I think Kansas City may be in a very good position for that in 2011, however, essentially the same spot that the Jets were in last year.

I've said it before and I believe it wholeheartedly: Sanchez would not have developed here the way he did in New York. He had a better team around him to begin with, and the perfect setup for the conservative development of a QB. We didn't have the defense, and we didn't have the running game (Charles was a mid-season discovery...). We also didn't have the offensive line.

I know some people argue that you get the QB first and then build the team around him, but I think that's more likely the road to David Carr than it is the road to Peyton Manning. I would rather build the team first, and then ease the young QB in. Let a veteran take the abuse during the early years of the rebuild. Build a defense, build a running game, then start to turn the offense from martyball into something balanced and championship-worthy.

Just the way I'd approach it...

You're missing what I'm saying here.

If I were in charge, I would have taken Sanchez, and he wouldn't see the field at all during his rookie season, contract be damned.

He might not even see it in his second year if there are still questions about the talent around him.

You draft him, let learn on the sidelines, in the film room and in practice.

I don't believe that you rush a young QB onto the field until he, and the team, are ready.

And David Carr was a guy that never learned to read a defense, in colleg or the pros.

I said that guy was going to be a bust when he was drafted.

Pablo
10-19-2010, 07:13 PM
I'm not sure we would be any better. His performance during the '09 regular season was even worse than Cassel's. And had he been here his season would have ended with that, because the Chiefs did not field the league's top defense. So no playoff games, much less playoff wins. We're basically in exactly the same position going into 2010 as we were in reality: a QB who's shown no signs of competence leading a 4-win team.

Let's go even deeper, say we start him from the get-go in 2009, we're installing a new offense two weeks before the season with a rookie QB, and Todd Haley's coaching him instead of Matt Cavanaugh. Is he going to perform as well under those conditions as he did with the Jets (we'll just throw out the fact that he was awful during the regular season in NYC...)?

I am not in any way suggesting that Cassel is in any way a better quarterback, nor am I trying to discourage the idea of going young at QB. What I am trying to do is interject a little logic into this. The 2009 Chiefs would still have been a 4-win team with Sanchez. Sanchez would likely not be the same QB here that he is developing into in NY, because he'd be playing on a loser, and he wouldn't have shown any flashes in the playoffs. No confidence builder, no team builder, no momentum builder. My guess is that this point in time, instead of being a better team, we'd probably have the exact same record, and be having the same exact discussions, although instead of bitching about the 60 million dollar man, people would be bitching about our first round bust. Because I think a big part of who Sanchez is right now is the team he's on. The situation is working out, and I don't think it would have gone the same way here.Hey! There it is!!! A well thought-out reasonable post.

Those are hard to come by nowadays.

keg in kc
10-19-2010, 07:31 PM
You're missing what I'm saying here.

If I were in charge, I would have taken Sanchez, and he wouldn't see the field at all during his rookie season, contract be damned.

He might not even see it in his second year if there are still questions about the talent around him.

You draft him, let learn on the sidelines, in the film room and in practice.

I don't believe that you rush a young QB onto the field until he, and the team, are ready.No, I know exactly what you're saying. And what I'm saying is that there are quarterbacks that are first year capable, but that I do not believe Sanchez was one of them. He was a project player, and some teams have the luxury of doing that. The Jets were in a position where they could. We were not

Beyond that, I don't think you ever take a project in the top 5. You say "disregard the contract", but you can't, because that contract is a major part of the equation. You don't draft a player in the top 5 if you don't expect him to start and contribute immediately, whether it's Sanchez or Berry or anybody else. At least not until a real rookie salary cap is in place. These guys are making more than all pro vets right out of the gate, and you need them producing.

Either way, we did not have a team prepared for the development of a rookie quarterback. We didn't have a line, we didn't have receivers, we didn't have a running game and we didn't have a defense. I think the likelihood of a franchise player developing under those circumstances is somewhere between slim and none. I just don't think a qb is going to learn much of anything on the sidelines of a losing team with a struggling offense. The team culture here needed to change (and it has) and the offense needed to change (ditto).

In retrospect, as more time has passed, I've grown increasingly convinced that he would have been the wrong pick to make, and that he would not have developed into a franchise quarterback *here*. The stars would not have aligned the right way.

Anyway, it's kind of a moot argument. You can say we should have done it, I can say we shouldn't, but at the end of the day reality is that they didn't, and we're looking in the wrong direction. Can't change the past. What's important isn't what they did or didn't do, what's important is what they're going to do.

Pasta Giant Meatball
10-19-2010, 07:37 PM
Great posts keg :clap:

philfree
10-19-2010, 07:39 PM
Either way, we did not have a team prepared for the development of a rookie quarterback. We didn't have a line, we didn't have receivers, we didn't have a running game and we didn't have a defense. I think the likelihood of a franchise player developing under those circumstances is somewhere between slim and none. I just don't think a qb is going to learn much of anything on the sidelines of a losing team with a struggling offense. The team culture here needed to change (and it has) and the offense needed to change (ditto).




We didn't have an OC.


PhilFree:arrow:

keg in kc
10-19-2010, 07:42 PM
Which may in fact be the way this was all meant to play out on the contingency side of Cassel's contract and longevity with the Chiefs.Maybe. Who knows.

Personally, I don't think there was ever a question of Cassel or Sanchez. I believe Cassel was the guy they wanted from the moment that Pioli arrived. He was a known quantity, and I think in their eyes an immediate solution to the question of a franchise quarterback. No development required, years of play ahead of him. And I don't think we were the only franchise drinking that kool-aid. I'm not exactly a fan of Kyle Orton, but the Broncos in particular may have really lucked out...

That's part of the reason I think Cassel may be gone if it's not clear that he's the answer by season's end. I believe the fact that he was the first significant move made shows just how valuable they believe the quarterback position is. The question then is what they can do to replace him.

But we'll see. If we have more games like last week, he's probably here in 2011, even though I don't believe he's yet shown the ability to play at a high enough level to beat a quality team.

milkman
10-19-2010, 07:46 PM
No, I know exactly what you're saying. And what I'm saying is that there are quarterbacks that are first year capable, but that I do not believe Sanchez was one of them. He was a project player, and some teams have the luxury of doing that. The Jets were in a position where they could. We were not

Beyond that, I don't think you ever take a project in the top 5. You say "disregard the contract", but you can't, because that contract is a major part of the equation. You don't draft a player in the top 5 if you don't expect him to start and contribute immediately, whether it's Sanchez or Berry or anybody else. At least not until a real rookie salary cap is in place. These guys are making more than all pro vets right out of the gate, and you need them producing.

Either way, we did not have a team prepared for the development of a rookie quarterback. We didn't have a line, we didn't have receivers, we didn't have a running game and we didn't have a defense. I think the likelihood of a franchise player developing under those circumstances is somewhere between slim and none. I just don't think a qb is going to learn much of anything on the sidelines of a losing team with a struggling offense. The team culture here needed to change (and it has) and the offense needed to change (ditto).

In retrospect, as more time has passed, I've grown increasingly convinced that he would have been the wrong pick to make, and that he would not have developed into a franchise quarterback *here*. The stars would not have aligned the right way.

Anyway, it's kind of a moot argument. You can say we should have done it, I can say we shouldn't, but at the end of the day reality is that they didn't, and we're looking in the wrong direction. Can't change the past. What's important isn't what they did or didn't do, what's important is what they're going to do.

I'm old school.

Back in the day, QBs developed on the bench, on bad teams.

Many of the great QBs of those days were drafted by teams that were as talent challenged as this Chiefs team was.

I saw teams draft their QB, build to give that QB a chance to succeed, and put him out there when he had a chance to succeed.

I don't care about the contract.

If Sanchez turns out to be the guy I believe he will be, then I simply consider it an investment in the future.

But at the end of teh day, I agree with your last paragraph.

-King-
10-19-2010, 07:47 PM
I'm not sure we would be any better. His performance during the '09 regular season was even worse than Cassel's. And had he been here his season would have ended with that, because the Chiefs did not field the league's top defense. So no playoff games, much less playoff wins. We're basically in exactly the same position going into 2010 as we were in reality: a QB who's shown no signs of competence leading a 4-win team.

Let's go even deeper, say we start him from the get-go in 2009, we're installing a new offense two weeks before the season with a rookie QB, and Todd Haley's coaching him instead of Matt Cavanaugh. Is he going to perform as well under those conditions as he did with the Jets (we'll just throw out the fact that he was awful during the regular season in NYC...)?

I am not in any way suggesting that Cassel is in any way a better quarterback, nor am I trying to discourage the idea of going young at QB. What I am trying to do is interject a little logic into this. The 2009 Chiefs would still have been a 4-win team with Sanchez. Sanchez would likely not be the same QB here that he is developing into in NY, because he'd be playing on a loser, and he wouldn't have shown any flashes in the playoffs. No confidence builder, no team builder, no momentum builder. My guess is that this point in time, instead of being a better team, we'd probably have the exact same record, and be having the same exact discussions, although instead of bitching about the 60 million dollar man, people would be bitching about our first round bust. Because I think a big part of who Sanchez is right now is the team he's on. The situation is working out, and I don't think it would have gone the same way here.

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jezebel/2010/10/applause.gif

GloryDayz
10-19-2010, 08:09 PM
Sorry, it had to be done. Would've saved $50 million with Sanchez/Maualuga vs. Jackson/Cassel. That much is for sure.

6-0

chiefzilla1501
10-19-2010, 08:13 PM
Sanchez is being asked to do pretty much the same exact thing as Cassel has.

The difference is that he's also doing just enough to keep pass defenses honest and to make big throws when they matter.

I didn't like how people made him last year to sound better than he actually was as a rookie. But in his second season, I actually think Sanchez is better than Stafford, Flacco, and... dare I say, Matt Ryan?

This was a huge miss on Pioli's part. I really like what Pioli's doing, but I'm more than a little afraid that a good team is going to be a Quarterback away from taking this team to the Super Bowl.

Chiefnj2
10-19-2010, 08:19 PM
We didn't have an OC.


PhilFree:arrow:

Or QB coach.

Sweet Daddy Hate
10-19-2010, 08:54 PM
Maybe. Who knows.

Personally, I don't think there was ever a question of Cassel or Sanchez. I believe Cassel was the guy they wanted from the moment that Pioli arrived. He was a known quantity, and I think in their eyes an immediate solution to the question of a franchise quarterback. No development required, years of play ahead of him. And I don't think we were the only franchise drinking that kool-aid. I'm not exactly a fan of Kyle Orton, but the Broncos in particular may have really lucked out...

That's part of the reason I think Cassel may be gone if it's not clear that he's the answer by season's end. I believe the fact that he was the first significant move made shows just how valuable they believe the quarterback position is. The question then is what they can do to replace him.

But we'll see. If we have more games like last week, he's probably here in 2011, even though I don't believe he's yet shown the ability to play at a high enough level to beat a quality team.

Sanchez is being asked to do pretty much the same exact thing as Cassel has.

The difference is that he's also doing just enough to keep pass defenses honest and to make big throws when they matter.

I didn't like how people made him last year to sound better than he actually was as a rookie. But in his second season, I actually think Sanchez is better than Stafford, Flacco, and... dare I say, Matt Ryan?

This was a huge miss on Pioli's part. I really like what Pioli's doing, but I'm more than a little afraid that a good team is going to be a Quarterback away from taking this team to the Super Bowl.

Somewhere in these two posts FTW.

thigpenfan
10-19-2010, 09:05 PM
Im not gonna play revisionist history here, I would have passed on Sanchez.

I was wrong about him, but in my fantasy world we would have drafted:

Orakpo
Maualuga
2 sticks of bubble gum
Tennant

Okung
Nate Allen
Mccluster
Mccoy
Moeaki

That leaves a lot of holes for other draft picks too, but Im not gonna get into all that right now.

Fixed

GloryDayz
10-19-2010, 09:11 PM
Sanchez is being asked to do pretty much the same exact thing as Cassel has.

The difference is that he's also doing just enough to keep pass defenses honest and to make big throws when they matter.

I didn't like how people made him last year to sound better than he actually was as a rookie. But in his second season, I actually think Sanchez is better than Stafford, Flacco, and... dare I say, Matt Ryan?

This was a huge miss on Pioli's part. I really like what Pioli's doing, but I'm more than a little afraid that a good team is going to be a Quarterback away from taking this team to the Super Bowl.

Does that explain how Cassel can hit a WR in stride (usually), and seems to have a LARGE number of over-thrown balls? I don't get it.. We ask him to throw, and to put it where the WR can catch it. I'm not excusing the drops, those were horrible on the WR's part(s), but those were comparative exceptions to Cassel's inaccurate arm..

BossChief
10-19-2010, 09:12 PM
um wut?

dont do drugs thigpenfan

(go Thigpen)

thigpenfan
10-19-2010, 09:14 PM
um wut?

dont do drugs thigpenfan

(go Thigpen)

Huh???:spock:

BossChief
10-19-2010, 09:17 PM
Huh???:spock:

that whole FYP didn't make a bit of sense.

thigpenfan
10-19-2010, 09:29 PM
that whole FYP didn't make a bit of sense.

How so?

milkman
10-19-2010, 09:34 PM
How so?

:facepalm:

BossChief
10-19-2010, 09:37 PM
and another birth control advertisement joins the Planet.

Sweet Daddy Hate
10-19-2010, 09:55 PM
and another birth control advertisement joins the Planet.

ROFL

BossChief
10-19-2010, 10:02 PM
ROFL

When we said "give us your tired, your hungry, your poor" WE DIDN'T FUCKING MEAN IT!!!

Thigpenfan:

Your free hour on the library computer is up, please lose the password to here and fuck off over to WPI

thigpenfan
10-20-2010, 07:12 AM
When we said "give us your tired, your hungry, your poor" WE DIDN'T ****ING MEAN IT!!!

Thigpenfan:

Your free hour on the library computer is up, please lose the password to here and **** off over to WPI

Wow!! Your a serious dick!

Mr. Kool-aid
10-20-2010, 07:14 AM
Shouldn't you be on the Fins forum?

Pasta Giant Meatball
10-20-2010, 07:22 AM
Cassel's handoffs are amongst the worst in the league. If Mark was QB the running game would be better due to his uber ball skillz.

Sweet Daddy Hate
10-20-2010, 08:06 PM
WHOA.