I've seen Stevie be plenty critical over the years.

Jesus, back to this tiresome who's a true fan shit?

No, I would not. You see, I would have unconditional love for my daughter which would prevent me from being rational when looking at her. I have the ability to be rational when I look at the Chiefs. Neither you nor steveie can claim the same. It's not a bad thing, it just makes you look stupid when you try to argue. It would be like me saying my crackhead, slut of a daughter was an outstanding citizen of our society.

Apparently Stevie is the truest...but I am getting there.

Yes, he wanted Cassel to lose his job BECAUSE he was failing. Nowhere in that post did he say "Jeez, Cassel is playing lights out, I hope that guy starts playing like shit."

You changed your words after you realized how stupid they were.

You know, I hate to interject into your love fest but you've been a member of this site for less than a year, correct?

I hope you understand that calling people trolls, people that have been around for three, four, five and even ten years is not only incorrect, but stupid as well?

Okay, back to the love fest.

Huh?

That isn't what we were talking about. You like to change other people's words to fit your arguments, don't you?

If the team falters, you guys are going to rip Cassel and blame him for digging a hole for the team anyways... Its a lose-lose arguement. Until Cassel dies or wins a nobel prize, a medal of honor AND 7 superbowls it will be the same back and forth on here.

Being here for a length of time does not mean you aren't a troll...last I checked...

I can't for the life of me understand why this person would keep arguing a basic fact I just proved to him 100%..Thats why I assumed he was a troll..

My bad if mistaken.

Apparently, you haven't learned much about this site.

If Pants were a true troll (which he is NOT), his rep would be FAR into the red.

Secondly, my advice would be to get to know the members here a little better before using the "troll" word because it only weakens your argument.

No, that is precisely what we're talking about here. You just don't understand causality. The poster you quoted wanted Cassel to be dropped BECAUSE he was failing. Failing as a QB doesn't mean getting fired. There have been plenty of failures playing for teams BEFORE they got fired. It's really not that hard of a concept to grasp.

No He didn't.

You're wrong. He wanted the Chiefs to fail so that Cassel would lose his job.

Uh, yeah, none of us saw this coming.

Who here had a concern that the QB position could potentially hold us back, whether it be over the entire season, or on a game-to-game basis?

That's the whole point. "Better" isn't good enough.

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that if Cassel had played the Texans, Raiders and Broncos games like he played the Arizona and Seattle games, we would have won those games, and wouldn't be sweating the last 5 weeks?

He was brought here under the pretense he's a franchise QB that can win the big games.

Time to prove it.