| milkman |
05-27-2012 07:09 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by -King-
(Post 8642118)
The defense wasn't any different when Orton was there and when he wasn't. It's not like they suddenly started playing well when Orton started playing. They were playing well well before Orton came in.
|
In the first 11 games, the defense often played well in the first half, but gave up a ton of points in the second half of games on a fairly consistent basis.
How many times in the first half of the season did the Chiefs get into the mid to late second quarter, or even the third quarter in one game, if I remember correctly, before they even achieved thier first first down.
The defense wore down in those games, and it showed.
Especially against the Bills, the Lions, and the Patriots.
Quote:
I'll take that chance over Orton coming in and getting 3 years to prove himself.
It's obvious that patience is wearing thin with Cassel. It's obvious that Pioli knows that now. So yeah, if we're going to have a mediocre QB, I'd rather have Cassel because he'll be cut sooner. With Orton, he'd be given 3 years.
|
I highly doubt that holds true for Orton, but that's an argument for another day.
However, if Cassel hs another season in 2012 like he did in 2010, there is no argument.
Pioli can point to those numbers and tell everyone that Cassel showed that he's a good QB, just as he has pointed to 2010 to support his claim that Cassel is a good QB.
Quote:
I didn't do the math. I didn't even remember that play when I copied the stats from PFR. Hell, before this post, I was thinking that PFR had simply made a mistake with their calculations.
|
Okay, but don't let it happen again.(insert smiley) |
