Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5661822)

Cassel's still every bit the risk, and it's questionable as to whether the upside is even close.

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 5661825)

One year of starting in the NFL. I'd rather have the QB that has one year in the NFL and shown he can handle it, than the college QB that has one year of starting experience.

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 5661825)

One year of starting in the NFL. I'd rather have the QB that has one year in the NFL and shown he can handle it, than the college QB that has one year of starting experience.

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 5661828)

No, Cassel is much less risky.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5661822)

Cassel's still every bit the risk, and it's questionable as to whether the upside is even close.

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 5661828)

No, Cassel is much less risky.

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5661832)

I'd have to disagree with that. He has played in the NFL and he lead his team to victorys down the stretch with a playoff birth on the line. They didn't make the playoffs as we all know bit it wasn't because of his play. He got it done. And he was acquired for a 2nd round pick and he cost a alot less too. And that's at the QB franchise tender. Upside? Maybe so but that's alot like potential, it can become a dirty word.


PhilFree:arrow:

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5661834)

Even if that were true, and I disagree, I would rather take the greater risk, because I think there's a greater reward with Sanchez.

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5661832)

Upside? Maybe so but that's alot like potential, it can become a dirty word.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5661830)

We should have traded for Derek Anderson last year.

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 5661838)

I think Cassel is better than Anderson, just based on what I've seen, as well as what team mates have said about him.

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 5661838)

I think Cassel is better than Anderson, just based on what I've seen, as well as what team mates have said about him.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5661835)

The bottom line here, to me, is that this fanbase is afraid to take (perceived) risks.

I'm not sure why most people were unhappy with Carl.

That guy never took risks.

Originally Posted by KCBOSS1 (Post 5660478)

I realize that we are where we are, but the more I see about Sanchez, the more I'm afraid that a few years down the road, we may look back and realize that we passed up on the franchise guy that we've been looking for. I know that Cassel played ok last year, but is he a franchise guy? ...likely not. Thoughts?

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5661851)

I'm not afraid of risk but after I weigh all the factors I think Sanchez at #3 is "too" risky. And then there's my gut that's telling me that Sanchez is a mirage. Time will prove my gut to be right or wrong. And FWIW I see Stafford as a very risky too. Because of his arm strength and over 30 starts I like him more then Sanchez.


PhilFree:arrow:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5660546)

I think it's pretty simple, anyone who takes time to watch Sanchez and learn about him will love the guy. He has everything you look for in a QB in the intangibles area, he's as sound as they come with his mechanics and quick release and feet..

The only arguments against him are "he's short" and " he started 16 games" and of course for anyone that watched him play he doesn't remotely look like a 1 year starter.

Originally Posted by DTLB58 (Post 5661855)

Why is he likely not???

I find it humorus that most people always think the grass in greener on the other side.

You are assuming a QB who has actually started in the NFL, lead his team to a 11-5 winning record and had back to back 400 yard passing games is lesser a player than a college QB who hasn't played a down yet in the NFL and was critisized for coming out of college after only a handful of starts is better.

Some people just want something to B*tch about I swear.....Just another example of how people are never happy with what they got.

Why not support our team/decisions and wait till they have actually played a few games before we make these assumptions? Jeez :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5660591)

Matt Cassel played TE his senior year isn't that a bit scary....
I don't see any star potential there, I see league average QB.

And no offense or anything but Mark Sanchez has better mechanics and a much quicker release. And there are several of us that talked about Sanchez at 3 much much longer than a month ago.

Originally Posted by Kyle DeLexus (Post 5660583)

Not to mention Randy Moss and Wes Welker

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5660613)

There were some issues with his line but he also held the ball to long. The guy does not setup and pump it out quickly by any degree.

Originally Posted by KcMizzou (Post 5660635)

As far as Cassel goes...

Pioli and McDaniels both obviously think pretty highly of the guy. And they are two of the guys who should know him best. The fact that they both wanted him is a good sign, IMO.

I'm more than willing to trust their judgment.

Originally Posted by DTLB58 (Post 5661864)

NO! Because he was a starter on an NFL team LAST season as a QB!

Good grief.

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 5661848)

Any rookie is a risk because the college game is so different from the pros, and QB is the riskiest of the positions, and hardest to evaluate. The odds are good that Sanchez or Stafford will flame out, they both could. That's why everyone points back the 1983 QB class as such an amazing story, because of how rare it is to get 3 great QB's in one class. In 1999 there were 5 QB's taken in the first round only one has turned out to be really good, while another is just hanging on in the league.

I think you have less than a 50/50 shot that a first round QB will be a reliable starter in the NFL.

Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 5660650)

Or it's that they're from the Belichick/Parcells style of thinking which prefers guys they personally like and are familiar with over anything else.

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry (Post 5661887)

Its about 70% success rate for a top 5 pick at QB.
Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry (Post 5661887)

Its about 70% success rate for a top 5 pick at QB.
Posted via Mobile Device

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots (Post 5660881)

That's quite "Tebowish" of you Sauto, and it inspires miles of confidence in my football-loving soul. :rolleyes:

.

Originally Posted by DTLB58 (Post 5661855)

Why not support our team/decisions and wait till they have actually played a few games before we make these assumptions? Jeez :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5661837)

Not really. That just means the odds that Cassel is more than a game manager are pretty small. That doesn't mean they're non-existent, or that he can't/won't be more than that.

And a game manager would still be a significant upgrade from anyone else on the roster, assuming he's at least that much.

I don't think it's a bad trade for the price, it just wasn't the move I'd have made. But I can live with it.

We just better hope he's not Scott Mitchell.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5661967)

how many "game managers" have MULTIPLE 400+ yard games??? and in his first year starting

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5661982)

Did you watch either of those games?

I recall a play in each of those:

One was a short pass to Welker who made someone miss and ran for over 60 yards before being push OOB.

Another was a similar play to Sam Aiken, who ran for close to 50.

Cassel led the league in yards after the catch. Let's not make it out like he's the one responsible for these mammoth yardage numbers.

Oh, and they were 1-1 in those 2 games.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5661987)

EVERY qb has RAC #s, EVERY ONE, why not find a qb that has thrown for 400+ with NO WR taking a short pass and turning it into a long one. and yes i watched BOTH. but back to the RAC if you watched his games he is EXCELLENT at leading his Wrs and putting the ball to them when they have the opportunity to run.

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5661991)

Of course every QB benefits from YAC.

But as the stats prove, none did like Cassel.

IIRC, close to 60% of his yardage was gained after the catch.

(I'd love to see that link again, I can't find it, and I don't have a STATS, Inc account)

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662006)

my point is that MAYBE some of the YAC was BECAUSE of cassell's ball placement. some of that(alot IMO) is on him , just as much as the WRs

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5662018)

How much did those same recievers have in 2007? Welker = yac.


PhilFree:arrow:

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662006)

my point is that MAYBE some of the YAC was BECAUSE of cassell's ball placement. some of that(alot IMO) is on him , just as much as the WRs

Originally Posted by philfree (Post 5662018)

How much did those same recievers have in 2007? Welker = yac.


PhilFree:arrow:

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662027)

It never hurts having Moss and Welker as your two primary targets, look at 2007 vs 2008 for those guys and aside from RECs being down for Moss, they're both consistent with their AVG YPC... those two guys help any QB and they have nice YAC.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5661947)

Because we have that capacity to think for ourselves that evidently eludes you.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662029)

... but no one talks about how many YAC they had when TB was behind center....

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662035)

also in that same article they say that YAC yards are due to the WR being to run and elude tacklers AND the qb ball placement, so the argument AGAINST cassel does not work

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662032)

so if the YAC #s are consistent between cassel and brady does it make an argument against cassel work?

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662039)

Moss and Welker hit the scene in 2007 with NE and that is when Brady went berzerko from a stats perspective. Prior to that, Brady has a solid producer with mid/high 3k passing efforts and in the mid/high 20's for TDs.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662039)

Moss and Welker hit the scene in 2007 with NE and that is when Brady went berzerko from a stats perspective. Prior to that, Brady has a solid producer with mid/high 3k passing efforts and in the mid/high 20's for TDs.

All I'm saying is that is one hell of a receiving duo, the likes of which few teams have... KC being one of them, so it will be interesting to see what Matt does in 2009.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662045)

Actually, I think it speaks to the greatness of the NE system... Brady was a stats monster in this system in 2007 with those 2 WRs, then in 2008 Cassell puts up solid numbers.

The question is... can he be productive outside of that system, because that is where he is now with the Chiefs. KC 2009 is nothing like NE 2008.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5662048)

Out of fairness to him, he'd been a 'solid producer' with nothing in the way of receivers and pedestrian runningbacks. He carried that offense for years on his own.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662049)

i just think some of the arguments used against cassel are baseless, these guys arent taking into account that brady had the same things happen the year before. does that downgrade brady also? and yeah cassel didnt have as good of #s but would brady have had those same #s his first year?

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5662048)

.

That offense wasn't even close to the same with Cassel last year, although it probably wouldn't ever repeat 2007's numbers even with Brady. That was a 'stars align' kind of year.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662053)

my main point here is ball placement. it's important in YAC and if the pats lead the league in YAC all of it CANT go on the WRs cassel gets credit there too.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662055)

True, I wasn't trying to gloss over that... Brady was a great QB without a stellar set of WRs.



That's the thing - nobody knows. Look at Tom Brady in that 'offensive system' prior to Moss/Welker. Brady was a consistent winner and nice stats producer. Enter Moss/Welker and he rewrites the record books.

So, Cassel stepped into an offense with two phenom WRs that had helped Brady be one of the top 2-3 QBs in the league for the last half decade.

Yeah, I totally get why some may question Cassel's ability to produce outside of that environment. Could he be Tom Brady part Deaux? Sure... but, I have to see it to believe it.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662059)

i have been saying this for a month, some people here have annointed the pats as last years champs had brady played and bashed cassel for not doing the exact same thing that brady did before. i have said multiple times brady probably wouldnt have done that last year again, look at peyton manning's career stats, consistent years and one HUGE year then back to the same as before

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662062)

Sure, Cassel gets credit... I doubt that Alex Smith or Rex Grossman could have done as well. But, let's not act as if Cassel wasn't the main beneficiary here of that system.

Did he do well and make the most of a very advantageous situation? Hell yea.... could it do it again, sure.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662065)

was tom brady "that guy" his first year(top 2-3)??? nope why should cassel be expected to step in right off and be the tom brady of 2007???

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662067)

the "system" will be pretty close here IMO and with TG??? bowe and surely someone else we will see. if bowe gets hit on the run he will be a beast

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662067)

the "system" will be pretty close here IMO and with TG??? bowe and surely someone else we will see. if bowe gets hit on the run he will be a beast

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662066)

I doubt Brady would have repeated those stats either... but, let's not act as if 1 year proves that Cassel is in the same league as those two guys just yet. If he were, the Pats would have kept him and traded Brady.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 5661826)

I'm pounding my fist because you keep insisting that Curry is an exception to the rule. Find me an example of an OLB who converted to play 3-4 DE. Lamar Woodley, James Harrison, Demarcus Ware, Greg Ellis, Manny Lawson, Parys Haralson, Kamerion Wimbley, Willie McGinest, Adalius Thomas, Mike Vrabel, Terrell Suggs, Jarrett Johnson, Jerry Porter, Matt Roth, Bryan Thomas, Calvin Pace. These are all the 3-4 OLBs in the NFL. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM played defensive end in college. And Harrison is the only one of them that is under 260 lbs.

I keep pounding my fist because you are suggesting that OLBs can convert to a 3-4 OLB. And I'm asking you to show me an example of when this actually worked? If it's so easy for big OLBs to move to 3-4 OLB, then why of the 16 3-4 OLBs are ZERO of them former OLBs? It's because in a 3-4 OLB role, rushing the passer takes priority over all the other things an OLB does. It's not good enough to be okay at rushing the passer. You have to be exceptional. Curry CAN rush the passer. But it's not a strength. Again, it's like asking a RB who occasionally caught a few passes in college but did it well to be an every-down receiver. Can Curry bullrush? Does he know the large assortment of pass rush moves like the swim move? Does he know how to fire off the snap? Curry spent his entire college career training to be a versatile linebacker. You are suggesting that he, an occasional pass rusher, has the same expertise as a college defensive end who practiced at the position for years. And that's a huge stretch.

We're talking about a #3 pick here. Curry has shown he can rush the passer, but can he do it exceptionally the majority of the downs? Haven't we learned our lesson about trying to make college players play out of position? There are 8 NFL teams that say that college OLBs don't make good 3-4 OLBs. 15 of 16 OLBs are over 260 lbs (Curry is not). For a 3-4 OLB, it's better to be a very good pass rusher who can learn to play average at the OLB position than an OLB who can learn to be an average pass rusher. Therefore, Curry does NOT belong on the outside in a 3-4. Nor does DJ. I will keep pounding my fist until you acknowledge that moving Curry to 3-4 OLB is not something NFL teams do.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662072)

Ummm... the first time Brady stepped in at QB (in relief of Bledsoe) was Brady's 2nd NFL season and hmmm, yeah they won the SB.

Is this really the path you want to take?

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5662074)

http://i41.tinypic.com/2gwgp4j.jpg

Jesus tits.

You did not just compare the Patriots offense to the Chiefs offense.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662076)

Ohhhh, ok. KC will be able to duplicate the NE system in one off-season. Got it!

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662078)

i'm not acting like he's in that league... yet, read back i say multiple times people expect him to BE TB and TB wasnt TB his frirst year, he grew into it over multiple years, cassel showed that he has the ability to learn and grow so who knows what his upside is

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662080)

they had apretty good d then no???

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662072)

Ummm... the first time Brady stepped in at QB (in relief of Bledsoe) was Brady's 2nd NFL season and hmmm, yeah they won the SB.

Is this really the path you want to take?

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662083)

wow guys did i say that our offense will be just like theirs??? NO, i said our "system" will be pretty close, you know the offense we will be trying to run

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662006)

my point is that MAYBE some of the YAC was BECAUSE of cassell's ball placement. some of that(alot IMO) is on him , just as much as the WRs

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662093)

Ah... 'close'. There's your out for the time when the dung hits the fan.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5662098)

This needs to be emphasized.

While QB's may benefit GREATLY from a WR's ability to run after the catch, that same QB can single-handedly KILL a WR's ability to actually do it.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662090)

brady had 2843 yards 18 tds 12 ints yep thats top 2-3 qbs that year

Originally Posted by LOCOChief (Post 5662095)

I went to a ballgame last night with a bunch of NE fans, and they found it comical when I told them the growing concensus of people on this board are hoping that KC picks Sanchez at 3 and that Cassel isn't a franchise talent.

Their thinking was "Merry Christmas KC" afterall these are fans that didin't miss a game with Cassel under center.

Originally Posted by htismaqe (Post 5662098)

This needs to be emphasized.

While QB's may benefit GREATLY from a WR's ability to run after the catch, that same QB can single-handedly KILL a WR's ability to actually do it.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662101)

I never said Brady was a top 2-3 guy in his first year. I said he's been in a system that has helped him be a top 2-3 guy for the last half decade.

In his first season, he won a SB... who gives a shit what his QB rank was that year? Cassel had better stats in 2008 compared to Brady in 2001, but what does it matter... Cassel never saw post-season and his reward was being sent to KC. ROFL

Originally Posted by Messier (Post 5661907)

Since 2000 50% of the QB's taken in the top five are still starting and one is JaMarcus Russell, so who knows how long that will last.

Originally Posted by Mile High Mania (Post 5662104)

I don't think we've denied this to be true... but, Jason wants to act as if NE's success was more Cassel and not the system. No biggie though.

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO (Post 5662119)

OTW started this on the YAC and acted like thats the only reason that cassel had 400+ yard games. i stated that the Qbs ball placement had a lot to do with it, never once said all

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5662125)

Again, bullshit.

The "only" reason?

No.

A HUGE reason?

Absolutely.

Again, the stats don't lie. He lead the league in YAC. Close to 60% IIRC.

He's not going to have the luxury of Moss and WElker in KC, so I fully expect that number, as well as his total yardage, to drop significantly.

Originally Posted by milkman (Post 5661818)

Colt McCoy!

LMAO

You people are ****ing clueless.

JFC

Originally Posted by DTLB58 (Post 5661877)

If true, of course there is no chance that he will ever improve :rolleyes:

Afterall, We all know a QB never improves his game after starting just 1 year in the NFL. :D

Originally Posted by DTLB58 (Post 5661882)

Well, Finally! Another True Fan to share my Kool-Aid with! Yay! :clap:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5661982)

Did you watch either of those games?

I recall a play in each of those:

One was a short pass to Welker who made someone miss and ran for over 60 yards before being push OOB.

Another was a similar play to Sam Aiken, who ran for close to 50.

Cassel led the league in yards after the catch. Let's not make it out like he's the one responsible for these mammoth yardage numbers.

Oh, and they were 1-1 in those 2 games.