Poor Preseason Puts Heat on Pioli, Cassel

[Hammock Parties]

Poor Preseason Puts Heat on Pioli, Cassel


Did the Chiefs seriously just complete another losing preseason?

If you’re keeping score at home, that’s 1-7 in the preseason for the Scott Pioli era. Over the last four years, the Chiefs are a woeful 3-13 in preseason. While it would be foolish to assign too much relevance to exhibition wins and losses, when they come in tandem with 10 Chiefs regular season wins in three years, the correlation is a concern.

When you factor in the performance of the Chiefs’ key starters and draft picks this preseason, there’s even more reason for concern.

Aside from the shocking revelation that Todd Haley can control his previously nuclear sideline temper for an entire month, the most important thing we learned from August is that Pioli and his highly-paid quarterback, Matt Cassel, still have a lot to prove. Preseason provided no legitimate answers to the questions that have surrounded the pair since last season.

In Pioli’s case, the question is simple – can he effectively identify and cultivate game-changing, impact players?

Most of his initial draft class appears to have been written off already. Jake O’Connell, Javarris Williams, Quinten Lawrence, Colin Brown and Donald Washington have been pushed down the depth chart by 2010 rookies.

The three who don’t appear to have been written off - Alex Magee, Tyson Jackson and Ryan Succop – are a mixed bag. Magee actually showed up this preseason, recording a sack, which makes the crown jewel of Pioli’s 2009 rookie class, Tyson Jackson, look like a lump of cubic zirconia. After a disastrous rookie year, Jackson didn’t show much progress over the last month. He was invisible. If he made an impact play, I missed it.

Clearly, the Chiefs don’t consider Jackson much of a threat as a pass rusher. He comes off the field frequently on third down. It’s not hard to see why – Magee and Wallace Gilberry are far more athletic and explosive, not to mention cheaper. Considering his price tag, Jackson’s impact should be more noticeable.

Has Pioli picked the right players? Getty Images

After missing four field goals all of last year, Succop missed three this preseason. Sure, they were long kicks. Is that supposed to make Chiefs fans feel better when a game is on the line this season and Succop needs to make another long kick?

Conclusion: there are no signs from the 2009 draft class of a game-changing, impact player. How about Pioli’s 2010 draft class? Any signs there?

Pencil in safety Eric Berry as a legit possibility. After seeing Berry blast through a fullback to upend a ball carrier against the Buccaneers two weeks ago, I began speaking in tongues. The Chiefs shut down starting quarterbacks this preseason (apart from one busted play against Tampa) and Berry was definitely part of it.

The problem is Pioli’s second-round picks, wide receiver Dexter McCluster and cornerback Javier Arenas, and his third-round pick, tight end Tony Moeaki. Carl Peterson is no longer hanging around Arrowhead Stadium, which means second-round picks should be having a huge impact, even as rookies.

Are McCluster and Arenas having a huge impact? Based on preseason, the answer is no. While they’ve both proven to be exciting, athletic players who can change a game on special teams, they have to be more.

Arenas has to make an impact on defense. In a perfect world, he’d challenge for Brandon Carr’s starting job by season’s end. If he’s Allen Rossum, a great “cornerback” who has elite return skills but never plays defense, Pioli reached on the pick.

McCluster’s preseason receiving numbers – seven catches, 40 yards, no touchdowns, two or three drops – are disappointing. While it’s great that McCluster can make explosive plays as a running back, he needs 600 receiving yards and three or four touchdowns to justify the pick Pioli spent, and that’s setting the bar low. Kenny Britt and Hakeem Nicks, selected in 2009 in roughly the same draft slot as McCluster, both went over 700 yards as rookies.

And let’s go ahead and set the bar a little higher for Moeaki, who finally caught a pass Thursday night. Third-round picks, especially on teams lacking viable starting tight ends, have to make more of an impact.

But maybe we should temper the expectations for any of KC’s pass catchers. Because based on Cassel’s preseason, the Chiefs will again struggle to throw the ball.

Will Cassel chuck it down the field? Getty Images

I’m honestly flabbergasted that Cassel managed to complete 64 percent of his passes this preseason, throw more touchdowns than interceptions, and finish with a lousy 79.3 rating. Previously, football scientists believed such a feat was impossible, because the NFL weights completion percentage and touchdown-to-interception ratio so heavily in their passer rating formula.

But Cassel pulled it off by quickly dumping the ball short on almost every snap this preseason, averaging a shockingly low five yards per pass attempt. In some cases, Cassel was dumping the ball to running backs behind the line of scrimmage before receivers running down the field had even completed their patterns.

Either the approach was Cassel’s diabolical plan to avoid looking too inept, or KC’s new offensive coordinator, Charlie Weis, watched film of Cassel taking too many sacks and missing too many throws down the field the last two seasons. After sweating profusely for a moment, Weis yanked his 1983 Morristown High School Football playbook out of mothballs, fired up a Xerox machine, and voila! He produced the 2010 Kansas City Chiefs playbook and hatched a plot to turn Cassel into a mistake-free, accurate passer.

Humor aside, here are the facts: had Dwayne Bowe not caught a short pass from Cassel and rumbled for a 30-yard gain Thursday night, every one of Kansas City’s starting receivers and tight ends would have averaged fewer than 10 yards per catch this preseason. Quite literally, in four exhibition games, Cassel did not complete a pass that traveled 15 yards or more from the line of scrimmage.

All of this happened in the midst of an improved offensive line that barely resembled the unit responsible for Cassel’s knee injury last year. Cassel handed the ball to three dynamite running backs this preseason, threw it to a receiver (Bowe) who appears to have made a quantum leap in maturity, and had not one, but two former Super Bowl offensive coordinators talking inside his helmet between plays.

Chan Gailey, Bobby Wade, Larry Johnson and Mike Goff are gone. The excuses are drying up.

Is preseason a mirage, or will Cassel continue to play quarterback as if he were coached by Herm Edwards and Dick Curl? We’re talking about a player who will make more money this year than Donovan McNabb, Tony Romo, Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees and Tom Brady.

That means he has something to prove. So does Pioli. The heat is on.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Which is why stats don't matter, especially if your ONE's are going against other team's Two's.

The Chiefs starters did not look dominant or even average against other team's first teamers.

They looked exactly like last's year's team. Unable to stop the run, unable to throw the ball.

You're harshing his mellow, brah.

[chiefzilla1501]

I think using the word "poor" is using the term carelessly. The Chiefs didn't have a poor preseason. Their #1's played very well against Tampa, Philly, and Green Bay. They should have won against Tampa and Philly, but lost because their 2nd and 3rd team sucks--that should be expected from a team that's largely rebuilding. From a defensive standpoint, you take away a few ridiculously careless offensive turnovers, and their first team defense practically shut out Philly, Tampa, and Green Bay.

The running game has been phenomenal. And I don't think you give nearly enough credit to how much better our o-line looks blocking in space. Yesterday, they looked incredible blocking for Jones/Charles against Green Bay.

The problem is that your article focuses on wins/losses and total stats. That stuff means jackshit in the preseason. What I saw was our defense tackling better, a LOT less defensive players out of position, our D-line while not moving blockers doing a better job at knowing their assignments, a defense that overall plays with much more discipline. On offense, I saw much better yards-after-catch from our receivers, great play by our RBs, and superb run blocking by our offensive line. And our return game on special teams is miles ahead of last year.

We suck at QB, our 2009 draft sucked, and we have shitty depth. But to say that the entire team has laid a goose egg is just not true to reality.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I think using the word "poor" is using the term carelessly. The Chiefs didn't have a poor preseason. Their #1's played very well against Tampa, Philly, and Green Bay.

Proof positive that you don't have a ****ing clue.

Are you Josh Looney or some other shill for the Chiefs?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Which is why stats don't matter, especially if your ONE's are going against other team's Two's.

The Chiefs starters did not look dominant or even average against other team's first teamers.

They looked exactly like last's year's team. Unable to stop the run, unable to throw the ball.

Again, why do you keep saying that the defense looked average?

The first team defense gave up 10 first half points against Tampa
The first team defense gave up 10 first half points against Philly.
Arguably 10 of those points were due to careless offensive turnovers that pinned the team to terrible field position.

20 points in those two games is NOT what I call domination. Especially when you factor in that two of those drives were due to offensive carelessness.

[chiefzilla1501]

I'm heading out for the night, but this is the closing thought. When Clay uses "poor", this is why I ahve a problem with the assessment. Because the whole post is about how we didn't get any better. THe problem is it harps on the stuff we were already bad at in 2009, but doesn't call out ways we got better.

Better:
Run blocking was very good this preseason
Running game -- excellent this preseason
Return game -- excellent this preseason
Defensive line-- average, but much improved from last season--less mistakes, more discipline
LBs -- same. Seeing more consistent play from Demorrio Williams / DJ. A LOT less mistakes.
CBs/Safeties -- HUGE improvements. Our last line of defense limited and broke up numerous big plays this preseason
WRs -- were great this preseason at YAC. Bowe's playing much better. McCluster has been good in the screen game

Just as bad/worse:
-2009 draft
-Matt Cassel is horrendous and is holding our pass offense back big time

So while you talk about the pair... this team got much better in 2010, especially with the addition of Romeo and Weis. Having a shitty QB sucks, is frustrating, and sucks and Pioli should get grilled to all hell for it. But let's not ignore that we're getting better in a lot of different areas. So when you say that we haven't had many questions answered this preseason, I fundamentally disagree. It just so happens that a few big questions we had last year remain big questions.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Which contenders, other than the Jets, have looked like shit all throughout preseason?

It's been said many times that there are too many preseason games. So, if the season had started after preseason game two, do you think the Chiefs would be 2-0 now because they game-planned?

They've had six months to prepare in team workouts, OTA's, mini-camp and training camp, yet the offense is awful.

Do you expect that to change in 10 days because it's no longer preseason?

The Patriots, Colts, Eagles. Should I continue?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by billay

The Patriots, Colts, Eagles. Should I continue?

I think the problem is when you suck like KC has for so long you expect to see more out of preseason to give you hope.

The reality is compared to last year they looked much better in preseason in most areas. We have an easier schedule considerably more talent, better coaches on both sides of the ball, and yet people are predicting a worse or no better record.

That's funny, irritating, and depressing all at the same time.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

The reality is compared to last year they looked much better in preseason in most areas.

The only area where I did not see marked improvement from the 2009 preseason was quarterback.

The offensive line (which I continue to have some concern about) was much better than I saw last preseason, particularly the last two weeks. The running game looks better than it did at any time in the '09 preseason (and teams know it''s coming now). Bowe looks engaged and like he belongs on the field, whereas last year he was playing with the 2s and 3s. They've gradually worked McCluster in with the starting unit and he's clearly a weapon. The starting unit has had some sustained drives and has actually scored touchdowns.

The starting defense has forced a number of 3 and outs. I don't see the line getting pushed around the way they were in the '09 preseason. The linebackers are active and seem free to make plays, which they were not a year ago. The secondary play, Flower's failed gamble aside, has been better than anything I've ever seen in Kansas City (keep in mind I got here in '99, so I missed the so-called "glory years"), and Barry is a goddamn rookie. That guy blows my mind. And it's for little things, like in last night's game where he just stones a WR screen - nobody on the '09 Chiefs at safety makes that play. I still have front 7 concerns, but that's more from conditioning I had from watching last year's games rather than anything I saw this preseason.

The one thing they really need to figure out (and they seem to know this) is how to start better. The template seemed to be offensive turnover early, defense gives up short field TD, then everybody starts to play better. And they need to start the games at the "play better" point.

And sure, maybe the opponents weren't playing at full speed, or maybe gameplanning would have killed us - and I do think Rodgers would have made some kind of a difference last night - but reality is that they have to play who they line up against, and what I saw from the starters in the preseason was a team that was competitive. Something I most assuredly did not see in the 2009 preseason. I saw what appeared to be a more aggressive team, what was definitely a faster and more athletic team, and what I thought was clearly a better team than I saw play in a preseason a year ago, albeit a team that just as clearly has more work to do.

What I don't see is a reason to be discouraged by anything, aside from Cassel's part Jekyll, primarily Hyde performance. That's worrisome, but not something that caught me by surprise.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by billay

The Patriots, Colts, Eagles. Should I continue?

What?

You're telling me that the Patriots and Colts first team looked like shit this preseason? QB's throwing INT's right and left, defenses giving up TD's to backup QB's?

I don't know about you, but I expected the Eagles to struggle with a first time starting QB. Anyone that considers them a contender for anything is highly optimistic, especially in a division that features the Cowboys, Giants and an improving Redskins team.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Joking, right?

How can you say they played "better" against a 3-13 Tampa team (the youngest team in the league, by far)? Flowers was burned by a rookie for a 50 yard TD, wasn't he? And they allowed a bad team to score 10 points with a backup QB.

LeSean McCoy averaged nearly 5 yards a carry and Philly's a 70/30 running team.



Top? No. Reserve? Yes.

I expected FAR more out of our high third rounder than what I've seen.

Far more.

Who's ahead of him at G? When we drafted him you said there's our new starting G? I didn't, I said there's Waters replacement. You're acting like 3rd round=1st.

From a team that let Offenses do what they wanted last year, yes, it's good that our starters made their starter look uncomfortable, and not get into a rhythm. I didn't see that last year, and neither did you.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Messier

Who's ahead of him at G? When we drafted him you said there's our new starting G? I didn't, I said there's Waters replacement. You're acting like 3rd round=1st.

First off, guards rarely go in the first round. Secondly, he was a right guard in college. If the Chiefs were going to draft a right guard, why sign Lilja to play right guard?

Originally Posted by Messier

From a team that let Offenses do what they wanted last year, yes, it's good that our starters made their starter look uncomfortable, and not get into a rhythm. I didn't see that last year, and neither did you.

And which team was that? It certainly wasn't Atlanta. It certainly wasn't Tampa Bay. Green Bay didn't play their starters on offense and Philly has a young first year starting QB.

Teams ran at will when they chose to run against the Chiefs first team. Hell, Tampa Bay of all teams moved the ball up and down the first in the first quarter and a half against the Chiefs first teamers.

You are seeing things that just aren't there. Either that, or you're unfamiliar with the opposing starters.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

That young first year starter in Philly made this defense his bitch last year. He had enough time to make a sandwich in the pocket. This year they disrupt and get some pressure on him and *gasp* he looks bad.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by PGM

That young first year starter in Philly made this defense his bitch last year. He had enough time to make a sandwich in the pocket. This year they disrupt and get some pressure on him and *gasp* he looks bad.

DeSean Jackson barely played. Brent Celek barely played. The guys that ripped up the Chiefs last year were barely on the field.

But go ahead and pretend it was the same team. It apparently makes a bunch of you feel much better.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

DeSean Jackson barely played. Brent Celek barely played. The guys that ripped up the Chiefs last year were barely on the field.

But go ahead and pretend it was the same team. It apparently makes a bunch of you feel much better.

I don't think the Eagles are very good anyway.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Brock

I don't think the Eagles are very good anyway.

Nope.