Chiefs Cassel or Sanchez? - Page 17

KCBOSS1 · 04-11-2009, 06:45 PM

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?

KCBOSS1 · 04-11-2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Well, ****, sounds like we should be able to get a handful of these guys. We haven't we already?

Sounds easy enough.

Good point....can I retract now?

KCBOSS1 · 04-11-2009, 09:23 PM

Just sayin, there haven't been many defensive guys come down the pipe with the size, strength and speed of Curry. I just think he could fly off of the edge well. But then again, getting off the snap would be the deal eh?

Mecca · 04-11-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCBOSS1

Just sayin, there haven't been many defensive guys come down the pipe with the size, strength and speed of Curry. I just think he could fly off of the edge well. But then again, getting off the snap would be the deal eh?

Actually, there is usually a LB that is a similar prospect to Curry every year...he's not a once in a lifetime player he's the LB that usually goes between 8-12 every year he's being pumped up because he's safe in a weak year.

milkman · 04-11-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

DEs are the only game changers on defense, and QBs are the only game changers on offense. You've got football all figured out.

Thanks for the education.

It appears that is what I said, but that was only to make the point.

There are other game changers, but generally speaking it's not that often that you get a game changer at the ILB position, which is the position that Curry's game is best suited for.

milkman · 04-11-2009, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCBOSS1

I don't sit and meditate long on my "presentation" to start a thread. Was just thinking about the whole Sanchez/Cassel deal and wanted to have a discussion about it. You stepped in, slammed it and have been interested ever since....just sayin.

And I'm just flipping you shit.

CrazyHorse · 04-11-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

But you are making an assumption that he can rush the passer based on minimal evidence to support that assuption.

You don't use the #3 on a player with the hope that he has a skillset that you want to use him for,

I would use the pick because he's the best player at a position of great need for the team. Is that a good reason? He don't need to be more than he is. If he's a good pass rusher that's icing.

I'm not so hung up at what pick in the draft it is. I'm hung up on getting the best players. Not to reach for a DE to convert "in hope" of making him something else.

Willie McGinest was on NFL Networj the other day saying the toughest conversion for a 3-4 LB is pass coverage, not pass rushing.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 04-11-2009, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCBOSS1

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?

Alright KCBOSS1, it's time for a little thing I call "Tales Of The Tape". Enough words, let's have some action:

chiefzilla1501 · 04-11-2009, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCBOSS1

Just sayin, there haven't been many defensive guys come down the pipe with the size, strength and speed of Curry. I just think he could fly off of the edge well. But then again, getting off the snap would be the deal eh?

I think the bigger deal is that there is a lot of technique to getting through the trenches and pass rushing moves. DE is one of the more difficult positions to learn in the NFL level.

The deal is that as a 3-4 OLB, you have to be a solid DE but only have to be marginally good at a lot of the typical OLB stuff (having good range and being good in coverage). That's why you want a DE that plays OLB moreso than you want an OLB that plays DE.

Mecca · 04-11-2009, 09:27 PM

That's because Willie McGinest was a defensive end in college....

**DeezNutz** · 04-11-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

Willie McGinest was on NFL Networj the other day saying the toughest conversion for a 3-4 LB is pass coverage, not pass rushing.

I'd have to imagine that's b/c the outside backers come into the league with pass rush ability. As Mecca stated earlier, they're usually DE's.

chiefzilla1501 · 04-11-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

I would use the pick because he's the best player at a position of great need for the team. Is that a good reason? He don't need to be more than he is. If he's a good pass rusher that's icing.

I'm not so hung up at what pick in the draft it is. I'm hung up on getting the best players. Not to reach for a DE to convert "in hope" of making him something else.

Willie McGinest was on NFL Networj the other day saying the toughest conversion for a 3-4 LB is pass coverage, not pass rushing.

It's because as college DE's, you're not asked to do as much pass coverage. If you think it's difficult to cover as a DE, you can imagine the challenge of asking an OLB like Curry to pass rush with his hand on the ground.

Think of it this way. When you're a RB, you want your RB to be a good receiver. But what's more important? A lousy RB who is a great receiver, or a terrific RB who's a poor receiver? Because when you're talking about a 3-4 OLB, you want a good pass rusher who is a lousy pass coverage guy a lot moreso than you want a good pass coverage guy who is a poor pass rusher.

CrazyHorse · 04-11-2009, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

If you think Curry can play outside in a 3-4 this is all I ask..

Give me one example of a traditional 4-3 backer that also played outside in the 3-4, the outside backers in the 3-4 are converted defensive ends..I can not think of 1 example of a traditional LB that stayed outside in the 3-4.

Give me an example of a conventional 4-3 LBer that is built like a 3-4 OLB/DE. Traditional 4-3 OLBs are 220 lbs.

I asked you to give me an example of a QB coming out of college with 1 year experience a year early that succeeded in the NFL. It wasn't a reasonable arguement in that context for you. Why do you try to use it here?

Mecca · 04-11-2009, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

Give me an example of a conventional 4-3 LBer that is built like a 3-4 OLB/DE. Traditional 4-3 OLBs are 220 lbs.

I asked you to give me an example of a QB coming out of college with 1 year experience a year early that succeeded in the NFL. It wasn't a reasonable arguement in that context for you. Why do you try to use it here?

You think NFL LB's are 220lbs what the **** are you smoking?

chiefzilla1501 · 04-11-2009, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

Give me an example of a conventional 4-3 LBer that is built like a 3-4 OLB/DE. Traditional 4-3 OLBs are 220 lbs.

I asked you to give me an example of a QB coming out of college with 1 year experience a year early that succeeded in the NFL. It wasn't a reasonable arguement in that context for you. Why do you try to use it here?

I'm not sure that I fully understand. The point is completely relevant. Vrabel, Suggs, Ware, Merriman, Woodley, Wimbley... these are all DEs who became 3-4 OLBs.

CrazyHorse · 04-11-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

It's because as college DE's, you're not asked to do as much pass coverage. If you think it's difficult to cover as a DE, you can imagine the challenge of asking an OLB like Curry to pass rush with his hand on the ground.

Think of it this way. When you're a RB, you want your RB to be a good receiver. But what's more important? A lousy RB who is a great receiver, or a terrific RB who's a poor receiver? Because when you're talking about a 3-4 OLB, you want a good pass rusher who is a lousy pass coverage guy a lot moreso than you want a good pass coverage guy who is a poor pass rusher.

I understand the arguement and the whole concept behind it. Where I get hung up is that you know more about what Curry can and cant do than anyone else. It's a canned arguement. It's the only one left as a reason not to take the best player on the board.

You dont know he "CANT" any more than I know he "CAN". Like I've said in previous posts, he's shown he can get in the backfield. He just wasn't asked to rush the passer. To assume he cant get into the backfield to rush the passer is somewhat unrealistic IMO.

I'm not buying all the arguements. I take the best player on the board.

04-11-2009, 06:45 PM
KCBOSS1 RAISE EM RIGHT Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Arkansas Casino cash: $10005366	Cassel or Sanchez? 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?
Posts: 1,927

04-11-2009, 09:23 PM	#242
KCBOSS1 RAISE EM RIGHT Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Arkansas Casino cash: $10005366	Just sayin, there haven't been many defensive guys come down the pipe with the size, strength and speed of Curry. I just think he could fly off of the edge well. But then again, getting off the snap would be the deal eh?
Posts: 1,927

04-11-2009, 09:27 PM	#249
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-512950	That's because Willie McGinest was a defensive end in college....
Posts: 115,257