Chiefs Cassel or Sanchez? - Page 22

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?

milkman · 04-12-2009, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EyePod

Wow, way to ignore what I said! I said he doesn't have the starts. He doesn't have the continual increase of his completion % over those QUALITY STARTS. Oh, and Colt McCoy has a much better completion % and will be better than Mark Sanchez ever will. I just wanted to make sure that you remember that I said that. SO next season, when he's going at the top (as he should), remember me.

Colt McCoy!

You people are ****ing clueless.

JFC

philfree · 04-12-2009, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I haven't seen sanchez play much at all. I'm pretty concerned about the single year starting, though. That's not historically a good thing. But, hey, we're talking about a team that's starting a QB with one year of experience since high school.

Yeah but those starts were in the NFL. IMO since Cassel has been in the league for 4 years the comparison and number of starts between him and Sanchez are hard to make.

PhilFree

keg in kc · 04-12-2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

Yeah but those starts were in the NFL. IMO since Cassel has been in the league for 4 years the comparison and number of starts between him and Sanchez are hard to make.

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

Messier · 04-12-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I haven't seen sanchez play much at all. I'm pretty concerned about the single year starting, though. That's not historically a good thing. But, hey, we're talking about a team that's starting a QB with one year of experience since high school.

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.

chiefzilla1501 · 04-12-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

And again........ show me why you think Curry cant get into the backfield.

You keep pounding your fist against the post on the same arguement while ignoring the fact that Curry was able to make plays in the backfield in the capacity he was asked. And assume that he wont be able to get in the backfield if asked to do it in another capacity. Why?

The fact is, when asked to do it......he did it.

Now, let's say he cant do it for the sake of your arguement. Then I would still take him as an inside LB. Why? because he's the best player on the board and we need one.

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.

Messier · 04-12-2009, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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

No, Cassel is much less risky.

keg in kc · 04-12-2009, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messier

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.

I never said I wanted Sanchez. I just said the risk is pretty much equivalent.

Although on the other hand Tyler Thigpen has one year of starting experience. And I'd much rather have Sanchez than him.

milkman · 04-12-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messier

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.

We should have traded for Derek Anderson last year.

keg in kc · 04-12-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messier

No, Cassel is much less risky.

That's a matter of opinion, and mine is that Cassel is pretty risky himself.

philfree · 04-12-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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

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

milkman · 04-12-2009, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Messier

No, Cassel is much less risky.

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.

milkman · 04-12-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

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

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.

Messier · 04-12-2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

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.

You could be right.

keg in kc · 04-12-2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

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

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.

Messier · 04-12-2009, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

We should have traded for Derek Anderson last year.

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

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