Collinsworth and Simms debate Matt Cassel

[007]

Originally Posted by RedThat

I like what Sims had to say.

I agree with a lot of things he says. In particular about coverages. It is going to happen where NFL receivers get single coverage for a lot of snaps.

Are the Chiefs receivers the greatest? Absolutely not.

But I like how he got to the bottomline. When Cassel has to make the crucial plays to drive his team at important times in ball games he makes the throws. Statistically he converts a majority of the throws that count most. He did that last week. He setup his team in position to win the game. He flat out did his job.

And thats what matters. The most appropriate way to judge a quarterback is to see how that quarterback responds under pressure. I don't care what anyone says. So far, Cassel has proved he has the ability to perform well under difficult circumstances. Facts don't lie, like it or not, anyone who debates this is simply a Cassel hater imo.

*Don't know where the lack of protection came from though? That boggled my mind there.

You did watch the game against the Bills this week right?

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by Guru

You did watch the game against the Bills this week right?

Of course. He came through in the clutch didn't he?

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by RedThat

Of course. He came through in the clutch didn't he?

Cassel played like dogshit for four and 4/5 quarters.

He created the need for his own "clutch" play, which consisted of dumping the ball to a running back and hitting a wide open Moeaki on two 10-yard throws.

If Cassel had turned in one decent half of football the Chiefs win in a blowout.

[007]

Originally Posted by RedThat

Of course. He came through in the clutch didn't he?

Ok, so you want to base an entire game on one series. I see.

Originally Posted by Gif Horse

Cassel played like dogshit for four and 4/5 quarters.

He created the need for his own "clutch" play, which consisted of dumping the ball to a running back and hitting a wide open Moeaki on two 10-yard throws.

If Cassel had turned in one decent half of football the Chiefs win in a blowout.

THIS

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by Guru

Ok, so you want to base an entire game on one series. I see.



THIS

Nope just saying quarterback play should be judged from a broader scale and not a narrow scale. He came through when it mattered most.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by RedThat

Nope just saying quarterback play should be judged from a broader scale and not a narrow scale. He came through when it mattered most.

You have pretty low expectations.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Brock

You have pretty low expectations.

That's the main problem here...

[FAX]

Originally Posted by RedThat

Nope just saying quarterback play should be judged from a broader scale and not a narrow scale. He came through when it mattered most.

It matters all the time, Mr. RedThat. That, I believe, is what people are upset about. It didn't have to come down to the last drive in that game. Not at all.

Collinsworth is right when he says that, with a run game like ours, we ought to be able to devastate enemy defenses with the play action. When you come in averaging 200 rushing yards a game, you should be able to destroy secondaries ... even with the intermediate passing game.

In my opinion, Cassel's worst attributes are his apparent indecisiveness and lack of pocket presence. If he weren't such a question mark in the pocket, his mechanics would improve and, as a result, so would his accuracy. Sadly, too often he takes the snap and turns into, what appears to be, a big giant-chinned doofus with a red shirt and a football.

But, he's not throwing interceptions. Although there have been a couple of lucky breaks in that department as well.

FAX

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by FAX

It matters all the time, Mr. RedThat. That, I believe, is what people are upset about. It didn't have to come down to the last drive in that game. Not at all.

Collinsworth is right when he says that, with a run game like ours, we ought to be able to devastate enemy defenses with the play action. When you come in averaging 200 rushing yards a game, you should be able to destroy secondaries ... even with the intermediate passing game.

In my opinion, Cassel's worst attributes are his apparent indecisiveness and lack of pocket presence. If he weren't such a question mark in the pocket, his mechanics would improve and, as a result, so would his accuracy. Sadly, too often he takes the snap and turns into, what appears to be, a big giant-chinned doofus with a red shirt and a football.

But, he's not throwing interceptions. Although there have been a couple of lucky breaks in that department as well.

FAX

True. And I can see where he and other fans are coming from. We should be destroying teams in the passing game w/ our powerful running attack. Our running game should make things easier for Cassel I totally understand. And if you ask me, I am not pleased at all with his entire play. I do think he needs to get better.

Cassel's indecisiveness, imo, is due to the fact he has bad tunnel vision. His problem is, he stares down receivers a lot. That needs to change. His peripheral vision needs to get better. But, Im not sure if that is something that could be taught. You either have that or you don't. On other hand, when he is confident to make throws, he makes some pretty decent throws. I think his pocket presence is inconsistent. Last year it was terrible, but it has gotten better in comparison to last year. He has developed some patience back there, the protection is better to give him more time to throw the ball, but it goes back to again, his peripheral vision is not that good. I think that plays a role in him having bad pocket presence, and making bad throws.

He definately has been lucky. Luck has certainly been on his side so far.

*My point was, overall he has been average. He is who he is. Has he been garbage at times? you sure bet. But at times he's been really good, and made some key throws to setup his team to win games. He has done a good job protecting the ball as well. Add all that up, and yeah you pretty much get an average quarterback imo. That is what Im getting at in looking at him from a broader scale as opposed to a narrow scale. We have to look at a lot of factors in order to judge who he really is.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Guru

Ok, so you want to base an entire game on one series. I see.



THIS

But its alright to base a game on a single play when it benefits the arguement regardless of player?

Okay, just wanted to know where the goalposts were moved too...

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

Okay, just wanted to know where the goalposts were moved too...

How about average for your position?...

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Rausch

How about average for your position?...

How about add something of substance for a change...

[007]

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

But its alright to base a game on a single play when it benefits the arguement regardless of player?

Okay, just wanted to know where the goalposts were moved too...

What? I'm basing my observations on the entire season. Even in our wins he has looked like crap.

[RedThat]

Originally Posted by Gif Horse

Cassel played like dogshit for four and 4/5 quarters.

He created the need for his own "clutch" play, which consisted of dumping the ball to a running back and hitting a wide open Moeaki on two 10-yard throws.

If Cassel had turned in one decent half of football the Chiefs win in a blowout.

I understand he played like dogshit a majority of the game. but if you ask me, that is not a fair way to evaluate him at this point.

The Chiefs are what they are, a running team. And I suspect they will depend on the running game for a majority of the season. Cassel is who he is, an average to solid quarterback who doesn't turn the ball over and makes the simple and clutch plays when he has to.

A lot of times we get caught up looking at the sh*tty part of his play and neglect our focus on his entire play or focusing on the bottomline. Like it or not, he does convert the throws when needed most. Quarterback play should be judged on a broader scale as opposed to a narrow scale. He has contributed in helping this team win in needed times.

*so if you're referring to him creating his own clutch plays then he deserves some credit. I also give credit to Moeaki and Charles who have been stellar in the clutch so far this year.

*shouldn't be looking at this thing as a blowout. Im sure you know the Chiefs by now, they ain't gonna blow people out. It just comes down to accepting them for who they are. But hey, they got the win. thats all that counts.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by RedThat

I understand he played like dogshit a majority of the game. but if you ask me, that is not a fair way to evaluate him at this point.

OK, so it's not fair to judge a quarterback based on the majority of the game, just one possession.

Like it or not, he does convert the throws when needed most.

So when we needed him to make a throw in the first four quarters, where was he?

Quarterback play should be judged on a broader scale as opposed to a narrow scale.

Wait, didn't you just say we should judge quarterback play based on a narrow scale, i.e. one possession? Make up your ****ing mind.

*so if you're referring to him creating his own clutch plays then he deserves some credit.

He deserves as much credit as shitbag Jake Plummer, who did the same thing in Arizona for years. Play like shit, then miracle comeback out the ass to cover yours.

Im sure you know the Chiefs by now, they ain't gonna blow people out.

Chiefs 42, Jaguars 20
Chiefs 31, 49ers 10

Would you like to know more?