Chiefs Let's face facts: we're going to have to bonus-up on Matt Cassel. - Page 5

Direckshun · 11-11-2010, 07:41 PM

There's been a few conversations this season that keep asking the question "if we don't drop Cassel to get out of the bonus he's due..."

I mean, just stop. Cassel will survive the offseason and will likely be our starter next year.

Even if Pioli and Haley understood what we all know to be true, which is that Cassel is not that answer and is not a franchise QB, than acquiring one is damn near impossible.

Who would be available this offseason? A few stopgaps, none of them franchise guys. (A thread will no doubt be started about McNabb, but he's not a Pioli guy.) And we'll be too busy looking for a backup QB anyway when we let Croyle go -- and we don't even have a third stringer to fall back on.

The #1 opportunity we have at a franchise QB is to reach for a second-round quality guy with high character with our mid-to-late pick in the first round to ensure we don't get leapfrogged.

Christian Ponder (Florida State)
Nick Foles (Arizona)
Nathan Enderle (Idaho)

Somebody like that is the only chance this team has at a young, franchise guy, and that is the only way we are acquiring him.

And there's the catch -- even if we acquire a guy like that, we still need Cassel because rookie QBs almost never start from the first game. Cassel can be a valuable backup, and a stopgap while the rookie takes his time to get the system down. Cassel, in the mean time, will never be a drag in the locker room, so Haley and Pioli will hang on to him for the versatility he provides to their QB decisions.

Even if the stud does start right away, and Cassel really does get the shaft from Day One of the 2011 season, he is a guy who will always do what he's asked and will do it the best he can, which the staff obviously values above all else. And as fans, we should value that as well.

Like or dislike Cassel, he's got an arrowhead on the side of his helmet for a few more years. In what capacity, we don't know.

Direckshun · 11-12-2010, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gif Horse

This decision will define Pioli.

I agree.

I think, as far as Pioli's defined himself so far, you hold on to the great locker room guy who busts his ass and overachieves over the elite talent guy.

Cassel's got an arrowhead on his helmet next year.

Hammock Parties · 11-12-2010, 04:15 AM

It's too early to say, Dshun.

Pioli is unpredictable.

I'll say this much - if we make the playoffs I doubt very seriously that he would jettison Cassel.

But to me it looks like this team is playoff bound. Only one guy can screw it up.

How does Pioli justify hanging on to that guy if it comes to that?

Direckshun · 11-12-2010, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gif Horse

It's too early to say, Dshun.

Pioli is unpredictable.

I'll say this much - if we make the playoffs I doubt very seriously that he would jettison Cassel.

But to me it looks like this team is playoff bound. Only one guy can screw it up.

How does Pioli justify hanging on to that guy if it comes to that?

I don't get the feeling that this team is playoff bound, actually. I think we're better than the Raiders but Phillip Rivers is a Top Two quarterback right now. And that's the ballgame right there.

I fear we may have peaked this year. I honestly figure that the Raiders loss will set into motions a lot of different things in terms of teams figuring out how to play us. And we've all seen this coming so long as Cassel's taking snaps: pack the box, bracket the shit out of Bowe, and make Cassel beat you with Verron ****ing Tucker, no blitzes... give Cassel the time he needs to properly shit his pants. And then capitalize.

The Raiders couldn't expose it as much as they want to because they suck at life, but you get some more competent franchises throughout the season who figure that shit out, and it's over. Our D will keep things competitive, but even then...

In which case, it's basically the beginning of the end for Cassel as a starter. But I think he brings so much everywhere else that the Chiefs will keep him if they can...

Hammock Parties · 11-12-2010, 04:30 AM

I think you're overreacting to one loss.

If we go 3-1 over the next 4 I like our chances.

Direckshun · 11-12-2010, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gif Horse

I think you're overreacting to one loss.

If we go 3-1 over the next 4 I like our chances.

I may be. I don't know. I do know the loss was devastating for a number of reasons. I don't know if I've ever seen a more naked display of Cassel's ineptitude, and no one will miss that going forward.

Pack the box, no blitzes, bracket Bowe. And I think that's how you shut down the Chiefs. It's way too simple of a plan, but the Chiefs are stabbing at air for WRs.

I'm straying from the topic when I say this, but while this team obviously needs a new QB, there's no doubt it needs to completely redress the receivers we have on this team. We have one receiver -- one -- worth keeping. And McCluster is a gadget guy.

Get us three deep at receiver, and Cassel will look a lot more like New England Cassel than Kansas City Cassel. Pioli knows that. Cassel stays.

**The Bad Guy** · 11-12-2010, 06:03 AM

Fact is, we win this week and we are 2 up on San Diego. Even if we drop one to them, we still have a game lead on the team that everyone thinks is just going to snap into place.

Their schedule isn't a cake walk and they'll drop 2 just because they have awful special teams and they aren't a good road team.

patteeu · 11-12-2010, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd1020

The coaches already dont have confidence in Cassel based on the plays being called and the heavy use of running plays. When you start running the ball on 3-7, 3-8, instead of passing, because you have a better chance in picking up the first down you know they have 0 faith in Cassel. Unless he comes out and puts up top 5 QB #'s he isn't going to be getting that bonus. He's a backup QB and even if you take the bonus out 5-9mil a year after that is still too much for a backup. But as it stands right now his stats leave no incentive for him to renegotiate his contract. So as it stands right now its bye bye Cassel.

You mean the way they always seem to call for a pass play on 3rd/4th down and short?

milkman · 11-12-2010, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu

You mean the way they always seem to call for a pass play on 3rd/4th down and short?

They think they can groom him to eventually throw a 2 or 3 yard pass.

Just gotta keep at it.

patteeu · 11-12-2010, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't get the feeling that this team is playoff bound, actually. I think we're better than the Raiders but Phillip Rivers is a Top Two quarterback right now. And that's the ballgame right there.

I fear we may have peaked this year. I honestly figure that the Raiders loss will set into motions a lot of different things in terms of teams figuring out how to play us. And we've all seen this coming so long as Cassel's taking snaps: pack the box, bracket the shit out of Bowe, and make Cassel beat you with Verron ****ing Tucker, no blitzes... give Cassel the time he needs to properly shit his pants. And then capitalize.

The Raiders couldn't expose it as much as they want to because they suck at life, but you get some more competent franchises throughout the season who figure that shit out, and it's over. Our D will keep things competitive, but even then...

In which case, it's basically the beginning of the end for Cassel as a starter. But I think he brings so much everywhere else that the Chiefs will keep him if they can...

I don't really think the Raiders exposed anything. Buffalo may have, but the Chiefs lost the Raiders game because they made mistakes, not because the Raiders forced them to make mistakes.

Amnorix · 11-12-2010, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Like or dislike Cassel, he's got an arrowhead on the side of his helmet for a few more years. In what capacity, we don't know.

Here's a crash helmet buddy. Good luck!

chiefzilla1501 · 11-12-2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I may be. I don't know. I do know the loss was devastating for a number of reasons. I don't know if I've ever seen a more naked display of Cassel's ineptitude, and no one will miss that going forward.

Pack the box, no blitzes, bracket Bowe. And I think that's how you shut down the Chiefs. It's way too simple of a plan, but the Chiefs are stabbing at air for WRs.

I'm straying from the topic when I say this, but while this team obviously needs a new QB, there's no doubt it needs to completely redress the receivers we have on this team. We have one receiver -- one -- worth keeping. And McCluster is a gadget guy.

Get us three deep at receiver, and Cassel will look a lot more like New England Cassel than Kansas City Cassel. Pioli knows that. Cassel stays.

I just don't understand why you would think the Oakland game was a display of Cassel's ineptitude. The Chiefs couldn't run the ball worth a shit and yet the Chiefs moved the ball well on offense. You play that same game, eliminate the stupid mistakes and penalties, and the Chiefs win in a blowout. The Buffalo, San Diego, Cleveland, and Indy game were clear examples of his ineptitude. Anyone who says Cassel performed poorly in Oakland is evaluating him with tunnel vision.

And how can you say at this point that McCluster is only a gadget guy? McCluster has shown major flashes that he is a legit slot receiver. I've said this for a while--if you get a legit wide receiver who can pull the safeties back, McCluster is going to be dangerous. I don't worry about McCluster as a player. I only worry that he can stay on the field.

milkman · 11-12-2010, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I don't worry about McCluster as a player. I only worry that he can stay on the field.

You know, I think someone raised this same question when he was drafted.

I wonder who that was.

Hammock Parties · 11-12-2010, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

the Chiefs moved the ball well on offense.

The only reason we scored a touchdown was the refs.

Cassel couldn't mount an extended drive that ended in a score to save his life.

**Baby Lee** · 11-12-2010, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCBOSS1

What would be the opinion of the planet if Romo came available? Just curious. I think he is going to.

Do not want, if there's one thing I knew about the NFL in the past 5 years, it was that Dallas was going no where in the playoffs, he's a 'Schottenheimer' QB, Peytie-pie used to be a 'Schotty' QB, but he grew out of it. I don't see any Peytie-pie in Romo.

Hammock Parties · 11-12-2010, 08:02 AM

Tony Romo is not a Schottenheimer QB.

He averages 2 TDs per game for his career. That's HOF QB stuff.

He's only been a starter for four seasons. It took Manning years to shed the playoff choker label.

Romo is better than our last quarterback, better than our current quarterback and I will bet anyone he's better than our next quarterback.

11-11-2010, 07:41 PM
Direckshun __ Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Springpatch Casino cash: $4093447	Let's face facts: we're going to have to bonus-up on Matt Cassel. There's been a few conversations this season that keep asking the question "if we don't drop Cassel to get out of the bonus he's due..." I mean, just stop. Cassel will survive the offseason and will likely be our starter next year. Even if Pioli and Haley understood what we all know to be true, which is that Cassel is not that answer and is not a franchise QB, than acquiring one is damn near impossible. Who would be available this offseason? A few stopgaps, none of them franchise guys. (A thread will no doubt be started about McNabb, but he's not a Pioli guy.) And we'll be too busy looking for a backup QB anyway when we let Croyle go -- and we don't even have a third stringer to fall back on. The #1 opportunity we have at a franchise QB is to reach for a second-round quality guy with high character with our mid-to-late pick in the first round to ensure we don't get leapfrogged. Christian Ponder (Florida State) Nick Foles (Arizona) Nathan Enderle (Idaho) Somebody like that is the only chance this team has at a young, franchise guy, and that is the only way we are acquiring him. And there's the catch -- even if we acquire a guy like that, we still need Cassel because rookie QBs almost never start from the first game. Cassel can be a valuable backup, and a stopgap while the rookie takes his time to get the system down. Cassel, in the mean time, will never be a drag in the locker room, so Haley and Pioli will hang on to him for the versatility he provides to their QB decisions. Even if the stud does start right away, and Cassel really does get the shaft from Day One of the 2011 season, he is a guy who will always do what he's asked and will do it the best he can, which the staff obviously values above all else. And as fans, we should value that as well. Like or dislike Cassel, he's got an arrowhead on the side of his helmet for a few more years. In what capacity, we don't know.
Posts: 59,327

11-12-2010, 04:15 AM	#62
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4160478	It's too early to say, Dshun. Pioli is unpredictable. I'll say this much - if we make the playoffs I doubt very seriously that he would jettison Cassel. But to me it looks like this team is playoff bound. Only one guy can screw it up. How does Pioli justify hanging on to that guy if it comes to that? __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 279,742

11-12-2010, 04:30 AM	#64
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4160478	I think you're overreacting to one loss. If we go 3-1 over the next 4 I like our chances. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 279,742

11-12-2010, 06:03 AM	#66
The Bad Guy Scott Pioli Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: The Copacobana Casino cash: $9363645	Fact is, we win this week and we are 2 up on San Diego. Even if we drop one to them, we still have a game lead on the team that everyone thinks is just going to snap into place. Their schedule isn't a cake walk and they'll drop 2 just because they have awful special teams and they aren't a good road team. __________________
Posts: 23,212

11-12-2010, 08:02 AM	#75
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4160478	Tony Romo is not a Schottenheimer QB. He averages 2 TDs per game for his career. That's HOF QB stuff. He's only been a starter for four seasons. It took Manning years to shed the playoff choker label. Romo is better than our last quarterback, better than our current quarterback and I will bet anyone he's better than our next quarterback. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 279,742