Chiefs Did you over-react to the work of Casshole?

Sully · 12-21-2010, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRR

You can spin it however you want. The bottom line is that posters on here would relish in the fact that KC didn't make the playoffs because Cassel played poorly these last 2 games.

You either root for him or against him. There is no in between.
Posted via Mobile Device

You couldn't be more wrong.
But that's your right. There are tons of people who don't care if they are wrong about stuff.

Sent from my Teddy Ruxpin using Tapatalk

Just Passin' By · 12-21-2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sully

You couldn't be more wrong.
But that's your right. There are tons of people who don't care if they are wrong about stuff.

Sent from my Teddy Ruxpin using Tapatalk

Ehh.... seems pretty clear that there are posters who are more emotionally invested in Cassel failing than they are in the team doing well. Whether you take that as them actually rooting against the team in order to buttress their position, or just being complete douchebags towards a specific player, is largely a matter of individual interpretation.

milkman · 12-21-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Ehh.... seems pretty clear that there are posters who are more emotionally invested in Cassel failing than they are in the team doing well.

I think there are a number of posters who still need to see something from Cassel in a critical situation against superior teams to really buy into him.

I think that's legitimate.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 12-21-2010, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I think there are a number of posters who still need to see something from Cassel in a critical situation against superior teams to really buy into him.

I think that's legitimate.

Sanity!

Just Passin' By · 12-21-2010, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I think there are a number of posters who still need to see something from Cassel in a critical situation against superior teams to really buy into him.

I think that's legitimate.

While I think your premise is reasonable, albeit flawed (Pitt from last year comes quickly to mind), I don't think it extends to all the bashers. There's no doubt in my mind that there are Chiefs fans posting here who would get more satisfaction from a Cassel int against the Raiders that cost the Chiefs a postseason spot than they'd get from a Cassel TD strike that resulted in a come-from-behind victory and locked up the division title. They are just that invested in the notion of Cassel failing.

milkman · 12-21-2010, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

While I think your premise is reasonable, albeit flawed (Pitt from last year comes quickly to mind), I don't think it extends to all the bashers. There's no doubt in my mind that there are Chiefs fans posting here who would get more satisfaction from a Cassel int against the Raiders that cost the Chiefs a postseason spot than they'd get from a Cassel TD strike that resulted in a come-from-behind victory and locked up the division title. They are just that invested in the notion of Cassel failing.

I gave Cassel props for that Pittsburg game, but that isn't really the kind of critical situation we are talking about here.

And I think there there is probably small group of people who are that are invested in the notion of failing.

But I don't think it's going to be more than a handful, at most, and I believe that the majority of the posters that I believe that TRR is referring to will come around when Cassel meets the requirements I'm talking about.

**Saul Good** · 12-21-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

But I don't think it's going to be more than a handful, at most, and I believe that the majority of the posters that I believe that TRR is referring to will come around when Cassel meets the requirements I'm talking about.

Don't you think that, in many cases, he has met their initial requirements only to watch as the goalposts are whisked away?

|Zach| · 12-21-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Don't you think that, in many cases, he has met their initial requirements only to watch as the goalposts are whisked away?

Exactly. If you held MC or this team up to that golden standard then so be it but all these people who preseason used all this hyperbole about what they would do or think if the Chiefs won 7 or 9 games (one members actually saying he would suck his own cock) only to sit back and find more holes to pick when it all comes true then screw you. lol

milkman · 12-21-2010, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Don't you think that, in many cases, he has met their initial requirements only to watch as the goalposts are whisked away?

I don't know.

I do know that a many of these guys have asked me many times since Cassel was traded for and I posted my observations and thoughts from watching '08 Patriot replays on NFL Network over the summer if I thought he was a guy that could lead this team to wins in the playoffs?

Until the last month, my answer was no.

I do believe otherwise now.

Just Passin' By · 12-21-2010, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

I gave Cassel props for that Pittsburg game, but that isn't really the kind of critical situation we are talking about here.

Well, hasn't one of the problems with the Cassel/Anti-Cassel debates been the moving goalposts? That Steelers game was an overtime win against a better opponent. Cassel brought the team back from a 17-7 deficit. That's succeeding in a critical situation against a better team, yet you're now essentially saying "But that's not enough". And that's even though you're one of the people who've warmed to him a bit. Some of the other posters will still be complaining if he wins 2 Super Bowls, because he'll have failed to cure cancer and all STDs while he was at it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

And I think there there is probably small group of people who are that are invested in the notion of failing.

I think some of it is people who have legitimate reservations about Cassel's ability to consistently get it done against top competition. That's an open question, and a legitimate thing to watch moving forward. I do, though, think it's pretty shitty of them to take that position and keep bashing the QB at the same time, since he can only play the teams he lines up against.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

But I don't think it's going to be more than a handful, at most, and I believe that the majority of the posters that I believe that TRR is referring to will come around when Cassel meets the requirements I'm talking about.

I agree with this. Unfortunately, that handful made the board almost unbearable for much of last year, and the beginning of this season. The good news is that their voices are a lot less influential now.

milkman · 12-21-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Well, hasn't one of the problems with the Cassel/Anti-Cassel debates been the moving goalposts? That Steelers game was an overtime win against a better opponent. Cassel brought the team back from a 17-7 deficit. That's succeeding in a critical situation against a better team, yet you're now essentially saying "But that's not enough".

The Chiefs weren't playing for anything but pride at that time.

It just doesn't register as critical by my definition.