Chiefs Matt Cassel: Good or Bad? [Archive]

Mr. Flopnuts

02-28-2009, 01:32 PM

We may as well have an easy point of reference for people to be able to come back and eat their crow when this all pans out. Everyone always says I knew it all along. Step up and put it down.

I don't think a 2nd round pick is terrible, but I don't think Matt Cassel will pan out in KC. I'll put it down right here, right now. And now I'll start praying I'm wrong.

Forget the trade. The only thing I want you to commit too is whether or not Cassel is a good or bad choice for QBOTF.

HC_Chief

02-28-2009, 01:32 PM

Great trade.

Ultra Peanut

02-28-2009, 01:33 PM

Fantastic trade, but you're missing an "Ehhh" choice.

SAUTO

02-28-2009, 01:33 PM

GREAT trade

beach tribe

02-28-2009, 01:33 PM

Damn it. Why did we have to do this?

I hope I eat crow. I'm gonna support the guy, but.....FAIL.

wild1

02-28-2009, 01:34 PM

Not only do i like him as a QB, the trade itself was a steal.

Old Dog

02-28-2009, 01:34 PM

Cassel and Vrabel for the second is a darn good deal IMO

Mr. Flopnuts

02-28-2009, 01:34 PM

Fantastic trade, but you're missing an "Ehhh" choice.

Well, I wanted to make it cut and dry so people would have some accountability a couple of years from now. That's also why I made it public.

ArrowheadMagic

02-28-2009, 01:34 PM

Not what i would have preferred to happen, but pray it works out. Apparently Pioli didnt like the options coming out of college.

beach tribe

02-28-2009, 01:34 PM

I think he plays decent, but never becomes our franchise guy. A young Kerry Collins with less arm is what I see.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-28-2009, 01:35 PM

Cassel and Vrabel for the second is a darn good deal IMO

That's not the question. Is Matt Cassel a good or bad choice for KC's QBOTF. That's it and that's all.

eazyb81

02-28-2009, 01:35 PM

I had my heart set on a QBOTF with the #3 pick, but Cassel is a good choice for the value.

Johnny Vegas

02-28-2009, 01:35 PM

great trade. a 2nd rounder for Cassel and Vrabel.

Bowser

02-28-2009, 01:36 PM

It was going to be either Cassel, Thigpen, or Stafford/Sanchez. Considering we got him AND Vrabel for a fucking single second round pick, I'm saying great trade.

My reservation is that he doesn't have the Pats o-line or Moss/Welker to throw to. We'll see.

big nasty kcnut

02-28-2009, 01:36 PM

Meh!
Posted via Mobile Device

big nasty kcnut

02-28-2009, 01:36 PM

Meh! I'm keeping a open mind about it.
Posted via Mobile Device

Bowser

02-28-2009, 01:37 PM

That's not the question. Is Matt Cassel a good or bad choice for KC's QBOTF. That's it and that's all.

In Haley's system? I think he could be a great fit. Lots of short/intermediate throws and let your guys get YAC.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-28-2009, 01:38 PM

I don't think it was a bad trade really. All I'm asking is whether or not you think he's a good choice for this franchise's QBOTF. All of this talk about a great trade leaves an opening for taking no accountability for your votes later on. Step up and answer the question. I think it was a good trade in terms of value but the wrong guy to lead this franchise.

FloridaMan88

02-28-2009, 01:38 PM

Scott Pioli knows Cassel and Todd Haley knows offense and QBs.

I think it is certain now the Chiefs are going be aggressive in upgrading the WR position this offseason.

Gravedigger

02-28-2009, 01:39 PM

I like the deal itself, getting Vrabel AND Cassel for just our 2nd round pick is great. This is something I don't believe Carl could've pulled off. This deal also includes two things.

1. We still have Larry Johnson and Tony Gonzalez as trade bait, even though I dont want them to trade Tony. Cassel to Gonzo would be an awesome hookup combination, even Tony would be happy to hear that I'd think.

2. We can still trade down with our 1st round pick and pick up another 2nd rounder and a swap of 1sts for the pick, so it will just be as if we are picking later in the second round.

This deal is awesome for what we got and I'm suprised that New England gave those two players away to Pioli for that amount. I dunno if this is Pioli's ties to NE or if he's a great negotiator, but I say bravo.

Now for Cassel, we'll have to see, I think he's better than Thigpen because he's not a scheme quarterback and he has better size on him. He doesn't seem to be a completely amazing quarterback, but he's alot more than just a Trent Dilfer servicable quarterback and I don't think anyone can argue that last season, especially the second half of the season, his numbers were pretty stellar. I think we've upgraded our team substantially, the only thing I dont like about this deal is it almost destroys my Matt Stafford dreams. Other than that, bravo Mr. Pioli.:clap:

Pablo

02-28-2009, 01:39 PM

I really want to be open-minded about the whole situation, but I really don't f*cking know. The Chiefs fan in me is always pessimistic, but that's probably because Carl's been running the show since I've been a fan.

I'm gonna put some blind trust in our new GM and HC and say he's a good choice for QBOTF. I could be right, I'm probably wrong, but I'm kinda tired of being negative about everything we ever do.

Bowser

02-28-2009, 01:39 PM

I don't think it was a bad trade really. All I'm asking is whether or not you think he's a good choice for this franchise's QBOTF. All of this talk about a great trade leaves an opening for taking no accountability for your votes later on. Step up and answer the question. I think it was a good trade in terms of value but the wrong guy to lead this franchise.

You'd rather have Thigpen or Stafford/Sanchez as our QBotF over Cassel?

unlurking

02-28-2009, 01:39 PM

Steal of a trade.

Now, if either Stafford or Sanchez are left when we pick, hopefully we can get a hell of a deal to trade down.

As far as him being the QBOTF, I really don't know. I voted yes, but honestly, that was more homerism than knowledge.

Bugeater

02-28-2009, 01:40 PM

Given the situation (Stafford probably wasn't dropping to us, and there isn't a whole lot out there available anyway, and what we gave up for him), I'll go good. I heard Pats fans aren't happy about it so that's a plus as well.

Bowser

02-28-2009, 01:40 PM

Scott Pioli knows Cassel and Todd Haley knows offense and QBs.

I think it is certain now the Chiefs are going be aggressive in upgrading the WR position this offseason.

*tradedownforMaclintradedownforMaclintradedownforMaclin*

Mr. Flopnuts

02-28-2009, 01:42 PM

You'd rather have Thigpen or Stafford/Sanchez as our QBotF over Cassel?

Yeah. I wanted Sanchez. I think when it's all said and done he'll have the best NFL career of the 4. I'm wrong all the time, I make no bones about it. I hope I'm wrong here. But personally, I would've taken Stafford or Sanchez over Cassel. I do like Cassel better than Tyler "forget about me lining up under center" Thigpen.

StcChief

02-28-2009, 01:43 PM

Good deal. Thiggy as solid backup.

This really opens door on draft. We may still trade down.

Pablo

02-28-2009, 01:44 PM

You'd rather have Thigpen or Stafford/Sanchez as our QBotF over Cassel?I'd honestly rather have Stafford for sure, but I really don't think he'd be there at 3 anyways..and Sanchez..I dunno, I'd probably rather have him than Cassel, but it's really a toss-up. Thigpen takes a backseat to them all.

Ultra Peanut

02-28-2009, 01:44 PM

The world is not black and white.

Pros:

1. 26 year old QB with NFL starting experience
2. Did a solid job last year

Cons:

1. Had a stellar supporting cast for that solid (not spectacular) year
2. In some dubious company when it comes to leading the league in YAC % of passing yards

Cassel is "safer," but far from guaranteed, while Stafford and Sanchez have far more upside.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-28-2009, 01:44 PM

I really can't stress enough how much I hope no less than 60 of you pull this thread up in 3 years and call me the biggest retard on this board after we win a Super Bowl. I'll come back here and tell everyone I went full retard even though people told me to never do it, and I'll come all over my computer screen.

It would really be an ideal situation. I'm not one of those guys that wants to be right when I predict the doom and gloom. I want to be dead fucking wrong.

Johnny Vegas

02-28-2009, 01:51 PM

Cassel's good because he's been in the league for 4 years. Under Brady he had to of learned something about finding a way to win coming from behind. He's not the type to have a big ego and seems like a team player when he said he'd love to go back to being a back up for Brady. That shows, to me, he wants the team to win and doesn't strive for the personal accomplishments he could have if he were to demand a starting spot on the roster.

doomy3

02-28-2009, 01:54 PM

I was one of the few on here who was hoping we would trade for Cassel, so naturally I am pretty happy about it.

jidar

02-28-2009, 01:55 PM

Beating against a QB turning into a Franchise NFL Quarterback...
wow, Did you bet the farm? You really put it all on the line there! Don't go out on a limb or anything...
HEY SOMEONE HOLD CHARLES BARKLEY BACK. HES LOSING HIS MIND AT THE BOOKIE

el borracho

02-28-2009, 01:56 PM

I would have preferred Sanchez (1st choice) or Stafford (2nd choice). That said, Cassel is probably two giant steps up from anyone we have thrown under center in the last two years so, in that regard, he is a benefit.

ChiefsCountry

02-28-2009, 01:58 PM

Not thrilled at all about it and I have lots of doubt about Cassell but I hope he proves me wrong and wins a Super Bowl for us.

Mr. Krab

02-28-2009, 02:01 PM

great trade price

we just have to hope he's the real deal now.

Frazod

02-28-2009, 02:03 PM

I'm voting good. I screamed bloody murder when we traded for Green and was proven wrong. I hope this works out as just as well.

Rudy tossed tigger's salad

02-28-2009, 02:04 PM

would have rather went QB in the Draft (Sanchez or Stafford) but giving up the second isn't too bad....thinking about what the Texans gave up for an unproven Schaub two years ago makes me think Pioli did well

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 02:05 PM

Damn it. Why did we have to do this?

I hope I eat crow. I'm gonna support the guy, but.....FAIL.

Meh. See the Sig.

Ultra Peanut

02-28-2009, 02:05 PM

I'm voting good. I screamed bloody murder when we traded for Green and was proven wrong. I hope this works out as just as well.Scream bloody murder. Do it for the Chiefs.

alanm

02-28-2009, 02:07 PM

I really can't stress enough how much I hope no less than 60 of you pull this thread up in 3 years and call me the biggest retard on this board after we win a Super Bowl. I'll come back here and tell everyone I went full retard even though people told me to never do it, and I'll come all over my computer screen.

It would really be an ideal situation. I'm not one of those guys that wants to be right when I predict the doom and gloom. I want to be dead ****ing wrong.Please don't upload the video for that. :shake:

Hammock Parties

02-28-2009, 02:08 PM

In Pioli I trust.

GoHuge

02-28-2009, 02:09 PM

Does anybody realize the reason we got him and Vrabel for only the second pick is NE got to dump $20 million in cap and salary off their books in 24 hours? Hard for them to get too greedy when that's the case. I think as far as the trade goes on our end it's hard to believe we could have maximized our value any better than what we did. Now lets see what Cassell costs us. He's an upgrade from Thigpen. Not to mention when you think about Trent Green costing us a first back when he's been a career journeyman QB coming off knee surgery the value of this trade looks stronger and stronger. We'll just have to see what it looks like on the field.

buddha

02-28-2009, 02:09 PM

Great trade by KC. Dude threw for 3,700 yards in his first full year as an NFL starting QB and had a nice QB rating. He won't have the same supporting cast around him, but he's a capable guy. I don't know if he's a home run, but I know he's not a strike out either. At least a solid double or legged-out triple in baseball terms.

And you get Vrabel in the deal? The defense just got MUCH saltier...we have a coach on the field.

PRIEST

02-28-2009, 02:09 PM

I'm voting good. I screamed bloody murder when we traded for Green and was proven wrong. I hope this works out as just as well.

This.

Will

02-28-2009, 02:13 PM

The world is not black and white.

Pros:

1. 26 year old QB with NFL starting experience
2. Did a solid job last year

Cons:

1. Had a stellar supporting cast for that solid (not spectacular) year
2. In some dubious company when it comes to leading the league in YAC % of passing yards

Cassel is "safer," but far from guaranteed, while Stafford and Sanchez have far more upside.

I really don't know if you can call his supporting cast stellar.

1. They had little to no running game for much of the year
2. The New England Receiving Corps put up very similar numbers to that of the Chiefs

Wes Welker 111 rec 1165 yds 3 TD
Randy Moss 69 rec 1008 yds 11 TD

Tony Gonzalez 96 rec 1058 yds 10 TD
Dwayne Bowe 86 rec 1022 yds 7 TD

JBucc

02-28-2009, 02:16 PM

I'm not a Cassel fan. However if both the Chiefs and Pats thought he is a franchise QB the trade itself is a great deal. Not much we can do except pull for him now.

Jerm

02-28-2009, 02:17 PM

It was a fantastic deal.

Consistent1

02-28-2009, 02:19 PM

He is at least used to winning.

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 02:20 PM

My gut says he isn't a good choice. Here's hoping it's just the leftover lo-mein I had for lunch.

This is one situation where I'll be ecstatic if my initial reaction is wrong in the end.

Frosty

02-28-2009, 02:22 PM

Not thrilled at all about it and I have lots of doubt about Cassell but I hope he proves me wrong and wins a Super Bowl for us.

This

FAX

02-28-2009, 02:25 PM

No one knows Cassel any better than our GM. The odds are it's a very good deal for us - in the short term, anyhow. Besides, I'm unconvinced that Pioli is through shopping for quarterbacks.

Still, I have to defer judgment on this until I find out how Brian Waters feels about it.

FAX

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 02:26 PM

Manila-Chief

02-28-2009, 02:27 PM

Cassel's good because he's been in the league for 4 years. Under Brady he had to of learned something about finding a way to win coming from behind. He's not the type to have a big ego and seems like a team player when he said he'd love to go back to being a back up for Brady. That shows, to me, he wants the team to win and doesn't strive for the personal accomplishments he could have if he were to demand a starting spot on the roster.

If all things were equal, I'd rather have Stafford or Sanchez, but those guys may turn out to be Elway or Montana or a total bust. If either became a true QBOTF, then I feel they would be a better choice.

In Pioli I trust.

This is the reason I like the trade. It's not Carl fumbling this thing. Pioli has proven he can evaluate talent. He has had a chance to evaluate Stafford/Sanchez and decided Cassel for a 2nd. round pick is a great deal. I was afraid they would give up the #3 position. So, good choice.

I'm voting good. I screamed bloody murder when we traded for Green and was proven wrong. I hope this works out as just as well.

Yep, we are taking a chance. Cassel has only one year experience ... but, Stafford/Sanchez may turn out to be a Leaf.

I think Carl gave up too much for Green ... so mark one up for Pioli!!!

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 02:28 PM

I really don't know if you can call his supporting cast stellar.

1. They had little to no running game for much of the year
2. The New England Receiving Corps put up very similar numbers to that of the Chiefs

Wes Welker 111 rec 1165 yds 3 TD
Randy Moss 69 rec 1008 yds 11 TD

Tony Gonzalez 96 rec 1058 yds 10 TD
Dwayne Bowe 86 rec 1022 yds 7 TD

This is patently false.

6th ranked rushing attack in '08

13th ranked rushing attack in '07

Cassel took 47 sacks
Brady took 21

With Brady, Moss had 23 TDs the year before, FFS.

jbwm89

02-28-2009, 02:42 PM

I didnt like the Cassel idea at first, but i will admit im kind of a closet thigpen fan. I think we could of stayed with pigpen, grabbed a veteren like garcia for some backup and use our #3 else where. I figured pioli would grab a quarterback later in the draft, like Cassel. However, considering the price we got cassel and vrabel for i really am not that upset. I think we got a pretty good deal and it is exciting to see us actually doing something this time of year. Just a little scared cassel is another trent green that wont lose you a game, but cant really win it for you.... we will see pray im wrong

Shox

02-28-2009, 02:45 PM

He is the thing nobody has brought up. Even if Cassel is at his peak, (which I don't think he is) he is almost certain to be a very serviceable NFL QB. Maybe not a Superbowl caliber QB, but one which will allow the Chiefs to get better and learn how to win again. We need this badly.

Unlike King Carl, Pioli will not sit on his butt year after year and never draft any QBs. He will get a mid or late round guy to groom as Cassel's replacement.

So the worst scenerio is Cassel comes in and performs similar to what he did this past year and in a few years we move on the the real QB of the future.

Best case scenerio is Cassel has more upside and leads the Chiefs to the playoffs.....and do I dare say it.....the Superbowl.

Just not much downside. Well done Mr. Pioli!!!!!!!!!

philfree

02-28-2009, 02:46 PM

We didn't have a starting QB so getting one for a 2nd round draft pick is good.

PhilFree:arrow:

tmax63

02-28-2009, 02:48 PM

IF the Chiefs keep TG I would argue that TG and DBowe isn't that big a drop off in talent to what Cassel was used to. Bradley showed some potential and Franklin was hurt so is still an unknown. IMO, I see DBowe improving alot under Haley and the experience he has gained playing.

Rausch

02-28-2009, 02:48 PM

I'm torn.

I'm not a big Cassel fan and think he's overrated but considering other QB trades and what we've given up in the past I think the value is a steal.

But even if I'm right and Cassel flames out of the league in 2 years what did it really cost us? As of right now nothing long term (as far as the cap) and only a 2nd.

This for a guy (right or wrong) most thought would require at least a 1st rounder. For those reasons alone, the value and risk/reward, I'd say it's a good deal...

DaWolf

02-28-2009, 02:50 PM

Cassel is essentially the QBOTN, as in now. QBOTF you usually, unless they are the rare exception of a Matt Ryan, wait a year or two before they are really ready to play. Pioli obviously wants to win today.

You essentially have this:
Matt Cassel, four years around the guy, you know his work ethic, his strengths and weaknesses, he has been tutored by Brady, practiced for four years against Bill Belichick defenses, and he has 16 games of starting experience in the NFL.

Matt Stafford, three year college starter, plays against college defenses, plays not so great against the best college defenses, has a knock against him of making poor decisions. Don't really know his work ethic, his competitiveness, how he will handle an NFL huddle with NFL vets, work in a locker room, etc. He does have outstanding physical tools.

Mark Sanchez, one year college starter, by all accounts a smart, heady, hardworking guy, major questions about how ready he is, even from his own head coach, probably not the most gifted QB in terms of all the physical tools compared to Stafford.

To get the latter two, you probably have to use your No 3 pick, and hope Detroit doesn't take Stafford.

To get the first, you get to give up a second rounder.

Obviously you gamble on any of them, but Pioli is taking the safest bet with this move. Stafford and Sanchez might turn out to be great QB's, but time will tell...

KCFalcon59

02-28-2009, 02:50 PM

I'm fine with the trade as it seems great on paper. I am not sold on Cassell, but I hope he is the next great QB and wins us multiple titles.

Will

02-28-2009, 02:50 PM

This is patently false.

6th ranked rushing attack in '08

13th ranked rushing attack in '07

Cassel took 47 sacks
Brady took 21

With Brady, Moss had 23 TDs the year before, FFS.

So do you think Moss would have had 23 tds last year with brady throwing to him. I don't think so. And as for the running game, it was ranked 6th but it wasn't that much better than the one in KC.

New England: 513 carries 2278 yds
32 carries/game for 142 yds 4.4 avg

Kansas City: 379 carries 1810 yds
24 carries/game for 113 yds 4.8 avg

Thats 468 more yds on 134 more carries which is an average of 3.5 yds/carry

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 02:51 PM

IF the Chiefs keep TG I would argue that TG and DBowe isn't that big a drop off in talent to what Cassel was used to. Bradley showed some potential and Franklin was hurt so is still an unknown. IMO, I see DBowe improving alot under Haley and the experience he has gained playing.

Randy Moss changes coverages unlike anyone in NFL history. Tony Gonzalez, although a great safety net and the greatest TE of all time, does not affect the game or quarterback to any extent that Moss does.

Look at Daunte Culpepper before and after Moss.

----------------

Hammock Parties

02-28-2009, 02:51 PM

Comparing any young quarterback to Tom fucking Brady is a bit unfair, don't you think?

I'm not thrilled about this, but will defer to Scott Pioli until we fail. We have no reason to criticize any move he makes right now. We're not worthy. If he wants Cassel, he can have him.

Red Dawg

02-28-2009, 02:54 PM

Hell yes this was a good deal. How can this be a bad deal?:):)

ct

02-28-2009, 02:54 PM

Great trade! Is Cassel legit or a fraud? Dunno, but I can live with wasting a 2nd to try, and as a bonus, avoid drafting Stafford or Sanchez with #3.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 02:54 PM

So do you think Moss would have had 23 tds last year with brady throwing to him. I don't think so. And as for the running game, it was ranked 6th but it wasn't that much better than the one in KC.

New England: 513 carries 2278 yds
32 carries/game for 142 yds 4.4 avg

Kansas City: 379 carries 1810 yds
24 carries/game for 113 yds 4.8 avg

Thats 468 more yds on 134 more carries which is an average of 3.5 yds/carry

KC is irrelevant to this discussion. They ran for more yards last year than in '07. Period.

And I guarantee you that Randy Moss would have had 5-6 more TDs with Brady than Welker.

Hell, this says it all:

16-0
11-5

Couple that with the fact that the 16-0 team played the NFCE and AFCN and the 11-5 team played the AFCW and NFCW and you have a massive difference in quality of teams played.

Will

02-28-2009, 02:55 PM

Randy Moss changes coverages unlike anyone in NFL history. Tony Gonzalez, although a great safety net and the greatest TE of all time, does not affect the game or quarterback to any extent that Moss does.

Look at Daunte Culpepper before and after Moss.

----------------

All anyone has done with moss is run him on a go route and let him jump up and get the ball. He is a horrible route runner and doesn't go over the middle. I for one believe that Bowe could do the same exact same (granted he does not quite have the leaping ability of Moss). Welker was by far the best receiver on that team and I think that overall, our receing corps is just as good as theres!

Hammock Parties

02-28-2009, 02:56 PM

KC is irrelevant to this discussion. They ran for more yards last year than in '07. Period.

And I guarantee you that Randy Moss would have had 5-6 more TDs with Brady than Welker.

Hell, this says it all:

16-0
11-5

Couple that with the fact that the 16-0 team played the NFCE and AFCN and the 11-5 team played the AFCW and NFCW and you have a massive difference in quality of teams played.

OK now this IS getting ridiculous.

We're holding Cassel to an impossibly high standard.

16-0?

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 02:56 PM

Comparing any young quarterback to Tom fucking Brady is a bit unfair, don't you think?

I'm not thrilled about this, but will defer to Scott Pioli until we fail. We have no reason to criticize any move he makes right now. We're not worthy. If he wants Cassel, he can have him.

If Matt Cassel can't win a SB with that Patriots team, how in the blue fuck is he going to win one in Kansas City?

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 02:57 PM

OK now this IS getting ridiculous.

We're holding Cassel to an impossibly high standard.

16-0?

I'm not saying he should have gone 16-0. I'm saying that team wasn't even as good as 11-5.

Jesus, learn the art of nuance.

16-0 against a murderous first place schedule facing the two best divisions in football vs. 11-5 against the two worst divisions in football.

It's a testament to how amazing that Pats team was. The drop off to the '08 team, which not only won 5 fewer games, but did it against an awful, awful schedule, cannot be underestimated.

I'm not saying that Matt Cassel has to be Tom Brady to justify this trade, but he does have to be able to take this team deep into the playoffs. If he couldn't do that with that Patriots team, which has ungodly talent, how is he going to do it with the Chiefs, even if we assemble a near juggernaut?

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 02:58 PM

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 02:58 PM

The question that this thread is built around isn't whether it's a good or bad trade, the question is whether Cassel is a good or bad choice for quarterback of the future.

(you may wonder at the distinction, but there are a number of folks who are okay with the terms of the trade, but not at all sold on the idea that cassel will turn out to be anything)

It's about whether people think Cassel with be a franchise player in the end.

Hammock Parties

02-28-2009, 02:59 PM

If Matt Cassel can't win a SB with that Patriots team, how in the blue fuck is he going to win one in Kansas City?

They went 11-5. Is it really his fault they played in a competitive division and couldn't get into the playoffs? We don't know what sort of noise the Pats would have made in the postseason.

Plus, we're talking about a second-year player who had barely thrown an NFL pass before.

We're really expecting too much.

Fritz88

02-28-2009, 03:00 PM

I think it's a great trade.

tk13

02-28-2009, 03:01 PM

Hamas may have let his mind officially meltdown here. I don't even think Cassel is some kind of savior, but comparing him to one of the 2 or 3 best QB's of the modern era is going to be impossible to beat. Sure if Tom Brady is the standard, this trade is a failure, but then again Sanchez and Stafford would be too, and most QB's that are going to be drafted in the next 10 years.

dirk digler

02-28-2009, 03:01 PM

Basileus777

02-28-2009, 03:01 PM

The embarrassingly bad secondary the Pats had might have something to do with losing 5 games. The guy was a first year starter who improved considerably as the year progressed, comparing him to Brady or saying that he can never win a Superbowl because of last year is really reaching.

talastan

02-28-2009, 03:02 PM

I'm not impressed with Cassel but the trade was a heck of trade. Vrabel and Cassel for one pick isn't bad.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 03:03 PM

You know what is interesting is that 2 out of the top 3 teams at the top of the draft wanted Cassel so what does that say about what NFL teams think about Stafford and Sanchez?

I just hope we can draft some scrub like Harrell in the later rounds; if we're gonna' fuck up, let's do it 100%!

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:04 PM

They went 11-5. Is it really his fault they played in a competitive division and couldn't get into the playoffs? We don't know what sort of noise the Pats would have made in the postseason.

Plus, we're talking about a second-year player who had barely thrown an NFL pass before.

We're really expecting too much.

This is bullshit. He played the AFC W and NFC W for 8 games last year.

Stats against those two divisions last year:

14 TDs, 6 Int,

Against teams out of those divisions:

7 TDs, 5 Int

dirk digler

02-28-2009, 03:05 PM

I just hope we can draft some scrub like Harrell in the later rounds; if we're gonna' fuck up, let's do it 100%!

DCS I think it is a legit question. Obviously there is alot of teams that don't believe either of those 2 QB's are worthy of the top picks since they were willing to trade for Matt Cassel.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:05 PM

Hamas may have let his mind officially meltdown here. I don't even think Cassel is some kind of savior, but comparing him to one of the 2 or 3 best QB's of the modern era is going to be impossible to beat. Sure if Tom Brady is the standard, this trade is a failure, but then again Sanchez and Stafford would be too, and most QB's that are going to be drafted in the next 10 years.

Yeah, it's almost like I didn't say "He doesn't have to be Tom Brady, but he has to prove that he can take this team deep into the playoffs."

Hammock Parties

02-28-2009, 03:05 PM

This is bullshit. He played the AFC W and NFC W for 8 games last year.

Stats against those two divisions last year:

14 TDs, 6 Int,

Against teams out of those divisions:

7 TDs, 5 Int

HE WAS A SECOND-YEAR PLAYER WITH BARELY ANY EXPERIENCE

You are being way too hard on Matt Cassel. He's not Thigpen.

Bob Dole

02-28-2009, 03:07 PM

He is the thing nobody has brought up. Even if Cassel is at his peak, (which I don't think he is) he is almost certain to be a very serviceable NFL QB. Maybe not a Superbowl caliber QB, but one which will allow the Chiefs to get better and learn how to win again. We need this badly.

Unlike King Carl, Pioli will not sit on his butt year after year and never draft any QBs. He will get a mid or late round guy to groom as Cassel's replacement.

Chase Patton as an undrafted free agent this year. ;)

Hammock Parties

02-28-2009, 03:07 PM

I guess I should shut the fuck up. He's played four years. Dammit!

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:07 PM

The question that this thread is built around isn't whether it's a good or bad trade, the question is whether Cassel is a good or bad choice for quarterback of the future.

(you may wonder at the distinction, but there are a number of folks who are okay with the terms of the trade, but not at all sold on the idea that cassel will turn out to be anything)

It's about whether people think Cassel with be a franchise player in the end.

Bingo.

The value for the pick is fine.

The fact that we are going to have Matt Cassel, Curry/Raji, and Vrabel's corpse as opposed to Sanchez/Stafford, and #34 is not.

Matt Cassel is not a franchise quarterback. I'm sorry, he's not.

Nightwish

02-28-2009, 03:08 PM

Last year showed he has a lot of talent, and he's able to step up when he needs to. Plus, he's young and has a lot of years left in him, assuming he can stay healthy - a big "if" in KC of late! All in all, I think he's a good choice. QBOTF? - he's got the talent, but we'll have to see how he adjusts to our very green team, and how they adjust to him.

KChiefs1

02-28-2009, 03:08 PM

Not that I don't think there are some football geniuses in this forum but I'll take Scott Pioli over any of you guys when it comes to making football decisions.

KS-Surveyor

02-28-2009, 03:08 PM

I'll go on record. This is a great deal. I would take Cassell over Stafford/Sanchez any day.

Hammock Parties

02-28-2009, 03:09 PM

Matt Cassel is not a franchise quarterback. I'm sorry, he's not.

Just because he doesn't have Stafford's arm?

He can make an NFL throw. He's not Thigpen.

Come on. Who has evaluated Cassel more? You or Pioli?

How many Patriots games did you watch last season? All of them? PIOLI HAS!

Will

02-28-2009, 03:10 PM

Randy Moss changes coverages unlike anyone in NFL history. Tony Gonzalez, although a great safety net and the greatest TE of all time, does not affect the game or quarterback to any extent that Moss does.

Look at Daunte Culpepper before and after Moss.

----------------

I would suggest that Tony G is a tougher match up for defenses than Moss.

A. Tony is a much better route runner than Moss
B. Tony runs routes to all parts of the field whereas moss only stays outside and goes deep

If you go back to the 23 td year that moss had...probably 6-7 of those TDs were unbelieveable catches that moss or anybody else could do again

DaWolf

02-28-2009, 03:11 PM

If Matt Cassel can't win a SB with that Patriots team, how in the blue **** is he going to win one in Kansas City?

First, name me the last Super Bowl losing team that went back and won it the next year. Most of them fall apart the next year. They were not going to repeat 16-0, with or without Brady. They won't go 16-0 this year either.

Second, the QB is not the be-all, end-all of a football team. Winning is all about having a good team, winning big is about having a good team AND a good QB. No one is going to win anything with this sad sack 2-14 team, but that's why Pioli is making changes. The Pats weren't built day one. Hell, they went 6-10 that first year. Cassel, Stafford Sanchez, none of them would make a damn difference if Pioli wasn't attempting to build a Patriots-esque team around them. Hell, Pioli even had to go out and get Brady his Moss and Welker, and Brady himself still couldn't win a Super Bowl with them. He only won when the entire team performed on the big stage...

Will

02-28-2009, 03:13 PM

First, name me the last Super Bowl losing team that went back and won it the next year. Most of them fall apart the next year. They were not going to repeat 16-0, with or without Brady. They won't go 16-0 this year either.

Second, the QB is not the be-all, end-all of a football team. Winning is all about having a good team, winning big is about having a good team AND a good QB. No one is going to win anything with this sad sack 2-14 team, but that's why Pioli is making changes. The Pats weren't built day one. Hell, they went 6-10 that first year. Cassel, Stafford Sanchez, none of them would make a damn difference if Pioli wasn't attempting to build a Patriots-esque team around them. Hell, Pioli even had to go out and get Brady his Moss and Welker, and Brady still couldn't win a Super Bowl with them...

Well Said!

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 03:13 PM

I would suggest that Tony G is a tougher match up for defenses than Moss. I doubt you'll find a single defensive coordinator in the NFL that agrees with you on that. Moss is a freak of nature.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-28-2009, 03:13 PM

Comparing any young quarterback to Tom fucking Brady is a bit unfair, don't you think?

I'm not thrilled about this, but will defer to Scott Pioli until we fail. We have no reason to criticize any move he makes right now. We're not worthy. If he wants Cassel, he can have him.

I trust his opinions better than I trust my own. I have faith in the guy, even though he's done everything I've hoped he wouldn't do to this point. Hopefully my trait of wishing wrong for the Chiefs will continue here.

TRR

02-28-2009, 03:14 PM

Where is the GREAT option at? Most people were saying teams would have to give up a middle 1st round pick to get Cassel. KC got him for a 2nd...

This isn't like the Trent Green trade. An older veteran, just coming off knee surgery. This is a young player on the rise. Could he bust in KC? Sure he could. But so could Glenn Dorsey, so could Mark Sanchez and Matt Stafford.

I'm extremelly excited to see Cassel in a KC uniform!!

dirk digler

02-28-2009, 03:14 PM

I guess I should shut the fuck up. He's played four years. Dammit!

Prior to last year he only had thrown 40 pass attempts so basically he played during garbage time

Will

02-28-2009, 03:15 PM

I doubt you'll find a single defensive coordinator in the NFL that agrees with you on that. Moss is a freak of nature.

Moss isn't that great.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:17 PM

Just because he doesn't have Stafford's arm?

He can make an NFL throw. He's not Thigpen.

Come on. Who has evaluated Cassel more? You or Pioli?

How many Patriots games did you watch last season? All of them? PIOLI HAS!

D* and the Sunday and MNF monopoly on the Pats allowed me to watch a lot of Pats games. I'm not saying that I know more than Pioli. You don't have to be smarter than someone to question their judgment People can and do make mistakes.

This guy drafted Maroney, Daniel Graham, and Chad Jackson with high picks, FFS. He doesn't shit gold bars.

Again, I'm not saying that Matt Cassel is a terrible player. I don't think that he's a franchise QB. Hell, the idea that he was a top 5-8 QB was roundly laughed about here last night, and now, once we've traded for him, we're lionizing the guy.

You could not be any more coddled than Matt Cassel was last year. There's a reason why the Pats were thinking about bringing in Testaverde early in the year.

He had a very very good OL, the 6th best running game in the NFL, the most dynamic playmaker in football, and the best slot receiver in the game. They played a soft schedule, and still missed the playoffs.

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 03:19 PM

Moss isn't that great.Repeating something doesn't magically make it true.

I like Gonzalez. A lot, in fact. But the idea that he's a tougher match-up than Moss is nuts.

Will

02-28-2009, 03:19 PM

D* and the Sunday and MNF monopoly on the Pats allowed me to watch a lot of Pats games. I'm not saying that I know more than Pioli. You don't have to be smarter than someone to question their judgment People can and do make mistakes.

This guy drafted Maroney, Daniel Graham, and Chad Jackson with high picks, FFS. He doesn't shit gold bars.

Again, I'm not saying that Matt Cassel is a terrible player. I don't think that he's a franchise QB. Hell, the idea that he was a top 5-8 QB was roundly laughed about here last night, and now, once we've traded for him, we're lionizing the guy.

You could not be any more coddled than Matt Cassel was last year. There's a reason why the Pats were thinking about bringing in Testaverde early in the year.

He had a very very good OL, the 6th best running game in the NFL, the most dynamic playmaker in football, and the best slot receiver in the game. They played a soft schedule, and still missed the playoffs.

Moss isn't the most dynamic playmaker in the NFL

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:20 PM

Moss isn't the most dynamic playmaker in the NFL

Well, I'm convinced.

Rausch

02-28-2009, 03:21 PM

The question that this thread is built around isn't whether it's a good or bad trade, the question is whether Cassel is a good or bad choice for quarterback of the future.

Then I should have voted no.

My bad.

(you may wonder at the distinction, but there are a number of folks who are okay with the terms of the trade, but not at all sold on the idea that cassel will turn out to be anything)

I'm one of those folks.

Will

02-28-2009, 03:21 PM

Well, I'm convinced.

I would personally go with Larry Fitzgerald or did you miss the part where he carried the Cardinals to the Super Bowl

The Bad Guy

02-28-2009, 03:21 PM

I'll be willing to wager that Cassel has a more successful career than Stafford and Sanchez.

dirk digler

02-28-2009, 03:23 PM

and still missed the playoffs.

Which was a fluke since they were IIRC the 2nd team in NFL history to be 11-5 and not make the playoffs.

OnTheWarpath15

02-28-2009, 03:23 PM

Based on value alone, good deal.

Based on the fact that I seriously doubt we ever sniff a Super Bowl with Cassel, bad.

Since winning the Super Bowl is all that matters, I voted bad.

I hope like hell I'm proven wrong.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 03:23 PM

Well, I'm convinced.

ROFL

JuicesFlowing

02-28-2009, 03:23 PM

Just because he doesn't have Stafford's arm?

He can make an NFL throw. He's not Thigpen.

Come on. Who has evaluated Cassel more? You or Pioli?

How many Patriots games did you watch last season? All of them? PIOLI HAS!

Cassel fits in KC's offense with Haley/Pioli. Last year's offense was created out of desperation and adaption. Thigpen happened to help, at least in the first half. Cassel will be better than Thigpen.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 03:24 PM

Based on value alone, good deal.

Based on the fact that I seriously doubt we ever sniff a Super Bowl with Cassel, bad.

Since winning the Super Bowl is all that matters, I voted bad.

I hope like hell I'm proven wrong.

I voted yes only because it means the end of Thigpen. That's the ONLY solace I get from this.

chiefzilla1501

02-28-2009, 03:24 PM

D* and the Sunday and MNF monopoly on the Pats allowed me to watch a lot of Pats games. I'm not saying that I know more than Pioli. You don't have to be smarter than someone to question their judgment People can and do make mistakes.

This guy drafted Maroney, Daniel Graham, and Chad Jackson with high picks, FFS. He doesn't shit gold bars.

Again, I'm not saying that Matt Cassel is a terrible player. I don't think that he's a franchise QB. Hell, the idea that he was a top 5-8 QB was roundly laughed about here last night, and now, once we've traded for him, we're lionizing the guy.

You could not be any more coddled than Matt Cassel was last year. There's a reason why the Pats were thinking about bringing in Testaverde early in the year.

He had a very very good OL, the 6th best running game in the NFL, the most dynamic playmaker in football, and the best slot receiver in the game. They played a soft schedule, and still missed the playoffs.

But I don't understand why these are excuses for why Cassel won't succeed, but you will NEVER hear any fan make these same excuses for Flacco or Ryan. Or you will NEVER hear anybody say that Big Ben succeeded because of the talent he was given his rookie season, nevermind that he had the Bus, Parker, Hines, Burress, and an unbelievable defense.

And the OL wasn't as good last year as it was in previous years. I think the Pats' o-line is overrated--a large part of their success is due to Brady's uncanny ability to get rid of the ball very quickly. I imagine that if you put most QBs behind the Pats' offensive line, they'd look pretty average. Look at that highlight reel you just saw and tell me how many times Cassel had perfect blocking--in many of the clips, there were defenders swarming at him right away.

OnTheWarpath15

02-28-2009, 03:25 PM

The question that this thread is built around isn't whether it's a good or bad trade, the question is whether Cassel is a good or bad choice for quarterback of the future.

(you may wonder at the distinction, but there are a number of folks who are okay with the terms of the trade, but not at all sold on the idea that cassel will turn out to be anything)

It's about whether people think Cassel with be a franchise player in the end.

Exactly.

Rausch

02-28-2009, 03:25 PM

I'll be willing to wager that Cassel has a more successful career than Stafford and Sanchez.

I'm not.

But if Cassel fails it doesn't cripple our cap for years to come and cost us a 1st round pick in the process. Both of the other 2 would.

That's why I'm starting to really warm up to this trade: if Cassel pans out they're fucking genius and if he doesn't (if the 1 year deal stays) they're protected.

As of this hour there is almost no long term risk or fallout...

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:26 PM

Based on value alone, good deal.

Based on the fact that I seriously doubt we ever sniff a Super Bowl with Cassel, bad.

Since winning the Super Bowl is all that matters, I voted bad.

I hope like hell I'm proven wrong.

Exactly. It's like no one on this board understands the concept of nuance.

Thig Lyfe

02-28-2009, 03:26 PM

Good choice? Yeah, probably. Best possible choice? We'll see.

Mr. Flopnuts

02-28-2009, 03:27 PM

I'm not.

But if Cassel fails it doesn't cripple our cap for years to come and cost us a 1st round pick in the process. Both of the other 2 would.

That's why I'm starting to really warm up to this trade: if Cassel pans out they're fucking genius and if he doesn't (if the 1 year deal stays) they're protected.

As of this hour there is almost no long term risk or fallout...

Yeah, and it would've also cost us 3-4 years if it didn't work out. Cassel's rope won't be that long. There really is not any risk at all comparatively speaking. But I want to win a SB and I don't think Cassel can get it done outside of a Trent Dilfer style role.

Rausch

02-28-2009, 03:27 PM

Or you will NEVER hear anybody say that Big Ben succeeded because of the talent he was given his rookie season, nevermind that he had the Bus, Parker, Hines, Burress, and an unbelievable defense.

I think Big Ben is a top 5 QB right now, today.

I also don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that he was more than a "Dilfer" during his first SB run...

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:28 PM

And the OL wasn't as good last year as it was in previous years. I think the Pats' o-line is overrated--a large part of their success is due to Brady's uncanny ability to get rid of the ball very quickly. I imagine that if you put most QBs behind the Pats' offensive line, they'd look pretty average. Look at that highlight reel you just saw and tell me how many times Cassel had perfect blocking--in many of the clips, there were defenders swarming at him right away.

Cassel took more sacks than anyone in the NFL. Even if the line was merely average, that's unacceptable.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 03:28 PM

Exactly. It's like no one on this board understands the concept of nuance.

Hey, I'm down with you; I just went from being excited about the season to 'meh' in the space of one sleep cycle!

Will

02-28-2009, 03:30 PM

Lets be real. How many teams really have a Franschise QB. Not a whole lot. Maybe 6-7 teams. Out of the available QB's do you honestly think we could have gotten anything better. Picking a QB at number 3 is way to risky with the guys in the draft. This years draft is poor in QB's. In a normal year stafford and sanchez would probably only be the 4-5 best QB in the draft.

chiefzilla1501

02-28-2009, 03:30 PM

Based on value alone, good deal.

Based on the fact that I seriously doubt we ever sniff a Super Bowl with Cassel, bad.

Since winning the Super Bowl is all that matters, I voted bad.

I hope like hell I'm proven wrong.

And I think you're basing that on a scouting analysis that happened years ago when no scout had good enough information to put a realistic draft grade on him. And I think part of that is due to the fact that he doesn't have the physical ability that Sanchez or Stafford have.

But the draft grade is irrelevant because Pioli has 5 years of in-practice and in-game data to evaluate, so who cares what scouts thought of him? As for the second point, why are so many people obsessed with physical ability? The word on the street is that Cassel followed Brady everywhere and that's great, given that Brady is a workhorse. Cassel became a film room freak and a very hard worker on the field and in the weight room.

I like Cassel's upside because I have always believed that most QBs don't reach their potential because they don't work hard enough to improve. That's not a problem with Cassel. I would argue that his dedication to his game gives him considerable upside.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:32 PM

Lets be real. How many teams really have a Franschise QB. Not a whole lot. Maybe 6-7 teams. Out of the available QB's do you honestly think we could have gotten anything better. Picking a QB at number 3 is way to risky with the guys in the draft. This years draft is poor in QB's. In a normal year stafford and sanchez would probably only be the 4-5 best QB in the draft.

Same shit, different day.

Stafford is the best QB prospect in a half decade.

Risk averse.

Typical penny-wise pound-foolish Chief fans.

Johnny Vegas

02-28-2009, 03:33 PM

whats the difference? Cassel is as big a mystery as Sanchez, Stafford, Curry, and who ever else you think of next. Only thing Cassel has on any of these guys is he played against NFL talent and helped an NFL team to 11-5.

You'd could argue the 2004 draft had the right idea being debated here. Eli and Ben. How many drafts before was there 2 top pick QBs in the same draft and both had won a SB within 4 years?

Its a big gamble with these two QB's in the draft just as it is with Cassel. Saying Sanchez/Stafford are more QB'sOTF is just as reckless as saying Cassel is the QBOTF.

If the Chiefs were to spend 3rd overall pick money to a prospect why is it not better to pay less on a proven winning NFL QB and still have a 3rd overall?

Rausch

02-28-2009, 03:35 PM

There really is not any risk at all comparatively speaking. But I want to win a SB and I don't think Cassel can get it done outside of a Trent Dilfer style role.

I wouldn't go that far but I'd agree that he's not a legit QBOTF.

And forget even his production or the value, this staff thinks he is. That means they'll go on building a team around him as if he's a lock. Adding offensive weapons and concentrating on a line to protect him.

And yes, I think much more than Herm would have. I still think we go offense with 2 of three first day picks (taking into account a trade up/down.)

If we do have to draft a QBOTF in 2 or 3 years I think the rest of the offense will be ready and waiting for him.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:36 PM

If the Chiefs were to spend 3rd overall pick money to a prospect why is it not better to pay less on a proven winning NFL QB and still have a 3rd overall?

Because Sanchez/Stafford have significantly more upside than Cassel.

Those who are against the trade are against it for that reason. It's not that we overpaid for Matt Cassel. It's a fine trade for pick value. But if we pass up one of those two, especially Stafford, it's going to haunt us for a long, long time.

Will

02-28-2009, 03:36 PM

Because Sanchez/Stafford have significantly more upside than Cassel.

Those who are against the trade are against it for that reason. It's not that we overpaid for Matt Cassel. It's a fine trade for pick value. But if we pass up one of those two, especially Stafford, it's going to haunt us for a long, long time.

would you explain why stafford and sanchez have more upside than cassel?

doomy3

02-28-2009, 03:37 PM

Because Sanchez/Stafford have significantly more upside than Cassel.

Those who are against the trade are against it for that reason. It's not that we overpaid for Matt Cassel. It's a fine trade for pick value. But if we pass up one of those two, especially Stafford, it's going to haunt us for a long, long time.

I agree that Stafford does, but also view him as boom or bust. I think Sanchez will be a mediocre NFL QB, a la Joey Harrington.

dirk digler

02-28-2009, 03:38 PM

Because Sanchez/Stafford have significantly more upside than Cassel.

I don't think that argument holds much weight now considering 2 out of the 3 top teams at the top of the draft wanted Cassel over Stafford or Sanchez. There must be some consensus that both of the those QB's have serious question marks and are not locks to be franchise QB's.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:38 PM

would you explain why stafford and sanchez have more upside than cassel?

No. If you're too lazy to look it up, I'm not doing it for you. It's been posted 100s of times.

RustShack

02-28-2009, 03:39 PM

would you explain why stafford and sanchez have more upside than cassel?

Your jokeing right?

HonestChieffan

02-28-2009, 03:39 PM

Great trade to get us started. Will he be a true franchise guy? Who knows but hes better than anything we have or could get in this draft.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:39 PM

I don't think that argument holds much weight now considering 2 out of the 3 top teams at the top of the draft wanted Cassel over Stafford or Sanchez. There must be some consensus that both of the those QB's have serious question marks and are not locks to be franchise QB's.

One is the worst run franchise in professional sports, and the other is from a franchise whose GM is from a clique more insular than the motherfucking Skull & Bones.

Will

02-28-2009, 03:40 PM

Your jokeing right?

NO. Stafford may have a slight more upside than Cassel but not Sanchez. I just want to know why you think Stafford and Sanchez make more sense?

Basileus777

02-28-2009, 03:40 PM

Once again, Stafford wasn't an option. He's going to Detroit.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 03:41 PM

Because Sanchez/Stafford have significantly more upside than Cassel.

Those who are against the trade are against it for that reason. It's not that we overpaid for Matt Cassel. It's a fine trade for pick value. But if we pass up one of those two, especially Stafford, it's going to haunt us for a long, long time.

Well, let's tally it up:

1) Mass-hiring of bottom-feeder coaching/coords.

2) Yesterday's geezer signing/trade.

3) Trade for Cassell.

"I believe that's three," said the Umpire.

Let's get Pioli one of those nifty "Safety First" signs to hang on his office door!:rolleyes:

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:42 PM

Once again, Stafford wasn't an option. He's going to Detroit.

And Quinn was a lock for Cleveland at 3. You never know.

chiefzilla1501

02-28-2009, 03:42 PM

Because Sanchez/Stafford have significantly more upside than Cassel.

Those who are against the trade are against it for that reason. It's not that we overpaid for Matt Cassel. It's a fine trade for pick value. But if we pass up one of those two, especially Stafford, it's going to haunt us for a long, long time.

And I don't understand why you're so convinced of this. Because arm strength defines a quarterback? I don't get this. Will Stafford ever be able to lead an NFL team--the big knock on Harrington is that he didn't have that? Will he have the work ethic to not only work just as hard as NFL quarterbacks, but work as hard as guys like Peyton and Brady who obsess about the film room--I would argue most QBs fail for this reason? He has a LOT to prove.

I don't understand why you believe a draft position defines a player 5 years down the road. Who cares how Cassel was evaluated in the draft? Pioli has watched him for 5 years in practice and in games. He obviously really likes the kid. And in the intangibles that you seem to think are completely unimportant like leadership and work ethic, he scores off the charts. His teammates love him and it is well documented that the guy works ridiculously hard on learning the game.

You are basing upside purely on draft position and the ability to throw the deep ball. Because apart from those two attributes, I don't understand where you think a guy (especially Sanchez) rates better.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 03:43 PM

One is the worst run franchise in professional sports, and the other is from a franchise whose GM is from a clique more insular than the motherfucking Skull & Bones.

ROFL This.

Basileus777

02-28-2009, 03:44 PM

And Quinn was a lock for Cleveland at 3. You never know.

Pioli still had to make this trade under the reasonable assumption that Stafford won't be there. Cassel/Sanchez is the comparison that should be made.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:46 PM

Pioli still had to make this trade under the reasonable assumption that Stafford won't be there. Cassel/Sanchez is the comparison that should be made.

And I take Sanchez.

melbar

02-28-2009, 03:47 PM

I think he plays decent, but never becomes our franchise guy. A young Kerry Collins with less arm is what I see.

Did you watch the throws he made last year?

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 03:47 PM

You are basing upside purely on draft position and the ability to throw the deep ball. Because apart from those two attributes, I don't understand where you think a guy (especially Sanchez) rates better.

Do you even know what Sanchez's greatest attributes are?

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 03:47 PM

And I take Sanchez.

I'll take a gram of opium please...:spock:

ncCHIEFfan

02-28-2009, 03:47 PM

Better than Sanchez

melbar

02-28-2009, 03:49 PM

And I take Sanchez.

Based on age, or what factors do you think Sanchez would be better in the Chiefs situation?

Will

02-28-2009, 03:49 PM

Do you even know what Sanchez's greatest attributes are?

Maybe we don't know everything about him. Please fill us in on his attributes. All I know is that when a former NFL coach tells you that you're not ready for the NFL then I would probably listen to him. Sanchez knew that the QB class was weak and left becuase he'd be the 1st or 2nd QB taken.

ncCHIEFfan

02-28-2009, 03:50 PM

I can't believe guys are so ate-up with Sanchez, a one year college starter whos coach (highly respect through out all of football) says he is not ready for NFL

ncCHIEFfan

02-28-2009, 03:51 PM

Maybe we don't know everything about him. Please fill us in on his attributes. All I know is that when a former NFL coach tells you that you're not ready for the NFL then I would probably listen to him. Sanchez knew that the QB class was weak and left becuase he'd be the 1st or 2nd QB taken.

Exactly!

ncCHIEFfan

02-28-2009, 03:51 PM

Maybe we don't know everything about him. Please fill us in on his attributes. All I know is that when a former NFL coach tells you that you're not ready for the NFL then I would probably listen to him. Sanchez knew that the QB class was weak and left becuase he'd be the 1st or 2nd QB taken.
Exactly!

melbar

02-28-2009, 03:52 PM

I'm not knocking Sanchez here, I'm just honestly asking what in your opinion what makes Sanchez the better choice?

Johnny Vegas

02-28-2009, 03:52 PM

Maybe we don't know everything about him. Please fill us in on his attributes. All I know is that when a former NFL coach tells you that you're not ready for the NFL then I would probably listen to him. Sanchez knew that the QB class was weak and left becuase he'd be the 1st or 2nd QB taken.

I have to agree the QB class isn't worth dick past Sanchez/Stafford.

Johnny Vegas

02-28-2009, 03:53 PM

I was actually pulling for Sanchez to be drafted by the Chiefs.

warrior

02-28-2009, 03:59 PM

I was actually pulling for Sanchez to be drafted by the Chiefs.

Me to but Cassel's the Chiefs QB now time to move on.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 04:01 PM

I'm not knocking Sanchez here, I'm just honestly asking what in your opinion what makes Sanchez the better choice?

He has off the charts intangibles, he has a strong arm, solid build, he's accurate, he plays his best against the best competition, he's a good natural athlete, he's smart, confident but not cocky, and he was productive with an offense that lacked a lot of elite talent (USCs offensive talent is nowhere near Oklahoma's, for example).

Mr. Kotter

02-28-2009, 04:03 PM

I was actually pulling for Sanchez to be drafted by the Chiefs.

Sanchez could pan out. But he's a unknown commodity.

Cassel, potentially, puts this franchise on the "fast-track" to rebuilding.

Honestly, one of (if not THE) most important position on an NFL team just went from a "weakness" to a strength for the Chiefs.

Think about it. How many teams have TWO QBs with the youth, potential, experience, and improvisational ability we saw from Cassel and Thigpen last year? Maybe 4 or 5 teams? At best.

ArrowheadHawk

02-28-2009, 04:03 PM

Great trade. I love it.

Mr. Kotter

02-28-2009, 04:04 PM

He has off the charts intangibles, he has a strong arm, solid build, he's accurate, he plays his best against the best competition, he's a good natural athlete, he's smart, confident but not cocky, and he was productive with an offense that lacked a lot of elite talent (USCs offensive talent is nowhere near Oklahoma's, for example).

In other words, a promising NFL prospect, right? :thumb:

As opposed to a guy who did pretty darn well in the NFL last year, by nearly all accounts. And a guy who should be ready to start, Game 1 next year.

Maybe Cassel will be the next Scott Mitchell, but I'm not thinking so at this point. :hmmm:

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 04:05 PM

Honestly, one of (if not THE) most important position on an NFL team just went from a "weakness" to a strength for the Chiefs.I don't know if I'd go that far.

-King-

02-28-2009, 04:08 PM

He has off the charts intangibles, he has a strong arm, solid build, he's accurate, he plays his best against the best competition, he's a good natural athlete, he's smart, confident but not cocky, and he was productive with an offense that lacked a lot of elite talent (USCs offensive talent is nowhere near Oklahoma's, for example).

He plays in the Pac-10. How does he play against the best competition? He played no more than 3 ranked teams last year. And a majority of his TDs were to WIDE THE HELL open WRs. I dont know why you say the USC offense lacked elete talent because the WRs on just about every long play had 5-10 yards off the CB. He maybe had 10 plays where he had to squeeze the ball into tight coverage. And according to his last throwing performance, his arm isn't that strong :D . Cassel has a strong arm, he has played in the NFL. Hell, he played more games in the NFL in one year than Sanchez did in his whole career at USC.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 04:08 PM

Think about it. How many teams have TWO QBs with the youth, potential, experience, and improvisational ability we saw from Cassel and Thigpen last year? Maybe 4 or 5 teams? At best.

And yet, you still see Thigpen as a valuable part of this team. He's done, and it's the ONE thing I like about this trade.

-King-

02-28-2009, 04:09 PM

I don't know if I'd go that far.

Yeah, I'll have to see him throw with the players we have before I say it's a strength, but it's a start.

Mr. Kotter

02-28-2009, 04:09 PM

I don't know if I'd go that far.

Sorry, I'm a bit giddy right now though.

From an age, experience, mobility/improvisational ability, proven NFL ability....I'd bet there can't be more than 4-5 teams with a better 1-2 punch at QB--especially with the offensive system Haley is likely to use.

I was tepid about Thigpen as a starter; but I'm dang excited for he and Cassel to be our 1-2....especially in exchange for a SECOND round pick.

:drool:

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 04:09 PM

Jesus Christ.

Who gives a rat fuck about next year? This team won't win shit next year.

I don't fucking care if Matt Cassel can help us win next year. If he can't help us win a Super Bowl, and one of those two other QBs can, then this trade is a killer.

I don't know how this can be restated any more clearly. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Bwana

02-28-2009, 04:09 PM

Very good trade.

Fairplay

02-28-2009, 04:09 PM

Everyone who wanted Stafford or Sanchez can stop jerking their meat now.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 04:10 PM

He plays in the Pac-10. How does he play against the best competition? He played no more than 3 ranked teams last year. And a majority of his TDs were to WIDE THE HELL open WRs. I dont know why you say the USC offense lacked elete talent because the WRs on just about every long play had 5-10 yards off the CB. He maybe had 10 plays where he had to squeeze the ball into tight coverage. And according to his last throwing performance, his arm isn't that strong :D . Cassel has a strong arm, he has played in the NFL. Hell, he played more games in the NFL in one year than Sanchez did in his whole career at USC.

They stomped the piss out of Oregon, Penn State, and OSU, and Sanchez had phenomenal performances in those games (not just Sam Bradford Madden fests).

And Cassel does not have a strong arm.

Mr. Kotter

02-28-2009, 04:11 PM

And yet, you still see Thigpen as a valuable part of this team. He's done, and it's the ONE thing I like about this trade.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty confident Thigpen will be our back-up next year.

-King-

02-28-2009, 04:11 PM

Jesus Christ.

Who gives a rat **** about next year? This team won't win shit next year.

I don't ****ing care if Matt Cassel can help us win next year. If he can't help us win a Super Bowl, and one of those two other QBs can, then this trade is a killer.

I don't know how this can be restated any more clearly. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

And yet Sanchez can help us win. And you know that how?

OnTheWarpath15

02-28-2009, 04:12 PM

Jesus Christ.

Who gives a rat fuck about next year? This team won't win shit next year.

I don't fucking care if Matt Cassel can help us win next year. If he can't help us win a Super Bowl, and one of those two other QBs can, then this trade is a killer.

I don't know how this can be restated any more clearly. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

Apparently not.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=5539242#post5539242

I agree, Cassel is a monumental upgrade. But do you think he can lead us to a Lombardi Trophy? Because that's all that matters.

That's all that matters TO YOU.

-King-

02-28-2009, 04:12 PM

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty confident Thigpen will be our back-up next year.

If the Bucs offer a 4th or better, I would gladly take it and not look back.

Rain Man

02-28-2009, 04:12 PM

If anybody but Pioli was our GM, I'd be upset about this trade. But Pioli knows the talent in New England and has the best pedigree of any GM in the league, so I trust his judgment.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 04:13 PM

Everyone who wanted Stafford or Sanchez can stop jerking their meat now.

Yep, I'll just enjoy watching them make their Super Bowl runs while the Chiefs Nation sits around with it's thumb up it's ass, wondering "why isn't that us"?

Mr. Kotter

02-28-2009, 04:13 PM

Jesus Christ.

Who gives a rat **** about next year? This team won't win shit next year.

I don't ****ing care if Matt Cassel can help us win next year. If he can't help us win a Super Bowl, and one of those two other QBs can, then this trade is a killer.

I don't know how this can be restated any more clearly. Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing.

And you are REALLY convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that Sanchez or Stafford have a better chance to get us to the big game than Cassel?

Really? On what basis? Seriously.

:shrug:

-King-

02-28-2009, 04:13 PM

Apparently not.

It is all that matters to me. I just dont see how you can say Cassel cant take us to the SB and sanchez has a better chance of doing that.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 04:14 PM

And you are REALLY convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that Sanchez or Stafford have a better chance to get us to the big game than Cassel?

Really? On what basis? Seriously.

:shrug:

Natural physical ability and intangibles.

-King-

02-28-2009, 04:14 PM

Yep, I'll just enjoy watching them make their Super Bowl runs while the Chiefs Nation sits around with it's thumb up it's ass, wondering "why isn't that us"?

:spock: :doh!: WHAT?

mlyonsd

02-28-2009, 04:14 PM

It is all that matters to me. I just dont see how you can say Cassel cant take us to the SB and sanchez has a better chance of doing that.

Sanchez threw what, 350 passes in college? I'd think his arm would be sore.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 04:15 PM

If anybody but Pioli was our GM, I'd be upset about this trade. But Pioli knows the talent in New England and has the best pedigree of any GM in the league, so I trust his judgment.

Bill Polian on line 2.

Mr. Kotter

02-28-2009, 04:15 PM

Yep, I'll just enjoy watching them make their Super Bowl runs while the Chiefs Nation sits around with it's thumb up it's ass, wondering "why isn't that us"?

Nearly every thing I'm reading....says those two QBs are the lowest rated "top two" QBs to come out in a while. It's not a good QB class, from what I'm reading. Heck, the K-State and Ball State kids may be the best real prospects according to a lot of folks.

dirk digler

02-28-2009, 04:16 PM

One is the worst run franchise in professional sports, and the other is from a franchise whose GM is from a clique more insular than the motherfucking Skull & Bones.

The Bungles were one of the worst run franchises ever and they still took Carson Palmer #1 overall.

If people believed Stafford or Sanchez are elite franchise QB's then neither one of the teams that tried to get Cassel today would have messed with him.

Will

02-28-2009, 04:16 PM

Yep, I'll just enjoy watching them make their Super Bowl runs while the Chiefs Nation sits around with it's thumb up it's ass, wondering "why isn't that us"?

So if Stafford goes number 1 to the lions, he's going to lead them to a superbowl. Let me know when that happens

Mr. Kotter

02-28-2009, 04:16 PM

Bill Polian on line 2.

His stock has fallen in case you haven't been following the Bills of late....

Just sayin' ;)

aturnis

02-28-2009, 04:17 PM

I wish this was a poll where we could see who voted for what. It'd be fun to talk shit to the guys who said bad if Stafford or Sanchez...whichever one would have fallen to us...failed.

Rain Man

02-28-2009, 04:17 PM

Bill Polian on line 2.

Tell him to call back after a couple more Lombardis.

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 04:17 PM

I wish this was a poll where we could see who voted for what. It'd be fun to talk shit to the guys who said bad if Stafford or Sanchez...whichever one would have fallen to us...failed.It is a public poll.

Mr. Kotter

02-28-2009, 04:18 PM

Natural physical ability and intangibles.

Weren't you touting some DE last draft that hasn't exactly lit-up the NFL...yet, too? And on the same basis?

Just sayin'...heh. ;)

mlyonsd

02-28-2009, 04:18 PM

If anybody but Pioli was our GM, I'd be upset about this trade. But Pioli knows the talent in New England and has the best pedigree of any GM in the league, so I trust his judgment.

How you think Pioli is smarter than 28 people on this board is beyond me.

eazyb81

02-28-2009, 04:18 PM

The Bungles were one of the worst run franchises ever and they still took Carson Palmer #1 overall.

If people believed Stafford or Sanchez are elite franchise QB's then neither one of the teams that tried to get Cassel today would have messed with him.

I think there's a strong feeling about NFL people that Stafford is a franchise-type QB, and I don't think anyone seriously thinks Detroit is going to pass on him.

There's more varying opinions when it comes to Sanchez, and I think we saw how Pioli felt on the Sanchez vs. Cassel debate.

Mr. Kotter

02-28-2009, 04:19 PM

The Bungles were one of the worst run franchises ever and they still took Carson Palmer #1 overall.

If people believed Stafford or Sanchez are elite franchise QB's then neither one of the teams that tried to get Cassel today would have messed with him.

QFT

:thumb:

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 04:20 PM

Nearly every thing I'm reading....says those two QBs are the lowest rated "top two" QBs to come out in a while. It's not a good QB class, from what I'm reading. Heck, the K-State and Ball State kids may be the best real prospects according to a lot of folks.

I suggest that you find new things to read.

Stafford is a significantly better prospect than Ryan and Sanchez is much better than Flacco. They'd both go before Brady Quinn, and Stafford would probably go before Russell. They're better prospects than Young, Leinart, Smith and Rodgers.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 04:20 PM

I think there's a strong feeling about NFL people that Stafford is a franchise-type QB, and I don't think anyone seriously thinks Detroit is going to pass on him.

There's more varying opinions when it comes to Sanchez, and I think we saw how Pioli felt on the Sanchez vs. Cassel debate.

We did?

Rausch

02-28-2009, 04:20 PM

Nearly every thing I'm reading....says those two QBs are the lowest rated "top two" QBs to come out in a while. It's not a good QB class, from what I'm reading. Heck, the K-State and Ball State kids may be the best real prospects according to a lot of folks.

I'd argue the least talented 1st round in years.

Now, I don't sit around tickling my kiwis to QB measurables and 40 times like Mecca but you don't have to. This isn't one of those years where you sit at pick 6 or 7 and think you've landed a franchise player.

chiefzilla1501

02-28-2009, 04:20 PM

He has off the charts intangibles, he has a strong arm, solid build, he's accurate, he plays his best against the best competition, he's a good natural athlete, he's smart, confident but not cocky, and he was productive with an offense that lacked a lot of elite talent (USCs offensive talent is nowhere near Oklahoma's, for example).

But here's what I dislike about that analysis: you are assuming that Sanchez has better intangibles because of what he did against college competition versus what Cassel has done against NFL competition. So in terms of ability to do more with less and the ability to play at his best against the best competition, you have to factor in that the competition he faced was significantly easier than what Cassel did. Playing your best against Penn State is different from playing your best against Pittsburgh.

But to the greater point, you are still leaving out a bunch of intangibles and assuming they're given. Sanchez is smart, but Cassel is an absolute film room fiend--will Sanchez have the dedication to put more time into that than Cassel? I'm going to guess probably not, given that Cassel puts a lot more time than most QBs in the NFL probably do. Furthermore, do you know how Sanchez will respond once he gets his big contract? He's young and is about to be surrounded with a bunch of cash he never had. How do we know he won't become distracted (and when I say "distracted" that means any even small distraction that might take him away from not just showing up to practice, but putting extra time after practice)? Given that he went after the big dollars of the NFL even though most of his advice told him he wasn't ready, who's to say that he's not heavily enamored by money? And given that he has had charges in the past of rape, breaking windows at parties, etc..., who's to say that he won't be distracted by an attractive social life?

Because here's the deal: almost every scout and expert believes that Sanchez is going to have to work hard to become better. I agree with that. How do we know he has the work ethic to not only become better, but to become the best? Cassel doesn't carry that risk. Sanchez does. Therefore, when we speak of upside, why doesn't the drive to get better and the work ethic to become smarter than the competition factor in?

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 04:21 PM

Tell him to call back after a couple more Lombardis.

So taking 3 different teams to a Super Bowl (or near it) in two different eras counts for less than being the VP of Player Personnel after your team fell ass over teakettle into Tom Brady as opposed to Tim Rattay.

Ok.

Rain Man

02-28-2009, 04:22 PM

Natural physical ability and intangibles.

I admit that this is my concern as well. I wanted a quarterback who was the next James Bond, someone who dominated in college and was part appaloosa and who helped India launch satellites with his arm. If Cassel was that, he would've had half a dozen more starting years under his belt. It worries me. But like I said, I'll trust Pioli's judgment on this given the fact that he hands out used Lombardi trophies as party favors.

eazyb81

02-28-2009, 04:22 PM

We did?

Yes, we did. Sanchez was going to be there at #3, and Pioli chose to trade for Cassel rather than draft Sanchez. What do you disagree with?

dirk digler

02-28-2009, 04:22 PM

I think there's a strong feeling about NFL people that Stafford is a franchise-type QB, and I don't think anyone seriously thinks Detroit is going to pass on him.

There's more varying opinions when it comes to Sanchez, and I think we saw how Pioli felt on the Sanchez vs. Cassel debate.

I think that is a fair take. We are starting to hear rumblings of Curry going #1 which makes me wonder what they are not liking about Stafford.

Will

02-28-2009, 04:23 PM

I suggest that you find new things to read.

Stafford is a significantly better prospect than Ryan and Sanchez is much better than Flacco. They'd both go before Brady Quinn, and Stafford would probably go before Russell. They're better prospects than Young, Leinart, Smith and Rodgers.

Where do you do your reading becuase from everything that i've read/heard is that this years QB class is the worst ever and stafford and especially sanchez are benefiting from it

Rain Man

02-28-2009, 04:23 PM

So taking 3 different teams to a Super Bowl (or near it) in two different eras counts for less than being the VP of Player Personnel after your team fell ass over teakettle into Tom Brady as opposed to Tim Rattay.

Ok.

So it's not all about winning Super Bowls?

Fairplay

02-28-2009, 04:23 PM

Yep, I'll just enjoy watching them make their Super Bowl runs while the Chiefs Nation sits around with it's thumb up it's ass, wondering "why isn't that us"?

It does take more then just a good or even great QB to win a SB.

eazyb81

02-28-2009, 04:23 PM

I think that is a fair take. We are starting to hear rumblings of Curry going #1 which makes me wonder what they are not liking about Stafford.

It's smoke, nothing more. Stafford is elite and will be the #1 pick in the draft. Book it.

dirk digler

02-28-2009, 04:24 PM

How you think Pioli is smarter than 28 people on this board is beyond me.

LMAO

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 04:25 PM

How you think Pioli is smarter than 28 people on this board is beyond me.You know, trades don't always work out.

Besides, saying I'm not sold on Cassel isn't some kind of insult to Pioli or a question about his intelligence. It's just an opinion. We're actually entitled to those. At least I think we are. Maybe I missed a memo or something.

Either way, I'm still glad he's our GM and I'm interested to see how it plays out. And I really hope I'm wrong in thinking that Cassel isn't a franchise-caliber QB.

-King-

02-28-2009, 04:25 PM

Seriously, Sanchez's own coach has said that Sanchez isn't ready for the NFL. And you want to argue with that? And dont give me that "Carroll just wanted Sanchez around for another NC run" bullshit. Carroll can crank out QBs out of his ass. Every qb almost the last decade from USC has been good. So how is Sanchez special?

Rain Man

02-28-2009, 04:26 PM

How you think Pioli is smarter than 28 people on this board is beyond me.

He's smarter than 28, much smarter than 29, and way smarter than 30.

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 04:28 PM

Where do you do your reading becuase from everything that i've read/heard is that this years QB class is the worst ever and stafford and especially sanchez are benefiting from it

NFLDC, Walter Football, and NFLN mostly.

Rain Man

02-28-2009, 04:29 PM

Here's the truth about the situation: if Stafford and Sanchez were universally believed to be Aztec gods descended from Valhalla on the wings of Mercury, they would be gone by the third pick. The only way they would get to us is if there's a question mark about them (unless you think the Rams love Bulger more than an Aztec god).

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 04:29 PM

Yes, we did. Sanchez was going to be there at #3, and Pioli chose to trade for Cassel rather than draft Sanchez. What do you disagree with?

Actually, nothing.

I have never been so disinterested in Chiefs football as I am today.

Yay Pioli.
Yay Haley.
Yay Cassel.

Bwana

02-28-2009, 04:31 PM

I wish this was a poll where we could see who voted for what. It'd be fun to talk shit to the guys who said bad if Stafford or Sanchez...whichever one would have fallen to us...failed.

ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 04:31 PM

So it's not all about winning Super Bowls?

Polian proved that he can build teams that can win Super Bowls. He did it in Indy, he won four straight conference championships in Buffalo and was one bad kick away from doing it with them too.

He took teams that were 2-14, 3-13, and expansion teams and built them into an instant contender (Carolina) or perennial juggernauts.

When Scott Pioli builds a team by himself, rather than acting as just a VP, he can be considered in the discussion. But to this point, he's won 0 Super Bowls as the guy with final authority, that was Belichick.

mlyonsd

02-28-2009, 04:32 PM

You know, trades don't always work out.
1st round QB's don't always work out either.

Besides, saying I'm not sold on Cassel isn't some kind of insult to Pioli or a question about his intelligence. It's just an opinion. We're actually entitled to those. At least I think we are. Maybe I missed a memo or something.

Either way, I'm still glad he's our GM and I'm interested to see how it plays out. And I really hope I'm wrong in thinking that Cassel isn't a franchise-caliber QB.

Lighten up, I'm just funn'in with people. When you've been a Chief fan since 1967 having a sense of humor is a must or you'll go crazy.

jjchieffan

02-28-2009, 04:40 PM

Cassel>>>>Rich Gannon, and there are those here who still believe that never was could have won us a superbowl, so why can't Cassel?

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 04:42 PM

Cassel>>>>Rich Gannon, and there are those here who still believe that never was could have won us a superbowl, so why can't Cassel?

That's fair enough.

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 04:43 PM

1st round QB's don't always work out eitherWell, if anybody had actually bothered to read the post that started this thread, they'd realize the idea here is to talk about Cassel on his own merit, and not make the thread about whether it's a good trade or not (I think it was in terms of pure value, as I've said a couple of times, although I'm not a big fan of Cassel) or whether we'd be better off with a 1st round pick.

The question was whether you think Cassel is good or a bad choice for quarterback of the future. Yes or no. Not whether it was a good trade or whether we should've drafted somebody else at #3.

Personally, I don't think Cassel is a franchise QB, and that's why I voted no. I'd really like an Elway or a Montana behind center, and I don't think he's that. That doesn't mean I believe he'll suck or that we can't possibly win games with him managing things behind center, only that I don't think he's going to be one of the top QBs in the NFL for the next decade, or that he's going to carry the team on his own merits. Which are the qualities I'd look for in a quarterback of the future.

Either way, he's the quarterback of the now.

BostonTim

02-28-2009, 04:44 PM

I think he plays decent, but never becomes our franchise guy. A young Kerry Collins with less arm is what I see.

Look at the video and tell me exactly what it is about this alleged "weak; arm.

Cheers, BostonTim

banyon

02-28-2009, 04:44 PM

I'm not sold on Cassel, but it's better than our QB situation last year.

Maybe we'll pull a Cleveland and draft Stafford anyway.

patteeu

02-28-2009, 04:45 PM

I don't have any idea, but if a professional talent evaluator who has had a whole year to monitor this guy's progress from within the organization says he is, it'd would be presumptuous of me to say he isn't. Therefore I voted yes, but having said all that, the odds are stacked against any single QB when it comes to whether or not he will become the kind of QB that we think of when we talk about franchise QBs.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 04:45 PM

Well, if anybody had actually bothered to read the post that started this thread, they'd realize the idea here is to talk about Cassel on his own merit, and not make the thread about whether it's a good trade or not (I think it was in terms of pure value, as I've said a couple of times, although I'm not a big fan of Cassel) or whether we'd be better off with a 1st round pick.

The question was whether you think Cassel is good or a bad choice for quarterback of the future. Yes or no. Not whether it was a good trade or whether we should've drafted somebody else at #3.

Personally, I don't think Cassel is a franchise QB, and that's why I voted no. I'd really like an Elway or a Montana behind center, and I don't think he's that. That doesn't mean I believe he'll suck or that we can't possibly win games with him managing things behind center, only that I don't think he's going to be one of the top QBs in the NFL for the next decade, or that he's going to carry the team on his own merits. Which are the qualities I'd look for in a quarterback of the future.

Either way, he's the quarterback of the now.

Agreed. And Rep!

Rain Man

02-28-2009, 04:46 PM

Polian proved that he can build teams that can win Super Bowls. He did it in Indy, he won four straight conference championships in Buffalo and was one bad kick away from doing it with them too.

He took teams that were 2-14, 3-13, and expansion teams and built them into an instant contender (Carolina) or perennial juggernauts.

When Scott Pioli builds a team by himself, rather than acting as just a VP, he can be considered in the discussion. But to this point, he's won 0 Super Bowls as the guy with final authority, that was Belichick.

If we discount bad kicks in playoffs, Carl Peterson would be higher on my list.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 04:46 PM

Look at the video and tell me exactly what it is about this alleged "weak; arm.

Cheers, BostonTim

Hey, I think I quoted one of your posts at PP talking about the Bills and such?

Can you elaborate a little? Thanks.

FD

02-28-2009, 04:47 PM

I think we can all agree that if Cassel pans out as a great franchise quarterback, Pollard is getting his number retired.

Rausch

02-28-2009, 04:48 PM

Here's the truth about the situation: if Stafford and Sanchez were universally believed to be Aztec gods descended from Valhalla on the wings of Mercury, they would be gone by the third pick. The only way they would get to us is if there's a question mark about them (unless you think the Rams love Bulger more than an Aztec god).

Dear Rain Man-landers,

I just watched the Hulk vs. Thor cartoon with my daughter. Thor is also a violent and shady God, but blonde. Blonde guys tend to play LB and not QB.

Does this mean we'll draft a LB?

Sincerely,

Finna' get ripped in Missouri...

memyselfI

02-28-2009, 04:49 PM

The only thing that would make this sweeter is if Marsha Brady never returns to his former self. Man, that would make this deal sick. ROFL

Rausch

02-28-2009, 04:50 PM

I think we can all agree that if Cassel pans out as a great franchise quarterback, Pollard is getting his number retired.

And if he doesn't Pioli will watch his car explode while eating linguini with red sauce...

'Hamas' Jenkins

02-28-2009, 04:51 PM

If we discount bad kicks in playoffs, Carl Peterson would be higher on my list.

And even if we don't, Polian has achieved more than anyone in the game.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 04:51 PM

I'm not sold on Cassel, but it's better than our QB situation last year.

Maybe we'll pull a Cleveland and draft Stafford anyway.

I know I'll get laughed at and kicked all around the board for it, but I think there's still a chance( however small )that we might still pull the trigger on Mark or Matt.

If the Pats valued the position as much as some say, why wouldn't Pioli do it?

You gotta' have somebody to start and mentor the kid anyway, right?

We'll see.

OnTheWarpath15

02-28-2009, 04:51 PM

Well, if anybody had actually bothered to read the post that started this thread, they'd realize the idea here is to talk about Cassel on his own merit, and not make the thread about whether it's a good trade or not (I think it was in terms of pure value, as I've said a couple of times, although I'm not a big fan of Cassel) or whether we'd be better off with a 1st round pick.

The question was whether you think Cassel is good or a bad choice for quarterback of the future. Yes or no. Not whether it was a good trade or whether we should've drafted somebody else at #3.

Personally, I don't think Cassel is a franchise QB, and that's why I voted no. I'd really like an Elway or a Montana behind center, and I don't think he's that. That doesn't mean I believe he'll suck or that we can't possibly win games with him managing things behind center, only that I don't think he's going to be one of the top QBs in the NFL for the next decade, or that he's going to carry the team on his own merits. Which are the qualities I'd look for in a quarterback of the future.

Either way, he's the quarterback of the now.

Exactly.

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 04:52 PM

One thing I will add, which is against the tone of the thread:

I think if the parties involved believed Cassel was a franchise quarterback, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the price would have been (much) higher. Which is part of the reason I'm okay with the trade. Because a part of me still thinks we'll still be on the lookout for a QBotF down the road. This trade may just be a temporary move to fill a dire need the best way that they can in 2009, and if it turns out that he booms, well, so much the better.

Or they may think he's the next Brady.

It's all a guessing game.

mlyonsd

02-28-2009, 04:53 PM

The question was whether you think Cassel is good or a bad choice for quarterback of the future. Yes or no. Not whether it was a good trade or whether we should've drafted somebody else at #3.

If I didn't think so I wouldn't have voted yes.

But part of the question is whether or not you think drafting an unproven QB at #3 is a good risk when a guy like Cassel is available to you.

I think Stafford will be gone by our pick and I truly don't believe Sanchez was worth the #3 pick.

-King-

02-28-2009, 04:54 PM

Well, if anybody had actually bothered to read the post that started this thread, they'd realize the idea here is to talk about Cassel on his own merit, and not make the thread about whether it's a good trade or not (I think it was in terms of pure value, as I've said a couple of times, although I'm not a big fan of Cassel) or whether we'd be better off with a 1st round pick.

The question was whether you think Cassel is good or a bad choice for quarterback of the future. Yes or no. Not whether it was a good trade or whether we should've drafted somebody else at #3.

Personally, I don't think Cassel is a franchise QB, and that's why I voted no. I'd really like an Elway or a Montana behind center, and I don't think he's that. That doesn't mean I believe he'll suck or that we can't possibly win games with him managing things behind center, only that I don't think he's going to be one of the top QBs in the NFL for the next decade, or that he's going to carry the team on his own merits. Which are the qualities I'd look for in a quarterback of the future.

Either way, he's the quarterback of the now.

Everybody wants a Elway/Montana. But there are MAYBE 2-3 Montana/Elway-esque qbs in the league right now.

Coach

02-28-2009, 04:55 PM

Chiefs' last 15 2nd round picks:

Brandon Flowers
Turk McBride
Bernard Pollard
Junior Siavii
Kris Wilson
Kawika Mitchell
Eddie Freeman
William Bartee
Mike Cloud
Kevin Lockett
Reggie Tongue
Donnell Bennett
Darrin Mickell
Matt Blundin
Joe Valerio

You be the judge...

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 04:56 PM

If I didn't think so I wouldn't have voted yes.I realize that, I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of people here making the mistaken assumption that this thread is about the trade, and that it is possible to be okay with the trade without being in love with the player. And that you don't have to have a man-crush on Sanchez or Stafford or anybody else to vote "no".

Rain Man

02-28-2009, 04:57 PM

I know I'll get laughed at and kicked all around the board for it, but I think there's still a chance( however small )that we might still pull the trigger on Mark or Matt.

If the Pats valued the position as much as some say, why wouldn't Pioli do it?

You gotta' have somebody to start and mentor the kid anyway, right?

We'll see.

Admittedly, that thought occurred to me as well. If we make the assumption that all of the GMs secretly love these guys and Pioli is assuming that neither will drop to 3, then he's hedging his 2,200 point first-round pick with a 480 point second-round pick. It's a classic hedging strategy. If he gets a shining American hero in the first, he'll gladly sacrifice his second. If not, he automatically got a starting QB with his second.

Mr. Kotter

02-28-2009, 04:57 PM

I think we can all agree that if Cassel pans out as a great franchise quarterback, Pollard is getting his number retired.

LMAO

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 04:57 PM

Chiefs' last 15 2nd round picks:

Brandon Flowers
Turk McBride
Bernard Pollard
Junior Siavii
Kris Wilson
Kawika Mitchell
Eddie Freeman
William Bartee
Mike Cloud
Kevin Lockett
Reggie Tongue
Donnell Bennett
Darrin Mickell
Matt Blundin
Joe Valerio

You be the judge...

And that's all.

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 04:58 PM

Everybody wants a Elway/Montana. But there are MAYBE 2-3 Montana/Elway-esque qbs in the league right now.That doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for that.

Rausch

02-28-2009, 04:58 PM

Chiefs' last 15 2nd round picks:

Brandon Flowers
Turk McBride
Bernard Pollard
Junior Siavii
Kris Wilson
Kawika Mitchell
Eddie Freeman
William Bartee
Mike Cloud
Kevin Lockett
Reggie Tongue
Donnell Bennett
Darrin Mickell
Matt Blundin
Joe Valerio

You be the judge...

And the sad thing is that Joe Valerio probably leads that list in TD's...

mlyonsd

02-28-2009, 04:58 PM

Chiefs' last 15 2nd round picks:

Brandon Flowers
Turk McBride
Bernard Pollard
Junior Siavii
Kris Wilson
Kawika Mitchell
Eddie Freeman
William Bartee
Mike Cloud
Kevin Lockett
Reggie Tongue
Donnell Bennett
Darrin Mickell
Matt Blundin
Joe Valerio

You be the judge...

Where's Darrin Mickell when you need him?

chiefs1111

02-28-2009, 04:58 PM

Chiefs' last 15 2nd round picks:

Brandon Flowers
Turk McBride
Bernard Pollard
Junior Siavii
Kris Wilson
Kawika Mitchell
Eddie Freeman
William Bartee
Mike Cloud
Kevin Lockett
Reggie Tongue
Donnell Bennett
Darrin Mickell
Matt Blundin
Joe Valerio

You be the judge...

wow,that's an ugly list

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 04:59 PM

Admittedly, that thought occurred to me as well. If we make the assumption that all of the GMs secretly love these guys and Pioli is assuming that neither will drop to 3, then he's hedging his 2,200 point first-round pick with a 480 point second-round pick. It's a classic hedging strategy. If he gets a shining American hero in the first, he'll gladly sacrifice his second. If not, he automatically got a starting QB with his second.

If we do THAT, you will NEVER hear me bitch about Pioli or Haley again in my lifetime.

I swear it. Right now.:D

Coach

02-28-2009, 05:00 PM

wow,that's an ugly list

That's a no shit. Outside of Brandon Flowers and maybe Reggie Tounge, there isn't shit on that list.

Honestly, I would make this trade anyday, anytime.

mlyonsd

02-28-2009, 05:02 PM

I realize that, I'm just pointing out that there are a lot of people here making the mistaken assumption that this thread is about the trade, and that it is possible to be okay with the trade without being in love with the player. And that you don't have to have a man-crush on Sanchez or Stafford or anybody else to vote "no".

Maybe the only answer to make everyone happy is for Pioli to find someone to trade their 2nd for Thigpen.

Ok, I snickered typing that.

keg in kc

02-28-2009, 05:03 PM

Maybe the only answer to make everyone happy is for Pioli to find someone to trade their 2nd for Thigpen.Hell, trade him for a 5th and I'll be giddy as a schoolgirl.

suds79

02-28-2009, 05:05 PM

I'm a Stafford fan, but 2 get our starting QB and a starting LB all 4 our 2nd round pick is highway robbery! Way 2 go Scott!

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 05:05 PM

Hell, trade him for a 5th and I'll be giddy as a schoolgirl.

This.

Rain Man

02-28-2009, 05:05 PM

If we do THAT, you will NEVER hear me bitch about Pioli or Haley again in my lifetime.

I swear it. Right now.:D

Y'know, I'd never really thought about it that way, but it makes a lot of sense, really. A new GM comes in with a scientific thought process, looks around, and says, "I have to have a quarterback. No matter what else happens, I have to end up with a quarterback in my first two picks." So you invest the lower-value pick now and then if you can cash in later, you accept the loss for the risk mitigation it provided before the draft.

It's one of those moves that may seem contrary to the notion of a lot of people that football is a cigar-chomping, film-watching, stopwatch-timing roll of the dice on individual players. It's a probability-based method that manages risk on a scientific basis,

Even the cigar chompers would admit that it also lets you step back and look for the best player available instead of making an obligatory investment on need.

tboss27

02-28-2009, 05:06 PM

Chiefs' last 15 2nd round picks:

Brandon Flowers
Turk McBride
Bernard Pollard
Junior Siavii
Kris Wilson
Kawika Mitchell
Eddie Freeman
William Bartee
Mike Cloud
Kevin Lockett
Reggie Tongue
Donnell Bennett
Darrin Mickell
Matt Blundin
Joe Valerio

You be the judge...

Didn't we give away a second for Herm as well? That was a real good investment of a 2nd rounder if we did, resulting in an average of 5 wins a season during his time. I just can't understand why some complain about this trade. We are gonna get a stud at #3, or trade down and add a stud/depth, and we get a QB who has the potential to be very good in this league. I'll take the risk of him not working out any day of the week over drafting the crap on that list.

Sweet Daddy Hate

02-28-2009, 05:07 PM

Y'know, I'd never really thought about it that way, but it makes a lot of sense, really. A new GM comes in with a scientific thought process, looks around, and says, "I have to have a quarterback. No matter what else happens, I have to end up with a quarterback in my first two picks." So you invest the lower-value pick now and then if you can cash in later, you accept the loss for the risk mitigation it provided before the draft.

It's one of those moves that may seem contrary to the notion of a lot of people that football is a cigar-chomping, film-watching, stopwatch-timing roll of the dice on individual players. It's a probability-based method that manages risk on a scientific basis,

Even the cigar chompers would admit that it also lets you step back and look for the best player available instead of making an obligatory investment on need.

It's a long-shot for sure, but it IS a shot.