BTW -- I do want to make it known that I'm totally wishing that Matt Cassel has all the success that he possibly could have. I'm not going to be dogging on him every chance I get or gloating over his mistakes or any such bullshit. Just trying to ward off any accusations, seeing as how I am taking a minority position in this thread.

I'd like to think that we can talk about contentious issues like this in the interest of discussion.

And the NFL becomes more of a passing league with each year, too.

we took jackson instead of sanchez because we traded for cassel who replaced brady who was knocked out by pollard who was pushed by sammy morris whos a running back which is the same position as LJ who we ALSO drafted in the first round therefore we should have drafted a fullback.

Well played.

You can pass to a FB every down on Madden. Works great.

taking the safe route. pussy.

Considering the alternative is a pack of vicious n00bs ready to add to the Mecca, Hamas, et al body count, yeah.

I miss T-Rich :(

im with ya dawg, **** CASSEL!

Damnit, Carl :cuss:

So what? Dilfer wouldn't be a top 10 type of pick either.

Dilfer won a Super Bowl.

He lived up to his draft spot.

That may be the most ridiculous logic ever attempted.

If I recall correctly, months before the draft the Planet broke down the number of SB wins under the leadership of franchise QB's vs the rest, and the difference was astronomical.

LMAO

Me lik'em math. Math good.:thumb:

Go away.

You're ruining the board.

The numbers are definitely in the favor of 1st round QBs. When Dilfer & Johnson won, it was because their teams were built a different way -- they had dominant defenses.

The dominant defense approach can definitely work, but its also more difficult to achieve. The numbers bear out that building your team around a real franchise-type QB leads to championship success more often than does building your team around a dominant defense.

Yes, and claiming Dilfer lived up to a top 6 pick is really adding quality to the discussion.

But furthermore, the Ravens sucked with Banks under center.

I believe that without a doubt, the Ravens could have repeated had Billick not gone all crazy and released Dilfer in favor of Grbac.

Like it or not, there IS something to be said for a smart game manager for in certain situations.

He won a Super Bowl. He took over after game 5 and rarely made a mistake.

There have been QB's like Marino that throw for 50,000 but it means nothing.

Wise up there, ****o.

So what are you saying? You WANT a shitty QB? The shittier the better? Keep sticking shit behind the center until one day we might luck out with a shitty QB instead of going with good Qbs?

The ol' shitty QB theory. That's ****ing interesting man, that's ****ing interesting

That's only true if you massage the "franchise-type" QB definition. Neither Eli nor Dilfer is in that mold, and Big Ben is more game manager than "franchise-type" in my opinion, although he's at least arguable. The reality is that you are, of course, right. You're more likely to get lucky at any position if you draft it higher. That's just common sense, since you have a larger pool to choose from. However, the reality is that of the 3 QBs closest to the "chuck it all around" type of franchise QBs to win Super Bowls in the past 10 years, Only Peyton was a first round pick. Neither Brady nor Warner were.

Your "numbers bear out" argument doesn't actually hold up in recent years, though.

ROFL

I don't think anyone argued that. I know that I didn't.

So even though Eli and Ben we're drafted in the first round they're not really first round QBs? You're all over the place man

So you want a game manager then?

WTF are you talking about? In the NFL today, there are 2 definite franchise quarterbacks: Peyton and Brady. When Warner is healthy, he's arguably a third, and one could argue the "yes" and "no" with Big Ben. That's it. Shit, anyone who watched Eli trying to QB without Burress should understand this.

I believe Lombardi pioneered that, didn't he?LMAO

Me? ROFL

No.

But if you think that Matt Cassel is anything but...

Why? Because of Brady and Warner? You can't plan on lucking into a Hall of Fame QB.

A franchise QB doesn't have to be a "chuck it all around" player. Big Ben is a franchise calibur QB -- they Steelers don't win without that last TD on a pass so pornographically perfect that it dumbfounded me.

You might be a moron.

I'm not the one trying to argue that Dilfer lived up to the #6 pick billing for a QB. You are. As for Cassel, he sure wasn't just a game manager at the end of last season. What he'll be with a different cast around him remains to be seen.

LMAO That was choice.

You will, of course, win the argument if you discount players who prove your argument wrong. However, take a look at the defenses of the winning teams, and their ranking in terms of points allowed:

1999: 4
2000: 1
2001: 6
2002: 1
2003: 1
2004: 2
2005: 3
2006: 23
2007: 17
2008: 1

Only 2 of the defenses weren't top 6.

I never said that defense wasn't important. In fact, it appears that a team typically needs both stellar QB play and stellar defensive play to win it all.

QB's still provide the most impact, imo.

What if he plays well but refuses to sign longerterm with KC and comes do Denver as a free agent because he wants to play for McDaniels LMAO

I don't want Cassel, but that would be a funny situation.

Because trading a second for Cassel gave the Chiefs the opportunity to use the #3 pick on a player that wasn't a QB.

Therefore:
-Mark Sanchez PLUS guy they would have taken with 2nd round pick

must be compared to:

-Tyson Jackson PLUS Matt Cassel

People forget that passing on Mark Sanchez gave us the opportunity to draft Tyson Jackson. If we don't trade for Cassel, we don't get Jackson.

To use this as a tangent....

The problem with arguments made by people arguing in the same vein Dane and yourself is that they are really not arguments based in logic as much as they are arguments by people pissed off that the team didn't draft Sanchez. Just for one example, you're sitting here harping on this "better chance with a top pick", but you rebel against the statistics about the number of starts a QB has before getting to the NFL. The reality is that, if you go by the "first round" stuff and other relevant numbers, you'd have wanted to avoid Sanchez at all costs.

So basically what you're saying is; whoever gets the ring first wins?

I can live with that.

BFD.

I'd take Mark Sanchez and Max Unger over the duo of Jackson and Cassel any day of the week.

You believing that Cassel can't do it does not make it a fact.

The fact is, Cassel has the potential to be EXACTLY what you're wanting, you just won't give him a chance.

You're making a deliberate leap of logic there that I'm not willing to make. It's ENTIRELY possible that even without the Cassel trade, the Chiefs pass on Sanchez. The two are related by circumstance only. There's no facts to suggest otherwise.

Precisely.

Because the two are completely unrelated, except in some fans' minds.

We never had his potential, therefore it's not ours to risk.

I completely agree with the notion of opportunity cost, but this isn't the stock market. Opportunity cost - the risk of losing out in FUTURE revenue - is QUANTIFIABLE. Suggesting that project his potential production is subjective to the point of being almost absurd.

The "value" of Mark Sanchez can't be determined before he steps on the field, and I would argue can NEVER be determined because he never suited up for THIS team under THESE circumstances.

Isn't it ironic that I, who am probably viewed as a Cassel apologist, expects MORE out of him than you, a well-known hater? ROFL

I expect at least 6 if not 7 wins out of this team next year. He's played in the NFL, NO excuses.

Let's be completely honest here - there was ALOT of name-calling and vitriol coming from the people you're painting to be victims.

That doesn't mean I think it's right - matter of fact I wish they'd both come back - but there's no innocent parties here.

Based on what I've heard since the draft, I'm 100% convinced that even if we hadn't taken Cassel we would have taken Jackson anyway.

He does have a point here. The history of 1st-round QB's with less than 25 college starts is pretty freaking bad.

That's where the arguement of risking potential gains comes into place.

As far as the stock market goes, while you can quantify it, you can also be wrong. The opportunity cost for getting out of stocks and going into Bonds is much different than it was a year ago. Shit is dynamic. Things change. We can be wrong.

I agree that it is much more difficult to do with personnel, maybe even to the point that we cannot glean any value from it, but we can debate oppotunity cost of players. In fact, we do it all the time.

Understood. And agreed for the most part. But we could project his production. Its just like any other decision. You weigh what you think you can get for a player vs. What you can get out of another. Its just like any other business decision. Cabela's just opened a store in Billings MT. They have projected the store sales, but they don't know what it will be until it actually hits the market. The shit could burn down tomorrow and we get no sales (I'm looking at you Ryan Sims). But there were also other stores we could have built. We forecasted their sales and determined that the opportunity cost for not building in Billings was higher. We could be wrong. The other store may have been a world beater, but based on our forecasts, we chose Billings.

I contend that the same things can be done with personnel. It is a lot harder because there are so many variables, but that doesn't mean we CAN'T think along those lines. We could project the value he would provide with wins/losses, yards, etc. We'll never know what wee might have gotten, but Cabela's won't know what that store would have done either, but that doesn't mean there is no opportunity cost.

As for the argument that opportunity cost can be risked, meh. That's just debatable. I'd have to think on that some more.
Posted via Mobile Device

I guess if you really want to think along those lines, then you can certainly come up with logic to justify it. It just seems like such an incredible waste of time and the only people that want to do it are the ones that are still stinging from not taking Sanchez. It seems to be a 100% emotional response but they spend alot of time cooking numbers to make it seem justified.

No arguement there. I am certainly not advocating its effectiveness, but it is possible.

Heh. Coincidentally, Mecca goes down that road a lot..."We could have had antonio cromartie".

Same shit, different day.
Posted via Mobile Device

Albert Haynesworth just signed for a bizillion dollars in DC and he can't even throw a pass. I think Cassel was the bargain of the decade.

dumping Carl for Pioli was a HUGE risk let me tell you..

Hey whats up Mecca.

Haynesworth also played like the best defensive player in the NFL, not saying he deserves it, but positional value I guess can be argued one way or another.

I never thought I'd see the day a drafturbator would start posting threads referencing Clark ****ing Judge LMAO

I'm aware of the history and don't deny it. I watch Sanchez and see a QB that isn't going to be plagued by the problems that most QBs with limited starts have. Sanchez' major strengths -- mechanics, footwork, "it" factor -- will almost ensure his ability to play NFL football at a high level.

It was possible that the Chiefs don't trade for Cassel and also pass on Sanchez, yes. It was possible that Pioli saw Thigpen and considered him a legit starting QB. It was possible that Pioli is a complete idiot unfit for running a team. He isn't, though.

I fear we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the "oppurtunity cost" issue because trying to understand your viewpoint is going to give me an aneurysm.

Everyone knows this. It goes without saying. They didn't leave because of people name-calling them back.

can't believe people still peddle this reeruned crap on the planet...

Meet JPB, SensibleChiefsfan, KCBubb and a slew of other n00bs...

I don't see the purpose in wishing we had Sanchez anymore. I wanted Stafford as bad as anyone, but the only way he'll ever make it to KC is if he sucks and we sign him as a backup. Same with Sanchez. David Carr and Joey Harrington are what these guys would have to be for us to have them now....

Lets roll with who we got.

My viewpoint can be boiled down to just a few words:

Saying we're [insert negative comment here] because we didn't draft Sanchez is ridiculous.

Unlike many others, I don't consider "game manager" to be an insult. The Steelers utilize their QB like one deliberately, and we don't really know how well Roethlisberger would function if he played outside that type of system for an entire season. I personally don't think he'd show himself to be in the Brady/P. Manning class. You seem to disagree. C'est la vie.

Evidently, the definition of franchise QB is now determined by whether or not you've won a Super Bowl.

Ben Roethlisberger is a good QB, but let's get real here - he's not going to carry a team when the chips are down. He needs a good running game and strong defense to do his thing. When the game is completely on him, more often than not, he doesn't get it done.

This. Ditto. Yep.

Yep.

That's why he only has 2 Super Bowl victories instead of 5.

Are you being sarcastic?

Yes, very.

Come on, Dude. Arguing that Rothlisberger isn't a Franchise QB? Are you serious?

Have you SEEN his shitty offensive line? Do you know just how much of a beating the guy has taken since entering the league?

Did you see his TD throw to win the Super Bowl?

I am just absolutely shocked that you'd argue otherwise.

He's a Man among boys out there and is every bit as responsible for their two Super Bowl wins as their defense.

So Super Bowls is now the measuring stick for QB's. Got it. Somebody might want to let Dan Marino know, but other than that, definition change noted.

And yes, I've seen his line. And I saw the pass (singular) he made in the Super Bowl. I've also seen him MANY times in regular season games WILT in the same circumstances.

It's obvious that the term "franchise" QB is subjective enough that Matt Cassel will NEVER qualify in some people's eyes, making further discussion on this topic moot.

Bitch on!

You know, I didn't want to get involved in this "Sanchez vs. Cassel" thing but here goes:

The reason why there is so much risk involved in passing on Sanchez is simple: Pedigree.

Sanchez was the number one high school recruit the year he came out. He practiced and played in a pro-style offense at USC for four years. He started 16 games for one of the best teams in that nation, bar none and put up stellar numbers. Had it not been for false rape allegations, he'd have had two years under his belt and would have undoubtedly gone number one overall.

Cassel on the other hand hadn't played started since high school. He spent four years on the bench at USC and three years on the bench at New England. He was a 7th round draft pick that barely even made number two QB over Matt Gutierrez in August 2008. He started 15 games in the NFL for the best team in the league and don't fool yourself, if Tom Brady hadn't gone down in game one, there would have been a different Super Bowl champion in 2008.

So, if I'm looking at my QB of the future, do I go with the guy that has an excellent pedigree and is coming off an phenomenal performance in a bowl game or do I go with the guy that's 5 years older and has only played in 15 games in 8 years.

In my mind, it's a no brainer. And since the Chiefs passed on the guy with the greater pedigree, there is certain and absolute risked involved in that decision.

Wilt? Excuse me?

And how does discussing Rothlisberger's "Franchise QB worthiness" equate to "bitching" about Matt Cassel?

I think you need a break, Dude.

I don't at all disagree. But it's all in the past now. What's wrong with HOPING that Cassel can be the franchise QB we need? Does passing on Sanchez sting so much that people can't get over it?

Pretty ****ing laughable if you ask me.

Take a look at this thread, dude. The discussion about Roethlisberger started as an attack on Cassel. There's been nothing but thinly-veiled bitching about Cassel since the day we passed on Sanchez. I wasn't just talking about you.

It's been less than three weeks, first off.

And if Sanchez goes on to have an incredible career in NY I'd say that people will NEVER get over it.

See Blackledge over Marino for proof.

Personally, I don't find it to be a laughing matter, whatsoever.

To each his own.

Nothing wrong with hoping. I don't like the assertion that an honest off-season discussion, that has for the most part lacked the vitriol that people disliked when Mecca or Hamas would take up this issue, is somehow equivalent to being "unable to get over" Sanchez.

It could have been three HOURS, it doesn't change the fact that NONE of us have any control over it.

Some people get way too bent out of shape over a game that's supposed to be entertainment. Perhaps I'm just jaded, but I'm WAY past complaining about every move the team makes.

And on that tangential note, I keep seeing references to the fact that this year's n00bs have ruined the board. The constant negativity has done it's share of damage as well.

Because certain people evidently can't discuss it without taking backhanded swipes at other posters. And no, I'm not talking about you.

Take a look at the last few posts - it's me, you, and Dane disagreeing - without ANY vitriol. Hell, you and I have been arguing about this for over TWENTY FOUR HOURS without any shouting or name calling.

I've got a whole lot more youthful energy left to channel into surly negativity. Sports have already made me an unhappy, bitter husk of a person, but I'm too committed to stop now. I'm no quitter.

That's good, right? Like, its fine that we can have this argument? I hope that it is.

ROFL

I've got plenty of "real life" to piss me off. I lost my vested interest in football a few years ago. Hell, I'm fairly certain it was the day Vermeil's boys pissed away that game to Philly at home.

If it weren't for this place and the discussion, I'm not sure I'd even follow it that closely anymore.

Well, that's what a discussion forum is for, right? To present our own point of view of an issue, decision, action or inaction of our beloved football team. And if the subject is continually brought up, then I'd assume that it would be continually discussed.

As much as you'd like it to just go away, it won't. I assume that it will be a sticking point until Cassel proves himself to be worthy of passing on Sanchez. Which to this point, is far from proven.

Then don't. No one's forcing you to participate, pro or con.

LOL. That's a reference to multiple neg reps I've received from a certain n00b who would leave that message with nearly each and every post I'd make in a certain thread.

Absomahlutely.