ChiefsPlanet
Page 2 of 5 1 2 345
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs Top 10: Regrettable NFL Offseason Decisions (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=212610)

oaklandhater 08-26-2009 04:44 PM
The reason Cassle is number 1 on that list is becuase if he fail's Scott Pioli wold literally have set the chiefs franchise back 5-10 years.

DBOSHO 08-26-2009 04:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklandhater (Post 6003725)
The reason Cassle is number 1 on that list is becuase if he fail's Scott Pioli wold literally have set the chiefs franchise back 5-10 years.
imo, i disagree with that. if cassel is terrible, we have 2 capable backups who have started before and have experience and are young.

and you have to consider we will probably pick in the top 10 again and there are some pretty good qbs in the draft. bradford, mccoy, snead...and i cant think of anyone who usually picks that low that needs a qb.

the raiders have fatmarcus. davis isnt smart enough to go with another qb if he fails. the lions just got stafford. jets have sanchez. maybe the rams, but i think they have other positons of need to fill.

if cassel does fail and we get a qb that would only be a 2-3 year setback imo. but i believe that cassel is the man and we will go oline or wr next yr

TFG 08-26-2009 04:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklandhater (Post 6003725)
The reason Cassle is number 1 on that list is becuase if he fail's Scott Pioli wold literally have set the chiefs franchise back 5-10 years.

What if the real truth is that Cassell "fails" because the OL cannot protect him???

Where does the blame go there?

To Pioli, who should have realized his new team lacked jack @@@@ at OL and should have DONE SOMETHING about that, more than a fifth on Colin Brown, a small UFA contract to ancient Goff, and lucking out with tryout player Darryl Harris.

aturnis 08-26-2009 04:56 PM
No he wouldn't. Three tops. Probably not even. Pioli set up Cassel's contract and front loaded the hell out of it. The first three years he makes bank, but it's best either way you slice it.

If he kicks ass, you still have him locked up on the cheap for another three years making more room to sign "impact players" to make a run. If he fails, you're really only hurt for three years before you can afford to take the cap hit.

Though, if we still have major cap space, and Cassel doesn't impress in his first two years, the Chiefs could draft a guy in the 2011 draft and if that guy is good enough to start as a rookie, there is really no reason he couldn't. We'd just being paying a lot for a backup for one year. Hell, even if, his contract would be small enough to keep as a backup, or trade for a pick.

Easily one of the best moves of the offseason. Cutler for Orton is FAR AND AWAY the worst.

veist 08-26-2009 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6003331)
They got rid of him because they are ****ing geniuses.

Not only do they not have to pay him $15M to be a backup, they get a 2nd round pick to go with it.
More like they were very pragmatic, its simply the only option unless you think Brady isn't going to be Brady anymore. They are staring down some serious free agent issues going forward right now, they can't afford to be paying their backup QB $15M when they have Wilfork, Seymour and Mankins they have to think about extending to sizable contracts. How would that fly in negotiations if they aren't offering them top dollar?

vailpass 08-26-2009 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reerun_KC (Post 6003179)
I am surprised your not stalking him, trying to have sex with him...
ROFL

SenselessChiefsFan 08-26-2009 05:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklandhater (Post 6003708)
The funny thing about this thread is that in 2 year's if cassle bust Gochiefs and sensiblechiefsfan
wont ever come back in here or post on the subject at all spineless homers.....
Hey, I may be wrong, but I own up to what I make a mistake on.

The reality is that Pioli knows Cassel as well as anyone. McDaniels also knows Cassel.... and McDaniels sabotaged his own QB situation in an effort to get him.

Oh, and if you watched him in the Minnesota game, you saw what the Chiefs saw. Mobility and smart decisions.

Time will tell. I will own up to it regardless of how it turns out.

Coach 08-26-2009 05:54 PM
I probably wouldn't want to put too much stock from a goon that writes his so-called expert analysis from a (sounds of it) gay porn website.

I mean, what the **** is a "AskMen.com" anyways?

Lame.

Valiant 08-26-2009 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklandhater (Post 6003725)
The reason Cassle is number 1 on that list is becuase if he fail's Scott Pioli wold literally have set the chiefs franchise back 5-10 years.
I don't know about that.. 1-3 years at most..

The only bad part of the Cassle ordeal is giving him the money so early.. We should have waited until half way into the regular season.. Trading a 2nd, I am fine with.. Though I would have rather had one of the two first QB's selected this past draft..

And it is funny that Cassel is ahead of:

Winslow being traded for a 2nd and 5th plus new contract.,,
Delhomme being given the contract at his age..
Stallworth, sorry but the legal system failed on the punishment..
Cutler ordeal in Denver and soon to be Marshall deal..

Seems to me the guy just set up the points on a dart board and picked rank from there..

Just Passin' By 08-26-2009 05:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklandhater (Post 6003725)
The reason Cassle is number 1 on that list is becuase if he fail's Scott Pioli wold literally have set the chiefs franchise back 5-10 years.
It's a 6 year deal with guarantees that make the first 3 years the tough years to eat. This team could draft a QB following next season if they felt the need to, and they'd be able to work around the contract issues, assuming the new CBA is similar to the one currently in place.

Valiant 08-26-2009 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6003331)
They got rid of him because they are ****ing geniuses.

Not only do they not have to pay him $15M to be a backup, they get a 2nd round pick to go with it.
They are geniuses to sign him to the tender, period.. If not he was a UFA I believe and they would have gotten nothing.. They never would have paid him the money to be backup..

We are not talking about them trading a longtime starter like Law or Branch.. They had a FA that a lot of teams wanted in a spot they could afford to part with..


Now it comes time if he can improve without throwing to Moss and Welker and be a top 15 QB... If not then it was foolish to give Cassel the contract, not that they traded a 2nd for him..

Coach 08-26-2009 06:11 PM
Let's just remind ourselves that Cassel should be given a benefit of the doubt for his first year. Remember, Trent struggled horribly during his first year, but he did show marked improvement from his first year in Kansas City.

OnTheWarpath15 08-26-2009 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFG (Post 6003750)
What if the real truth is that Cassell "fails" because the OL cannot protect him???
Sorry, but that's not an excuse.

Ben Roethlisberger won a ****ing Super Bowl behind a TERRIBLE offensive line last year.

And Cassel himself was successful last year getting sacked more than any other QB in the league.

DeezNutz 08-26-2009 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 6003915)
I don't know about that.. 1-3 years at most..

The only bad part of the Cassle ordeal is giving him the money so early.. We should have waited until half way into the regular season.. Trading a 2nd, I am fine with.. Though I would have rather had one of the two first QB's selected this past draft..

And it is funny that Cassel is ahead of:

Winslow being traded for a 2nd and 5th plus new contract.,,
Delhomme being given the contract at his age..
Stallworth, sorry but the legal system failed on the punishment..
Cutler ordeal in Denver and soon to be Marshall deal..

Seems to me the guy just set up the points on a dart board and picked rank from there..
No way, dude.

SD is still battling back from Leaf...
IND from George...
KC from Blackledge...

DTLB58 08-26-2009 07:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach (Post 6003914)
I probably wouldn't want to put too much stock from a goon that writes his so-called expert analysis from a (sounds of it) gay porn website.

I mean, what the **** is a "AskMen.com" anyways?

Lame.
For some reason I read this in Jim Rome's voice...Made it even more freaking hilarious. LMAO

Mecca 08-26-2009 07:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DBOSHO (Post 6003745)
imo, i disagree with that. if cassel is terrible, we have 2 capable backups who have started before and have experience and are young.

and you have to consider we will probably pick in the top 10 again and there are some pretty good qbs in the draft. bradford, mccoy, snead...and i cant think of anyone who usually picks that low that needs a qb.

the raiders have fatmarcus. davis isnt smart enough to go with another qb if he fails. the lions just got stafford. jets have sanchez. maybe the rams, but i think they have other positons of need to fill.

if cassel does fail and we get a qb that would only be a 2-3 year setback imo. but i believe that cassel is the man and we will go oline or wr next yr
I disagree with this...those 2 backups are not capable of starting on a winning team.

I also really don't like that QB class a bunch of spread monkeys.

chiefzilla1501 08-26-2009 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004025)
Sorry, but that's not an excuse.

Ben Roethlisberger won a ****ing Super Bowl behind a TERRIBLE offensive line last year.

And Cassel himself was successful last year getting sacked more than any other QB in the league.
Are you really downgrading Cassel because he's not Big Ben? How many players are?

Big Ben survived a horrible offensive line because he's enormous and impossible to bring down. He's one of very few starting QBs that can do that.

An offensive line is a very valid excuse for a QB to not perform well. Over time, the good QBs can learn to develop a quick release like Brady and Brees, but again, you're talking about the cream of the crop. The vast majority of QBs in the NFL are dependent on their offensive line to give at least mediocre protection.

Mecca 08-26-2009 07:27 PM
I think sometimes people got use to watching Green look good due to the line so now unless a QB has that it's the lines fault he's not productive.

chiefzilla1501 08-26-2009 07:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6004169)
I think sometimes people got use to watching Green look good due to the line so now unless a QB has that it's the lines fault he's not productive.
A few things....
I think Cassel's pass protection problems highlight how good certain QBs like Brady are because of how quickly they can spot coverages and get rid of the ball. So while you can blame Cassel for bringing the line down, it's too much to expect him to be as good as Brady from the get-go.

Secondly, there's a minimum threshold at least for how good the offensive line needs to be to give the QB a fighting chance. Cassel's was borderline--I think he certainly needs to work on getting rid of the ball faster, but that will come with experience making quicker reads. But I also saw lots of moments last year where the pass rush collapsed on him a lot faster than it should have. Hard to make plays as a QB when the o-line doesn't give you some kind of pocket to work wtih.

You don't have to have an o-line as beyond dominant as KC's. But you do need to have one that can at least hold a pocket the majority of snaps.

Mecca 08-26-2009 07:34 PM
Peyton Mannings line is full of a bunch of guys most fans have never heard of....think about that.

OnTheWarpath15 08-26-2009 07:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 6004163)
Are you really downgrading Cassel because he's not Big Ben? How many players are?

Big Ben survived a horrible offensive line because he's enormous and impossible to bring down. He's one of very few starting QBs that can do that.

An offensive line is a very valid excuse for a QB to not perform well. Over time, the good QBs can learn to develop a quick release like Brady and Brees, but again, you're talking about the cream of the crop. The vast majority of QBs in the NFL are dependent on their offensive line to give at least mediocre protection.
I just complemented Cassel in that post.

Reading is fundamental.

But he's done it before, you can't have it both ways and credit him for being successful in NE then using it as a crutch in KC.

Chief Faithful 08-26-2009 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SensibleChiefsfan (Post 6003677)
Wow.... two months ago, it was one of the 'best' moves.

Now, this guy thinks it's one of the worst.

Sorry, but the trade for Cassel was a good move.

The contract he got is barely above average for a starting QB. So, the contract wasn't a bad move.

The Chiefs were on the hook for 14 million anyways.

If Cassel had had a good year, the Chiefs would have to pay much more than that..... or franchise him again, which would have given him the same amount over two years that is currently guaranteed.

The Jared Allen situation developed because the Chiefs lacked the forethought to lock him up before his contract was up.

Just because the old regime thought it was great to let the players get to a contract year and let negotiations hit an impasse before actually trying to work a deal, doesn't mean that is what the smart teams do.

Now, the Chiefs are way under the cap. Pioli knows Cassel. The other person who knows him is McDaniels.... who also tried to get him.

The Pats didn't want to pay the $14 million. The Chiefs offered less than what the Broncos and Lions were going to offer, but the Chiefs jumped quickly and the Pats wanted the deal done.

This may be a stupid move down the line, but very few could look at this objectively and call it one of the top ten worst moves in the NFL offseason.
:clap:

The team is well under the cap and have what they believe is a franchise QB locked up. In order for this jokers comments to make any sense is if Pioli is an absolute fool, which he has already proved is not the case.

donkhater 08-26-2009 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004025)
Sorry, but that's not an excuse.

Ben Roethlisberger won a ****ing Super Bowl behind a TERRIBLE offensive line last year.

And Cassel himself was successful last year getting sacked more than any other QB in the league.
The STEELERS won a super bowl with a terrific defense as well. Put last season's KC defense with the great big ben, and they don't make the playoffs.

chiefzilla1501 08-26-2009 07:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004184)
I just complemented Cassel in that post.

Reading is fundamental.

But he's done it before, you can't have it both ways and credit him for being successful in NE then using it as a crutch in KC.
I can because the offensive line he's going to be dealt in KC is a far shot worse than the Pats' o-line. And I've railed on Pioli for treating it like such a low priority.

It pisses me off that the line was ignored. I can only hope that Cassel can find a way to do well in spite of them.

Mecca 08-26-2009 07:42 PM
Considering this schedule...Cassel is going to get destroyed numerous times, I hope he's praying for no injuries.

OnTheWarpath15 08-26-2009 07:42 PM
Exactly as I called it just after the trade.

The excuses have already started.

Everyone is getting them ready early, that way when we go 3-13 all the blame is deflected away from the supposed franchise QB.

Mecca 08-26-2009 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004206)
Exactly as I called it just after the trade.

The excuses have already started.

Everyone is getting them ready early, that way when we go 3-13 all the blame is deflected away from the supposed franchise QB.
All of those excuses were set for Croyle too...people want so badly to believe that the guy is the answer it's never his fault.

"The line sucks" "the receivers aren't good enough" etc etc etc

HolmeZz 08-26-2009 07:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pneuma (Post 6003151)
Cassel looked shiny and nice while he was on Belichick’s lot, but so have many players. Belichick makes his squad into overachievers and then sells high, only to see his parts fail elsewhere. See: Deion Branch, David Givens and Ty Law.
What exactly were Ty Law and David Givens 'sold high' for again?

Deion Branch overachieved? He was a 2nd round pick who's never had 1,000 yards receiving and never more than 5 touchdowns in a season. He hasn't suffered from much of a drop off in production since going to Seattle, it's been more a case of not being able to stay on the field.

OnTheWarpath15 08-26-2009 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6004210)
All of those excuses were set for Croyle too...people want so badly to believe that the guy is the answer it's never his fault.

"The line sucks" "the receivers aren't good enough" etc etc etc
I like how all these excuses were presented as a reason to not draft a QB, and get a veteran guy.

Now the vet is here, and all the same excuses are still in play.

veist 08-26-2009 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004025)
Sorry, but that's not an excuse.

Ben Roethlisberger won a ****ing Super Bowl behind a TERRIBLE offensive line last year.

And Cassel himself was successful last year getting sacked more than any other QB in the league.
And lets not forgot that the Cards line was not good either, heh. Didn't seem to keep Warner from lighting some D's up last year.

Mecca 08-26-2009 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004216)
I like how all these excuses were presented as a reason to not draft a QB, and get a veteran guy.

Now the vet is here, and all the same excuses are still in play.
And they'll be in play for a long time, we're talking about a fan base that actually tried to justify that Brodie Croyle and Matt Ryan were similar prospects.

chiefzilla1501 08-26-2009 07:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004216)
I like how all these excuses were presented as a reason to not draft a QB, and get a veteran guy.

Now the vet is here, and all the same excuses are still in play.
No, it just says that trying to build your entire offense around one player that isn't named Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is just plain nuts.

Cassel is a work-in-progress. And who knows if he ever reaches any potential. I'm just astounded that the Chiefs would bring in a guy like Cassel and not surround him with the tools to learn how to run an offense the right way. It enfuriates me, actually. It's one thing if the Chiefs gave him limited talent to work with. But they stripped him of their top "receiver" and they sat idly by as an offensive line they knew was horrendous didn't improve a bit.

The excuses won't be just from the fans. Pioli bought Cassel two years because if he's not successful in year 1, Pioli can blame it on lack of support players, even though he should have known that before we entered the 2009 season.

boogblaster 08-26-2009 07:53 PM
We needed a QB .. we got a 1 year proven one .. true he played on a very good team, but he still played well .. was it a bad move, time will tell .. still it wasn't the no.1 worst decision of the offseason ....

OnTheWarpath15 08-26-2009 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 6004235)
No, it just says that trying to build your entire offense around one player that isn't named Peyton Manning or Tom Brady is just plain nuts.

Cassel is a work-in-progress. And who knows if he ever reaches any potential. I'm just astounded that the Chiefs would bring in a guy like Cassel and not surround him with the tools to learn how to run an offense the right way. It enfuriates me, actually. It's one thing if the Chiefs gave him limited talent to work with. But they stripped him of their top "receiver" and they sat idly by as an offensive line they knew was horrendous didn't improve a bit.

The excuses won't be just from the fans. Pioli bought Cassel two years because if he's not successful in year 1, Pioli can blame it on lack of support players, even though he should have known that before we entered the 2009 season.
Look out, folks. 'Zilla is furious.

LMAO

Ignored the offense, setting Cassel up for failure, and trading Tyler Thigpen.

OH NOES!!!111!!!!!111!!one!!111eleventy!1

Mecca 08-26-2009 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogblaster (Post 6004239)
We needed a QB .. we got a 1 year proven one .. true he played on a very good team, but he still played well .. was it a bad move, time will tell .. still it wasn't the no.1 worst decision of the offseason ....
What's #1?

Bwana 08-26-2009 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoChiefs (Post 6003174)
The dude looks like a candy nippled flit boy. The kind of gem that would ring your doorbell and when you answered the door, would start jerking off on your mailbox. I wouldn't put a hell of a lot of stock in what this strokestick writes, but that's just me.

Mecca 08-26-2009 07:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004244)
Look out, folks. 'Zilla is furious.

LMAO

Ignored the offense, setting Cassel up for failure, and trading Tyler Thigpen.

OH NOES!!!111!!!!!111!!one!!111eleventy!1
HaHa, well I wouldn't have approached things the way the Chiefs did either, I'll say that much.

OnTheWarpath15 08-26-2009 07:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6004247)
What's #1?
Gotta be Denver trading away a franchise QB for a guy that only started out of necessity last year.

Mecca 08-26-2009 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004256)
Gotta be Denver trading away a franchise QB for a guy that only started out of necessity last year.
That one is pretty bad...Delhomme is too but Cassel is right up there if you think he won't pan out.

DeezNutz 08-26-2009 08:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004256)
Gotta be Denver trading away a franchise QB for a guy that only started out of necessity last year.
That's the type of move that would push me as close as possible to turning in my fan card until the current regime left town.

I would be dumbstruck.

Ultra Peanut 08-26-2009 08:00 PM
Giving bank to Delhomme was dumb. Trading for Cassel when you're going to end up with either Sanchez or Stafford was unnecessary and stupidly "safe" at the same time.

The Cutler-McDaniels situation is a cluster**** of LEGENDARY proportions.

LOCOChief 08-26-2009 08:02 PM
Let's see, named NFL exec of the year for consecutive years vs. ?

I'm with Pioli, he see's something that some here must be unable to.

Mecca 08-26-2009 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOCOChief (Post 6004276)
Let's see, named NFL exec of the year for consecutive years vs. ?

I'm with Pioli, he see's something that some here must be unable to.
No matter what awards he's won he's fully capable of being wrong while some dude on his couch could be correct about it, that's the wonderful thing about this.

DeezNutz 08-26-2009 08:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6004285)
No matter what awards he's won he's fully capable of being wrong while some dude on his couch could be correct about it, that's the wonderful thing about this.
Welcome to the Planet, Herm.

Protect the shield.

LOCOChief 08-26-2009 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6004285)
No matter what awards he's won he's fully capable of being wrong while some dude on his couch could be correct about it, that's the wonderful thing about this.

Yeah but where's the odds?

Mecca 08-26-2009 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 6004290)
Welcome to the Planet, Herm.

Protect the shield.
If I was Herm the Chiefs would have never started Brodie Croyle.

Mecca 08-26-2009 08:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOCOChief (Post 6004294)
Yeah but where's the odds?
50/50

cdcox 08-26-2009 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuckinKaeding (Post 6003169)
Has anyone already decided to nickname the Chiefs OL "The Moat"????
Yes and McIntosh is the drawbridge.

boogblaster 08-26-2009 08:09 PM
Mecca I know your point .. but Dunvger made the stupid move of the offseason I believe ...

OnTheWarpath15 08-26-2009 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdcox (Post 6004308)
Yes and McIntosh is the drawbridge.
Respectfully disagree.

It's Goff, and the bridge is incapable of being raised.

LOCOChief 08-26-2009 08:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6004298)
50/50
Again, I think I see the same potential in Cassel that you see in Sanchez and as apposed to the "safe decision" as some say I think Pioli pulled the trigger on Cassel because he feels he has the most upside. We'll see 50/50

cdcox 08-26-2009 08:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004313)
Respectfully disagree.

It's Goff, and the bridge is incapable of being raised.
Our draw bridge is very wide (cough) Niswanger (ciught).

Jethopper 08-26-2009 08:24 PM
reading this thread was regrettable.

58-4ever 08-26-2009 08:27 PM
sounds like someone trying to sound outlandish. Apparently it's the new tactic to get noticed. I'm sure he's done TONS of research. The problem with this kind of journalism is that there are no follow up discussions. If Cassel throws 25 TDs and 10 INTs, this guy won't face any criticism, because no one will remember.

58-4ever 08-26-2009 08:28 PM
BTW, have people's signatures been getting messed with randomly?

Bwana 08-26-2009 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 58-4ever (Post 6004358)
BTW, have people's signatures been getting messed with randomly?
Hmm? I would email DaFace chop chop and ask him WTF is going on! :evil:

Coach 08-26-2009 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bwana (Post 6004381)
Hmm? I would email DaFace chop chop and ask him WTF is going on! :evil:
Well, this is what yours said:

"I'd have to say that my favorite uncle was Uncle Caveman. We called him Uncle Caveman because he lived in a cave and occasionally he'd eat one of us. Later, we found out he was a bear."

Bwana 08-26-2009 08:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach (Post 6004408)
Well, this is what yours said:

"I'd have to say that my favorite uncle was Uncle Caveman. We called him Uncle Caveman because he lived in a cave and occasionally he'd eat one of us. Later, we found out he was a bear."
That would be correct. A few lines by Jack Handy.

Casselvania 08-26-2009 09:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD (Post 6003202)
Ok here's where the article is 110% wrong, he could be a huge bust and it still wouldn't be anywhere near the worst offseason decision? Why? Cassel's signing by the chiefs directly caused the bronco's implosion....

That alone is a great outcome. :D
LMAO Agreed 100%

milkman 08-26-2009 10:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casselvania (Post 6004511)
LMAO Agreed 100%
I knew a user name like this would inevitably pop up.

salame 08-26-2009 11:06 PM
what a shit article

DaneMcCloud 08-26-2009 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOCOChief (Post 6004276)
Let's see, named NFL exec of the year for consecutive years vs. ?

I'm with Pioli, he see's something that some here must be unable to.
Colin Brown, 5th round

Donald Washington, 4th round (when Leggett, Carr & Flowers are on the roster).

I'm not with Pioli until he proves he knows something we don't.

DBOSHO 08-27-2009 12:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 6004803)
Colin Brown, 5th round

Donald Washington, 4th round (when Leggett, Carr & Flowers are on the roster).

I'm not with Pioli until he proves he knows something we don't.
i will agree with you there. the washington pick left me confused and angry.

SenselessChiefsFan 08-27-2009 05:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by oaklandhater (Post 6003725)
The reason Cassle is number 1 on that list is becuase if he fail's Scott Pioli wold literally have set the chiefs franchise back 5-10 years.
Perhaps if this was still CP.... but Pioli is willing to accept mistakes and move on.

It's not like the Chiefs struggled to get this contract under the cap. It's not like the Chiefs can't cut him and take the cap hit after one year. It's not like there won't be QB's in every draft that will have 'potential'.

Their first move was getting a QB..... a somewhat proven QB that the GM knows well.

Not the worst move. Not even close....

SAUTO 08-27-2009 07:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004025)
Sorry, but that's not an excuse.

Ben Roethlisberger won a ****ing Super Bowl behind a TERRIBLE offensive line last year.

And Cassel himself was successful last year getting sacked more than any other QB in the league.
wonder what the steerlers would have done last year had they had a top 5 defense

SAUTO 08-27-2009 07:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004206)
Exactly as I called it just after the trade.

The excuses have already started.

Everyone is getting them ready early, that way when we go 3-13 all the blame is deflected away from the supposed franchise QB.
funny how you INSIST on ignoring the fact that football is a TEAM SPORT

TFG 08-27-2009 07:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004025)
Sorry, but that's not an excuse.

Ben Roethlisberger won a ****ing Super Bowl behind a TERRIBLE offensive line last year.

And Cassel himself was successful last year getting sacked more than any other QB in the league.


Ben was "successful" solely because Ben was able to escape DL hits, hands, and arms in the pocket. The Cards should have had 12 sacks, but 6 or so would be "sacks" Ben got away and made big plays. The Steelers won despite their OL because they had a QB who could turn what would be a sack for 90% of NFL QBs into a big play. Cassel cannot do that. If you want to define the Pats season last year as a "success," be my guest. The only thing "successful" about Cassel for the Pats was that they were able to snake away a high Second for him from yet another really dumb franchise obsessed with acquiring anyone and everyone who ever stood next to Belichick. The current Chief obsession with becoming "Pats Light" should result in yet another top 10 Draft pick in April...

HC_Chief 08-27-2009 08:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFG (Post 6005095)
Ben was "successful" solely because Ben was able to escape DL hits, hands, and arms in the pocket. The Cards should have had 12 sacks, but 6 or so would be "sacks" Ben got away and made big plays. The Steelers won despite their OL because they had a QB who could turn what would be a sack for 90% of NFL QBs into a big play.
Doesn't hurt that Roethlisberger is as big as many DEs. He's not exactly easy to tackle.

TFG 08-27-2009 08:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC_Chief (Post 6005103)
Doesn't hurt that Roethlisberger is as big as many DEs. He's not exactly easy to tackle.

Nor did it hurt to have the NFL's #1 defense... and a supporting cast on offense of Hines, Turdio, Heath Miller etc...

CHIEFS58 08-27-2009 08:33 AM
trading cassel to us alleviated concerns the pats had about a "qb controversy", squashing it before it started. i know that sounds ridiculous, but the media would have taken it and run with it. belichick is a shrewd football man, and you have to respect that. he knew.

Shag 08-27-2009 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 6004025)
Sorry, but that's not an excuse.

Ben Roethlisberger won a ****ing Super Bowl behind a TERRIBLE offensive line last year.

And Cassel himself was successful last year getting sacked more than any other QB in the league.
Roethlisberger didn't exactly tear it up behind that line. His 2008 stat line:

Player Team Pos Comp Att Pct Att/G Yds Avg Yds/G TD Int 1st 1st% Lng 20+ 40+ Sck Rate
Ben Roethlisberger PIT QB 281 469 59.9 29.3 3,301 7.0 206.3 17 15 162 34.5 65T 35 7 46 80.1


Rankings:
Completion % - 21st
Yards - 14th
TDs - 15th
Interceptions - 4th (most)
Sacks - 2nd (most)
QB Rating - 24th


How would you feel about that stat line from Cassel this year?

Coach 08-27-2009 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6004260)
That one is pretty bad...Delhomme is too but Cassel is right up there if you think he won't pan out.
The problem I have with this is that Orton HAS already shown us that he is a terrible QB. Delhomme HAS already shown us as well.

I'd rather take Cassel over Orton or Delhomme one way or another. Those two has alot of risks and little reward.

Cassel, on the other hand, do have alot of risks, but he also has a high reward.

beach tribe 08-27-2009 09:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFG (Post 6005095)
Ben was "successful" solely because Ben was able to escape DL hits, hands, and arms in the pocket. The Cards should have had 12 sacks, but 6 or so would be "sacks" Ben got away and made big plays. The Steelers won despite their OL because they had a QB who could turn what would be a sack for 90% of NFL QBs into a big play. Cassel cannot do that. If you want to define the Pats season last year as a "success," be my guest. The only thing "successful" about Cassel for the Pats was that they were able to snake away a high Second for him from yet another really dumb franchise obsessed with acquiring anyone and everyone who ever stood next to Belichick. The current Chief obsession with becoming "Pats Light" should result in yet another top 10 Draft pick in April...
Cassel did exactly what you are talking about in this past PS game a against Minny. Hell it should have been a sack just about every time he dropped back to pass, but he escaped, and made some nice plays. Could you please stop
declaring him a huge mistake until he has had at least 8 games under center for us. Don't be as dumb as the guy writing this POS article.

TFG 08-27-2009 09:54 AM
Preseason game or Super Bowl = no difference ...)

Put Cassel in as the Steelers QB in the Super Bowl and the Cards sack him a dozen times and win easily.

The only question here is which OL is worse at pass protection, Pitt or KC??

Just Passin' By 08-27-2009 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFG (Post 6005487)
Preseason game or Super Bowl = no difference ...)

Put Cassel in as the Steelers QB in the Super Bowl and the Cards sack him a dozen times and win easily.

The only question here is which OL is worse at pass protection, Pitt or KC??
Last season, the Patriots won 11 games with Cassel under center, even though the first half of the season was on-the-job training for the guy. He was sacked one more time than Roethlisberger was, but his sack numbers decreased dramatically in the second half of the season. As the season went on, he not only became able to avoid the rush, he became a running threat, finishing with 270 yards rushing.

Brock 08-27-2009 10:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFG (Post 6005487)
Preseason game or Super Bowl = no difference ...)

Put Cassel in as the Steelers QB in the Super Bowl and the Cards sack him a dozen times and win easily.

The only question here is which OL is worse at pass protection, Pitt or KC??
Roethlisberger was sacked 1 fewer time than Cassel was.

TFG 08-27-2009 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 6005634)
Last season, the Patriots won 11 games with Cassel under center, even though the first half of the season was on-the-job training for the guy. He was sacked one more time than Roethlisberger was, but his sack numbers decreased dramatically in the second half of the season. As the season went on, he not only became able to avoid the rush, he became a running threat, finishing with 270 yards rushing.

Pats with starting QB = 16 wins
Pats with backup QB = 11 wins, no playoffs

Matt Cassel was a backup at USC for a reason. The reason is that he really does not have a strong arm. Cassel floats anything more than 25 yards or so. Good thing the Chiefs don't have any "deep threats" because they would be "decoys." Cassel is smart, has a reasonably quick release, and is better than most NFL backup QBs. The way to stop Cassel is to play tight, safeties up, jump routes, and dare him to throw it deep, because he can't zip a deep ball. Even the Raiders will eventually figure it out...

TFG 08-27-2009 10:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock (Post 6005660)
Roethlisberger was sacked 1 fewer time than Cassel was.

Pass protection = sacks allowed


Only an actual sack counts as "evidence" of poor pass protection. If the DE burns the OLT and grabs the QB, and the QB escapes, that was excellent pass protection, because an actual sack did not happen.

Hence, Titans ORT Dave Stewart is just awesome at pass protection, since Collins wasn't sacked much at all, nevermind the Titan offense was run run run run quick throw run run run...

Just Passin' By 08-27-2009 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TFG (Post 6005667)
Pats with starting QB = 16 wins
Pats with backup QB = 11 wins, no playoffs

Matt Cassel was a backup at USC for a reason. The reason is that he really does not have a strong arm. Cassel floats anything more than 25 yards or so. Good thing the Chiefs don't have any "deep threats" because they would be "decoys." Cassel is smart, has a reasonably quick release, and is better than most NFL backup QBs. The way to stop Cassel is to play tight, safeties up, jump routes, and dare him to throw it deep, because he can't zip a deep ball. Even the Raiders will eventually figure it out...
Cassel's 'problem' with the deep ball to Moss was that he couldn't beat the triple teams that Moss faces. He didn't have a problem with the deep ball when it went right through Gaffney's hands on what would have been the difference-making touchdown against the Colts, for example. Also, as Chiefs fans can, no doubt, remember, he didn't have any trouble throwing the deep ball from his own end zone in week one. By the end of last season, with teams all having the book on Cassel, they weren't able to "play tight, safeties up, jump routes, and dare him to throw it deep" enough to beat the Patriots.

Newsflash: Cassel is not the best QB in the NFL. That doesn't mean that Cassel can't play. It means he's in with every other QB in the game who's not named Tom Brady.

WilliamTheIrish 08-27-2009 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mecca (Post 6004219)
And they'll be in play for a long time, we're talking about a fan base that actually tried to justify that Brodie Croyle and Matt Ryan were similar prospects.
LMAO

Link to the fanbase. Please.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:10 PM.
Page 2 of 5 1 2 345
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.