What are we arguing?

I don't get it?

Matt Cassel wasn't good last year.

The Chiefs weren't good last year.

All I said was he wasn't worse when Charles was in the backfield...but you idiots are going to spin it how you want to spin it and we'll go back and talk about how he was REALLLLLLY bad in this game...but NOT REALLLLLY bad in this other game?!

Who gives a shit.

I called something a myth, OTWP called me out with stats, and then he contradicted himself with those very stats, and now somehow this ends up back on me?

Ok?

If Charles was averaging 7 YPC...

Why wasn't he getting more touches?

You think that was Cassel calling those plays?

Yes, I have.

You just showed how meaningless his stats were during the LJ part of the season...

and then used those stats to show how he was "worse" during the Charles part...

Yet...

If you think about it...

They were the ****ing same...

Meaning he was basically the same QB the entire season...mediocre at times, terrible at other times...that's about it.

How the hell am I contradicting myself?

He played like shit in the first 3 quarters of his first 7 games, and managed to play even worse once he had the benefit of the 2nd best running game in the league and a much improved OL that only allowed 8 sacks in the final 6 games.

Does the booze offset the Adderol?

:facepalm:

I'm done arguing with this idiot. On to Masters coverage.

ok ok ok...

So...

We're just going to assume that the OL improved which led to less sacks?

Uh...

Hello?!?!

That was Charles.

That was the defense respecting Charles.

And really...Cassel didn't play worse. I mean...it was absolutely a combination of just about everything...and the Chiefs were just a bad team, period.

Chris Chambers, Leonard Pope, Lance Long, Bobby Wade and Mark Bradley were his primary targets during the Charles run/Bowe suspension...

You can only do so much...

This argument is just stupid.

Like I said...

Cassel was mediocre at times, terrible at other times...and Charles was really the only sign of hope for 2010...

That being said...still giving Cassel 8 games to show he has what he had in 2008...play the New England card all you want but 2008 Cassel wasn't too much different than 2009 Brady on that team...which would then ALSO prove my whole Brady is overrated angle so win/win for me I suppose.

Well I figured...

I impress myself...having Dane, Hamas and OTWP's number?! I should get a medal or something.

Your spurious and unsubstantiated claims.

Dude, you've been owned mercilessly in this thread. You've offered no support of your opinion other than baseless conjecture, and your takes have been refuted with a litany of facts.

Deluding yourself into ignoring them doesn't change the fact that your entire argument is bunk, and you were completely incapable of refuting the counterargument to your false claims.

Hmm...

and it is interesting OTWP decided to add Jacksonville into the equation...with LJ being suspended for that game and all...but since we didn't really utilize Charles at all I'll let it slide...

Basically he was 1-6 through those first seven games and had 10 TD's and 5 INT's...

He finished 3-5...had two ridiculously awful games against Denver and Buffalo...and the six other games were on par, or better than any other game than he played during the first 6 he played with Larry Johnson.

So...

Again.

Myth.

Anything else?

I think it depends on your definition of "success".

If you're defining success by wins, you're probably right. There were just far too many holes on both sides of the ball for this team to win more than 7 games.

But if you're referring to Cassel as having success, you're wrong. Cassel was clueless on the field, held onto the ball far too long, took nearly as many sacks in KC as he had in NE (47 vs. 42), has a weak arm, is afraid to make tight throws, lacks overall leadership and is clearly indecisive.

I don't know if all or even any of those characteristics can change from January 2010 to September 2010.

Cassel was a complete failure.

Hey...

I think you're confusing me as some sort of Cassel supporter...

I was cheering for Clausen before anyone...fortunately, this website has the archived posts to prove it.

I am a big fan of hedge bets...Clausen is a great hedge bet for this Cassel kid who people like you have already labeled a "complete failure"...

Me...still willing to see what he has for 8 games...

If he STILL doesn't show anything...done. Simple. Damn we lost a 2nd round pick and some money that wasn't ours to begin with and really has no long term implications whatsoever...

So lets cross our fingers and pray for Clausen...even though we all know it won't happen.

Break the season into quarters and it doesn't look so bad. Oh wait, yes it does. I'm talking about breaking the season into quarters, not each quarter of the game.
1st quarter (3) 59.6%, 5 TD/2 INT 89.8 QB rating
2nd quarter (4) 52.9%, 5 TD/3 INT 70.6 QB rating
3rd quarter (4) 50.8%, 3 TD/4 INT 63.1 QB rating
4th quarter (4) 57.6%, 3 TD/7 INT 64.7 QB rating.

Hey look at that, his completion % and QB rating got better from 3rd to 4th quarter. :rolleyes:

Reaching for hope? Cassel had a better completion % than Manning & Brady in 2009 on passes that were thrown over 40 yards, completing 42.9% while Brady had 21.4% and Manning had no passes completed over 40.

That is passes THROWN over 40, not that a receiver didn't catch a 15 yard slant and take it 40+.

Sad part? Cassel was 12% on passes from 21-30 yards. Manning was 34.4% and Brady 32%. :facepalm:

QB rating for Cassel by distance thrown:
Behind LOS 80.2
1-10 yards 76.2
11-20 58.9
21-30 7.9
31-40 105.4
41+ 89.9

Pretty sure that he has to be in the bottom of the league on 21-30 and right near the top in his 7 passes thrown 31-40 & on 7 thrown 41+.
Brees was 140.0 on 9 passes thrown 31-40 and 63.7 on 9 thrown 41+
Manning was 60.8 on 24 passes thrown 31-40 & 39.6 on 2 thrown 41+
Brady was 58.0 on 12 passes thrown 31-40 & 75.0 on 14 thrown 41+.

The question I pose is, would having a big target help improve those 21-30 yard passes?