Michael Ash dives into Cassel v. Sanchez, and run defense

[Hammock Parties]

http://kan.scout.com/2/902665.html

This week’s “quarterback controversy” seems largely contrived.

Todd Haley certainly didn’t help the cause by being so forthcoming during his Tuesday press conference, but he was only responding to the questions asked – questions that were apparently being raised because of a theory floated by former Chief Bill Maas on local Kansas City radio.

Since Haley did his best to end the discussion Thursday, let’s shift away from the topic of Matt Cassel vs. Brodie Croyle and talk about a quarterback controversy of a different sort - Cassel vs. Mark Sanchez.

With the obvious disclaimer that it’s much, much too early to draw definitive conclusions about either player, Sanchez is off to a solid start in New York – 435 passing yards, two touchdowns, a 90.1 quarterback rating .

The Jets, who finished 9-7 a year ago, are more talented than the Chiefs, haven’t protected Sanchez the way rookie quarterbacks often are. While it would be incredibly easy for the Jets to ease him in slowly, relying on their defense and running game, they came out with a Week 1 game plan that saw Sanchez throw 31 passes.

Following the 2008 season, Warpaint Illustrated featured several editorials concerning the Chiefs’ need for a quarterback. That topic wasn’t well-received by those who thought Tyler Thigpen had already proven himself worthy of the job.

Prior to the draft, even after the Chiefs had acquired Cassel from the Patriots, I wrote a column supporting the idea of the Chiefs still drafting Sanchez in case Cassel didn’t live up to expectations. After all, there’s nothing more important to a team than having a franchise quarterback. But that idea went over about as well as the notion of replacing Thigpen.

The Chiefs, of course, didn’t take Sanchez in April’s draft, and weren’t the only team to pass on him. The Rams had the draft’s second pick, and with 32 year-old Marc Bulger and former Raven Kyle Boller as their top two quarterbacks, surely there are some in St. Louis watching Sanchez and wondering, “what if?”

Likewise, the Seahawks – led by oft-injured 34 year-old Matt Hasselbeck – picked fourth and were heavily rumored to have interest in Sanchez. But it may have simply been a smoke screen, as they chose to take linebacker Aaron Curry instead. I’ve even seen it suggested that after the uninspiring play of Brady Quinn thus far, the Cleveland Browns – who allowed the Jets to move up and take Sanchez – should have a case of trader’s remorse.

Unlike the teams we just mentioned, though, the Chiefs had their minds made up well before the draft. Just after the Chiefs acquired their new quarterback, I wrote:

By trading for Cassel when the Chiefs were in position to draft a top-rated quarterback, our new general manager hasn’t wasted any time putting himself in the line of fire. . . . Pioli is telling us that Cassel is better than Tyler Thigpen. More importantly, he’s telling us that no matter how good Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez may turn out to be, Cassel will be better.

Again, we’re a long way from knowing if Sanchez will actually prove to be a top-flight quarterback. Matt Leinart looked like a can’t-miss superstar in his first outings against the Chiefs and Bears a few seasons ago. Aside from nearly leading his team to victory, he also threw two touchdown passes in the first quarter of both games, the first rookie to ever accomplish that feat in the first two starts of his career. But over the course of the season, Leinart only threw multiple touchdowns in one other game, showing that hot starts don’t always last.

We’re also an extremely long way from drawing any conclusions about Cassel. But if Sanchez continues playing the way he has, it’s going to be an interesting story to follow throughout the season and beyond.


Is Kansas City’s run defense better than we think?

As noted here a few weeks ago, Kansas City’s rush defense only surrendered an average of 3.1 yards per carry during the preseason. If it held up, a mark like that would rank the Chiefs among the league’s best run-stopping units.

Many are quick to dismiss preseason stats, and with good reason, but we can’t ignore that the stats from the 2008 preseason proved to be a sign of things to come for the Chiefs’ defense. After allowing 4.9 yards per carry during the four exhibition games, the average allowed during the regular season was 5.0 – a difference of only one-tenth of a yard.

In this year’s season opener, the Chiefs’ allowed a poor 4.8 yards-per-carry average. But as we covered last week, it was a tale of two halves. Before halftime, the Chiefs held the Ravens to 3.3 yards per carry – right in line with their preseason numbers. In the second half, things fell apart, with the average rising to 5.6.

Did the run defense get worse as the game wore on because the sputtering offense left Chiefs’ defenders on the field too long? Or did the run defense look good early because the Ravens came out passing and weren’t focused on establishing a ground game?

The answer may have been a little clearer after the matchup with Oakland.

The Raiders officially rushed for just 67 yards on the day, a drastic turnaround from the 300-yard explosion they put up in Arrowhead a year ago. Removing the sack and scrambling yardage for JaMarcus Russell, who lost three yards in total, the Chiefs allowed 70 yards on 22 rushing attempts. That’s an average of 3.1 yards per carry – a number that, again, is right in line with their preseason stats and their first half against Baltimore.

Based on that data, we could draw ever closer to the conclusion that the Chiefs actually have a legitimate run defense. That would mean the poor second half against the Ravens was indeed due to a worn-down, tired out squad.

But, once again, there’s a caveat that needs to be examined.

For reasons known only to the Raiders’ brain trust, Oakland didn’t focus on their running game throughout Sunday’s contest. Instead, they were content to repeatedly put the ball in Russell’s hands, who responded by only completing seven of his 24 pass attempts.

If you saw the Raiders’ season opener against San Diego, you saw them start off the game with a clear focus on running the ball. On their first two drives alone, they rushed for more yardage than they achieved throughout four quarters against the Chiefs.

Their bizarre strategy from Sunday makes it difficult to properly evaluate what we saw, leading to the same question we had coming out of Baltimore. Like the Ravens in the first half, if the Raiders had actually focused on running the ball during the game, would the Chiefs still have held them to such a low output? Or would they have eventually started giving up the big runs that plagued them a season ago?

It doesn’t seem like we’ll get an answer to that question until the Chiefs face a team that’s determined to get their ground game going.

But in the meantime, after the 300-yard disaster we saw last year, the Chiefs shutting down the run under any circumstance has to be a silver lining in what was otherwise a disappointing afternoon.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

i agree, but to CONSTANTLY bash guys BEFORE the draft and then come out and act as though we should have drafted them is a little ****ed up if you ask me. just bitching to bitch.


everette brown? how many posts on this board bashing him?

People were bashed for suggesting that Evertte Brown should be taken with the #3 overall.

I highly doubt you'd find anyone suggesting before the draft that taking him in the 2nd round would be a bad pick.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by milkman

People were bashed for suggesting that Evertte Brown should be taken with the #3 overall.

I highly doubt you'd find anyone suggesting before the draft that taking him in the 2nd round would be a bad pick.

I was one of the ones that early on wanted Brown at #3. I got bashed for it, and RIGHTFULLY SO in hindsight.

It became apparent as the draft drew closer that taking Brown at #3 wasn't a good idea. And where he actually WENT just proved it.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Facts? Proof? Undeniable evidence?

You've already said that the Chiefs WON'T amount to shit and Matt Cassel WILL BE a failure.

That's future tense. There is no "undeniable evidence" that tells you the future.

Frankly, your last paragraph is laughable. What are "time-proven methods"? I must have missed where there was one, and ONLY ONE, way to build a championship team. And just who was the "best talent" that Pioli missed on? Just come out and say it - he didn't do it the way YOU wanted him to. That's your opinion. Not fact.

By the way, that "hollow personal philosophy" brought Scott Pioli 3 Super Bowl rings and 4 NFL Exec of the Year awards. That's not my opinion. THAT is a fact.

I'll address this when I get back from running errands.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

Incorrect. I said Cassel won't amount to shit. As far as the other positions around him go, that is yet to be seen. And as I stated before; his ceiling will be high enough to get us back to another repeat of 1997 or 2003 in the overall results-column.
Choose whichever interchangeable FAIL from above tickles your naughty bits.

Now you know that I was pissed when we traded for Cassel, and that we didn't draft Sanchez, so take this for the objective view that it is.

If the Cassel that played for the Pats in the latter half of last season had played QB for the Chiefs in '95 and '97, those teams could very well have advanced to the SB, if Marty doesn't hamstring them.

I don't believe that Cassel will ever be top 5 quality, but he does have the tools, I think, to be top 12, and if you build a team around him, that very well could be good enough.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by milkman

Now you know that I was pissed when we traded for Cassel, and that we didn't draft Sanchez, so take this for the objective view that it is.

If the Cassel that played for the Pats in the latter half of last season had played QB for the Chiefs in '95 and '97, those teams could very well have advanced to the SB, if Marty doesn't hamstring them.

I don't believe that Cassel will ever be top 5 quality, but he does have the tools, I think, to be top 12, and if you build a team around him, that very well could be good enough.

Meh. We'll see.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

You've already said that the Chiefs WON'T amount to shit and Matt Cassel WILL BE a failure.

Incorrect. I said Cassel won't amount to shit. As far as the other positions around him go, that is yet to be seen. And as I stated before; his ceiling will be high enough to get us back to another repeat of 1997 or 2003 in the overall results-column.
Choose whichever interchangeable FAIL from above tickles your naughty bits.

That's future tense. There is no "undeniable evidence" that tells you the future.

That was made in reference to building a consistent, Championship winning franchise.

Frankly, your last paragraph is laughable. What are "time-proven methods"?

You were around in the months leading up to the draft, so you should remember the many cases brought forward by other posters regarding building a winning franchise outside of New England without ME having to dredge through the archives and present them to you again.
These takes were accompanied with stats/numbers that did IN FACT prove their credibility.

I must have missed where there was one, and ONLY ONE, way to build a championship team.

And now we arrive at the meat of the matter: the much ballyhooed "Patriot Way".
Has Belichick created his own niche for success in the History of the NFL?
Absolutely.
But please don't try and convince me that in the 89 year history of the league, one decade of winning spurred on by the greatest winning power ball ticket to ever throw a football in the NFL constitutes a rewrite of the entire textbook.
NOT buying. Thank you.

And just who was the "best talent" that Pioli missed on?

"Bill and I have a rule; if a guy needs the sizzle, he's not for us".

Unless "sizzle" is code for "problem child"; that is the dumbest ****ing take on talent I have ever read.

Just come out and say it - he didn't do it the way YOU wanted him to.

He didn't do it the way I wanted him to.

By the way, that "hollow personal philosophy" brought Scott Pioli 3 Super Bowl rings and 4 NFL Exec of the Year awards. That's not my opinion. THAT is a fact.

By the way, that success was cultivated by a partnership of TWO people, NOT one. And last I looked, our sideline was conspicuously devoid of a sleeveless hoodie.
And THAT too is a fact.

Good day Sir.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

Incorrect. I said Cassel won't amount to shit.

Thanks for the lotto numbers.

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

That was made in reference to building a consistent, Championship winning franchise.

You were around in the months leading up to the draft, so you should remember the many cases brought forward by other posters regarding building a winning franchise outside of New England without ME having to dredge through the archives and present them to you again.
These takes were accompanied with stats/numbers that did IN FACT prove their credibility.

And now we arrive at the meat of the matter: the much ballyhooed "Patriot Way".
Has Belichick created his own niche for success in the History of the NFL?
Absolutely.
But please don't try and convince me that in the 89 year history of the league, one decade of winning spurred on by the greatest winning power ball ticket to ever throw a football in the NFL constitutes a rewrite of the entire textbook.
NOT buying. Thank you.

So you have "undeniable evidence" that what the Chiefs are doing won't work, huh? You might want to let the 1996 Green Bay Packers know, since they acquired their Super Bowl winning QB by trading a 2nd round draft pick. Oh and acquired their best defensive player via free agency.

The fact that you firmly believe there is one way, and one way only, to build a championship team is laughable.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Thanks for the lotto numbers.



So you have "undeniable evidence" that what the Chiefs are doing won't work, huh? You might want to let the 1996 Green Bay Packers know, since they acquired their Super Bowl winning QB by trading a 2nd round draft pick. Oh and acquired their best defensive player via free agency.

The fact that you firmly believe there is one way, and one way only, to build a championship team is laughable.

I'm disappointed. I honestly expected more from you. I'm done with this thread.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

I'm disappointed. I honestly expected more from you. I'm done with this thread.

What did you expect from me?

Tacit approval for an opinion that is so narrow-minded it makes Tom Cash look liberal?

All I've asked is that you acknowledge that the future isn't set in stone. All I've done is present you with a fine example of a championship team that WASN'T BUILT the way you claim is the only way to build one.

Look man, I know where your at. Take a look at what Mecca and Hamas are saying. Or Dane. Why are you out there on an island?

As I've said before, staying the course with something like this doesn't make you principled, it makes you stubborn.

[Hammock Parties]

You know, our run defense really wasn't bad today. They tightened up.

[Mecca]

Look man no one on this forum wanted Mark Sanchez to play for the Chiefs more than me but that ship is gone, you can't turn back time.