what's with all the Orton isn't the answer talk?

[wutamess]

OK he has the same stats avg as Cassle. BS! My dad and I argue about the Cheifs as if we're Pioli and Haley. I told him 3 weeeks ago, "dude. We finally have our QB." He looked at me like I was crazy and borderline ignored me.

I tried explaining to him we finaly have a qb that can make all of the throws. All he could muster up was he wasn't shit in Denve and he wasn Shit in Chicago. I told him he had good stats lat yar and turned Brandn Lloyd into NFLs #1 wr last year. He wasn't buying it but my point was valid.

I further went to explain that now Orton had something he's NEVER had as far as weapons. Now he has 2 BIG WRs as well as a WR that will stretch the field. Add JC and Moeki coming back next year and I think we can be a top 5 offense with Orton.

I just don't understand why people think he's a fluke ad try to compare him to Cassle when he's HEAD AND SHOULDERS above Cassel in EVERY category. I'll go so far as to say we don't need to draft qb this year if we sign Orton... I'm als thinking with Berry coming back and a O tackle and another stud LB to complement DJ, we're poised for a SUPERBOWL RUN!

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DaWolf

You are only justified in taking one if you evaluate the guy properly. For example, if I am a QB starved organization, and I allow myself to drool over JaMarcus Russel's workout and draft him No 1 overall instead of Calvin Johnsnon, just because I feel the need to draft a QB in the first round and want to roll the dice, and get intoxicated with visions of JaMarcus leading my franchise for the next decade because of all of his physical tools, then I should lose my job. You are better off with Kyle Orton/Calvin Johnson than you are with Russell.

Again, this is not to say you don't take a guy in the first round, it is to say that when you do, or when you trade your entire draft for one, you better be sure that guy is gonna be the difference maker between being an OK team and being a Super Bowl contender. Otherwise you've just set your franchise back another 3-5 years and wasted a first.

Easier said than done of course, QB is a tough position to project from college to NFL. But that guy better be worth that pick. If I have the ability to trade up for Andrew Luck, or if I have a conviction about RGIII, do I go out and try to make it happen? Yeah. But if I am not in a position to take those guys, do I draft Landry Jones because he's there? Not if I am not sold on Landry Jones being a SIGNIFICANT upgrade over who I have at this level, and not if there is a better player available that will also help my team. I mean, I'm not going to sit here and give Jacksonville props for drafting and whiffing on Gabbert because they at least tried to replace Gerrard. They got it wrong, and set their franchise further back. In my book, you don't get brownie points for trying, you better do it right...

You don't just pick any swinging dick, but I'll let you in on a little secret: every QB prospect has flaws, and if this fanbase has demonstrated anything, it's the ability to say, "yeah, well, I'm not ready to draft a guy who lacks _____" where the blank changes every year. There are certain guys like Jamarcus Russell who should send up huge red flags to anyone, but you can't sit here and honestly say that the Chiefs have tried to make QB a priority in the draft. If they had, they would have either drafted one when he fell to or near them, or traded up for one.

We're not talking about taking Jim Druckenmiller or Landry Jones b/c he's the highest rated guy, it's realizing the importance of the position and doing everything possible to get the guy you think has the goods. It's precisely the opposite of settling.

[Chris Meck]

I think that's true, however, if he's going to have flaws, I would rather they be physical ones-NOT mental/character issues.

You could see the Russell flameout coming a mile away.

I'd take an Andy Dalton, for instance, over a Blaine Gabbert or a Ryan Mallett. All have flaws, but I think Dalton's got the better chance to be a long term plus player at the most important position.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by Omega

What the **** are you even talking about?

Marvel Smith doesn't play for the Steelers.

His rookie year was 2000, and PFF wasn't even in existence.

HE'S NOT EVEN IN THE LEAGUE ANYMORE.

Posted via Mobile Device

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Bobbie

Pittsburgh Steeler rookie ORT Marvel Smith "allowed" three sacks in his opening start to Courtney Brown. The first was a bull rush where the QB ran into Brown while escaping another defender, and Smith's protection held almost 5 full seconds. The second, Smith blocked down and let Brown go free. The third was another case where the QB held the ball too long, and then essentially scrambled right into Brown again.

Marvel Smith did extremely well his opening start. He "allowed" three sacks on your BS "chart..."

All of the other BS aside, PFF would have credited Smith with ONE sack.

The 2 times the QB scrambled into the defender would have been credited TO THE QUARTERBACK.

You obviously don't have a clue how PFF does their analysis.

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by Omega

Explain this:

Offensive Line Pass Blocking Efficiency
The Pro Football Focus "Pass Blocking Efficiency" rating measures pressure allowed on a per-snap basis with weighting toward sacks allowed.

I never said his pass blocking skills were poor. I said it seems like he is jumping all the time. Maybe he dont. Maybe it just seemed that way to me. Maybe he does it at crucial times.

What I did say however is that our O line was one of the worst in the league. That they graded out poorly. Then I put up the numbers to support it.

Staying on point seems to be a real problem around here. Every point winds up as some type of circle jerk that seldom stays on the original post. Its like you're talking to a biunch of stoned idiots or children that are offended.

The point I was trying to make in my original post (before the circle jerk) was that there are more problems on this offense than the QB. The O line is just as much to blame if not more than the QB. Somehow that has offended some here. So here are the arguements I have heard so far to dispute that post.

You suck.
Cassel sucks
Cassel sucks
Cassel sucks
Cassel sucks
Brandon Albert rocks
And who could forget the assorted name calling
A couple more Cassel sucks
Another Brandon Albert is top 5 LT
And my favorite, Brandon Alberts false starts are Cassels fault.


In the end I just have to say, if anyone actually thinks this is a good O line, they havent watched the same games I have. A good line is what we had when Holmes was here and Green was the QB. The right side of our line might be the worst in the game today. Not sure if they are or not, but they are pretty bad. I dont give a damn what the numbers are. The unit as a whole is rated at the bottom of the league.

As for Cassel. I agree, he's a middle of the road QB on his best day.

Im not sure what we are even argueing about. It seems like you people are high or something. I remember my 1st joint. I wasnt so confrontational. I laughed more. But it was hard to stay focused. My mind wondered. Very much like the average thread on CP.

Just in case its me lets make it simple. Maybe you're right and Im wrong. Maybe Im unreasonable. So let me recap just in case.

My basic original post.

1. Cassels sucks
2. The O line sucks

There you go.

If you disagree, I am more than willing to debate it with you on a reasonable basis. If you just want to argue for the sake of argueing, save it for those that love you. If you want to call a bunch of names, you're welcome to do so. But I'll just blow you off as someone who has lost the debate and deflecting.

I am willing to conceed that Albert dont jump as often as I thought. Maybe he just does it at the worst time and it stuck out to me. Either way, I never said he was the whole problem. He is part of the problem though.

[The Franchise]

Albert is not the problem.

And could you be any more vague in your argument?

The right side of our line might be the worst in the game today. Not sure if they are or not, but they are pretty bad. I dont give a damn what the numbers are. The unit as a whole is rated at the bottom of the league.

Oh....and HOW DARE YOU GIVE ME STATS TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT!?!? YOU'RE WRONG!

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Albert is not the problem.

And could you be any more vague in your argument?



Oh....and HOW DARE YOU GIVE ME STATS TO BACK UP YOUR ARGUMENT!?!? YOU'RE WRONG!

I just meant they may not be the absolute worst, but they are close. I agree, Albert is not the worst of the bunch. However, there's room for improvement. I guess I've been spoiled over the years with the o lines of the past. Right now, he might be our best. Whatever thats worth.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

What I did say however is that our O line was one of the worst in the league. That they graded out poorly. Then I put up the numbers to support it.

They don't grade out poorly, though.

They grade out very well.

[morphius]

I've actually wondered how much Haley's fitness requirements have actually made it harder for the OL and DL play their positions. There are some positions where the added weight is a bonus.

[Bump]

Originally Posted by Chris Meck

I think that's true, however, if he's going to have flaws, I would rather they be physical ones-NOT mental/character issues.

You could see the Russell flameout coming a mile away.

I'd take an Andy Dalton, for instance, over a Blaine Gabbert or a Ryan Mallett. All have flaws, but I think Dalton's got the better chance to be a long term plus player at the most important position.

hindsight makes you wicked smaht

[Brock]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

I just meant they may not be the absolute worst, but they are close. I agree, Albert is not the worst of the bunch. However, there's room for improvement. I guess I've been spoiled over the years with the o lines of the past. Right now, he might be our best. Whatever thats worth.

Yeah, those o lines of the past that didn't accomplish a damn thing.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

I just meant they may not be the absolute worst, but they are close. I agree, Albert is not the worst of the bunch. However, there's room for improvement. I guess I've been spoiled over the years with the o lines of the past. Right now, he might be our best. Whatever thats worth.

Albert would be better if he were 20 pounds heavier. Same goes for most of our O-line.

[Dexter Manley]

Originally Posted by -King-

Posted via Mobile Device

Neither is former #1 overall pick Courtney Brown, genius...

It doesn't change the reality that stat parroting produces inaccurate results. The claim that Dave Stewart is good in pass protection is a tribute to the idiocy of your spreadsheet. But you have to be able to understand the football you watch...

I'm curious.

What did your spreadsheet say about the current NFL sack leader three years ago when he was here??

[Dexter Manley]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

All of the other BS aside, PFF would have credited Smith with ONE sack.

The 2 times the QB scrambled into the defender would have been credited TO THE QUARTERBACK.

You obviously don't have a clue how PFF does their analysis.

Indeed, I don't and I really don't care, since it is "subjective" then, the sack issue.

And anything that claims Dave Stewart is a good pass blocker is clearly wrong, and it is absolutely pathetic anyone would stand by such a stupid statement...

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by Bobbie

Indeed, I don't and I really don't care, since it is "subjective" then, the sack issue.

And anything that claims Dave Stewart is a good pass blocker is clearly wrong, and it is absolutely pathetic anyone would stand by such a stupid statement...

I'm glad you have more insight into the game than a site that is used by NFL teams themselves...and charges for their insight....produced by dozens of individuals who have fine-tuned their product for five years.