Chiefs buzz: Croyle lacking game action

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

See, I watch the games, you are reciting numbers. Cassel played two good games this year, two. I want to see what Brodie can do, even though it will be a small sample.

The rest of the six wins, was done by keeping Cassel from losing the games. If you know half as much about football as you spout off that you do, you know this.

If Brodie had half the opportunities Cassel has had, in my opinion he would do better. He actually did something in college, besides warming the bench. He was universally acclaimed for his talent. Is he the final answer? Probably not, but anyone that thinks Cassel is, is kidding themselves.

But go on, run your mouth brilliant one.

When you're claiming that Cassel has only played two good games this season, you probably shouldn't be following that up with insults of other people's intelligence.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

When you're claiming that Cassel has only played two good games this season, you probably shouldn't be following that up with insults of other people's intelligence.

No, your definition of 'good' is just different. It's a subjective issue. You think not throwing any interceptions is good. You don't care if he's inaccurate, doesn't progress through his reads, has bad footwork and has no pocket awareness.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Pants

No, your definition of 'good' is just different. It's a subjective issue. You think not throwing any interceptions is good. You don't care if he's inaccurate, doesn't progress through his reads, has bad footwork and has no pocket awareness.

No, I care if he's playing "good". I don't pretend that I know what his reads are, for example, because that would require that I pretend to know precisely what plays were called and precisely what every player on the field was supposed to do at every moment. I leave that to the idiots who can't be bothered with honest evaluation.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

No, I care if he's playing "good". I don't pretend that I know what his reads are, for example, because that would require that I pretend to know precisely what plays were called and precisely what every player on the field was supposed to do at every moment. I leave that to the idiots who can't be bothered with honest evaluation.

Well, it's pretty easy to tell when he stares one receiver down. I mean, whether it's him not progressing through his reads or whether it's the game plan - either one is pretty telling.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Pants

Well, it's pretty easy to tell when he stares one receiver down. I mean, whether it's him not progressing through his reads or whether it's the game plan - either one is pretty telling.

Actually, neither tells a damned thing on its own.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Actually, neither tells a damned thing on its own.

Sure it does. If the play calls for Cassel to only read one route and then to check down if the receiver is deemed covered, it means the coaching staff doesn't trust Cassel to make multiple reads and make a decision quickly enough. The other case is pretty obvious and leads to the 'tunnel vision' conclusion. How about addressing the other things I listed now?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Pants

Sure it does. If the play calls for Cassel to only read one route and then to check down if the receiver is deemed covered, it means the coaching staff doesn't trust Cassel to make multiple reads and make a decision quickly enough. The other case is pretty obvious and leads to the 'tunnel vision' conclusion. How about addressing the other things I listed now?

Both of this assertions are assuming 100% accuracy when there are plenty of other possibilities, which is why they are wrong. There are plays that actually call for a quick look one way and then a "check down", and every team in the NFL has them.

Like HemiEd, you're seeing what you want to see.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

Shouldn't title read: " Croyle's Super-Rocket armed to unleash passes exceeding the Line Of Scrimmage"?

Couldn't agree more. I wonder if Weis cried when Haley said "86 the Bubble, Bubbles"?

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

No, I care if he's playing "good". I don't pretend that I know what his reads are, for example, because that would require that I pretend to know precisely what plays were called and precisely what every player on the field was supposed to do at every moment. I leave that to the idiots who can't be bothered with honest evaluation.

Let me help you here, I didn't play Jr. College football, but I have been watching this team for 41 years, so I picked up a couple things.

1) When the center snaps the ball to #7, and from the snape #7 stares at one receiver until he throws it to him, or gets sacked still looking at that one receiver, or throws a pick while throwing to that same receiver, without looking at any other potential receivers, that is called not progressing through his reads (looking for alternative target to throw to), Follow?

As I have said numerous times, I think he did a great job on this in the Seattle game, it gave me wood just seeing that improvement. Not so good in the Denver game last week, but hey, everyone has a bad day. I hope he plays like the Seattle game every time, but so far he hasn't.

2) For the most part, his accuracy the last two years has been horrible, atrocious, receivers had to be double jointed. But that also has been looking better the last three games IMO.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Let me help you here, I didn't play Jr. College football, but I have been watching this team for 41 years, so I picked up a couple things.

You must have forgotten them, given your recent posts on this subject.

Originally Posted by HemiEd

1) When the center snaps the ball to #7, and from the snape #7 stares at one receiver until he throws it to him, or gets sacked still looking at that one receiver, or throws a pick while throwing to that same receiver, without looking at any other potential receivers, that is called not progressing through his reads (looking for alternative target to throw to), Follow?

This is the problem with people who have been "watching this team for 41 years". They think they know what the hell they are talking about just because of the duration of their fandom.

Just a heads up here.... while QB rating is not a perfect mirror of QB play, it's pretty difficult to achieve a 98.4 rating, over the course of 3/4 of a season, on the strength of just two games.

Also, every QB locks on to receivers. Sometimes it's a problem, sometimes it's inherent in the play.

Originally Posted by HemiEd

As I have said numerous times, I think he did a great job on this in the Seattle game, it gave me wood just seeing that improvement. Not so good in the Denver game last week, but hey, everyone has a bad day. I hope he plays like the Seattle game every time, but so far he hasn't.

Oddly enough, most people can watch a game and figure at least a few things out. You seem to have avoided even the blind squirrel sorts of fortune.

Originally Posted by HemiEd

2) For the most part, his accuracy the last two years has been horrible, atrocious, receivers had to be double jointed. But that also has been looking better the last three games IMO.

This is just complete bullshit.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

You must have forgotten them, given your recent posts on this subject.



This is the problem with people who have been "watching this team for 41 years". They think they know what the hell they are talking about just because of the duration of their fandom.

Just a heads up here.... while QB rating is not a perfect mirror of QB play, it's pretty difficult to achieve a 98.4 rating, over the course of 3/4 of a season, on the strength of just two games.

Also, every QB locks on to receivers. Sometimes it's a problem, sometimes it's inherent in the play.



Oddly enough, most people can watch a game and figure at least a few things out. You seem to have avoided even the blind squirrel sorts of fortune.



This is just complete bullshit.

I give up, enjoy the game if you watch this one.

But at least try and listen to the announcers, their explanations may help you.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I give up, enjoy the game if you watch this one.

But at least try and listen to the announcers, their explanations may help you.

I watch. I listen. I admit my limitations.

It seems to be that 3rd one where you and I separate. You seem to think you know the read progressions on every play.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

When you're claiming that Cassel has only played two good games this season, you probably shouldn't be following that up with insults of other people's intelligence.

Please enlighten me, which besides the Arizona and Seattle games, was he not just a high priced manager not losing the game?

I may have forgotten one.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Please enlighten me, which besides the Arizona and Seattle games, was he not just a high priced manager not losing the game?

I may have forgotten one.

1.) The moniker "manager" implies that managing a game isn't playing "good". The reality is that every NFL QB is supposed to be managing the game.

2.) When Tom Brady was making the New York Jets team his bitch on Monday, he was "just a high priced manager". He was throwing short-medium passes pretty much exclusively, and avoiding interceptions. Seems to me that he had a "good" game anyway.



In other words, your use of the terms "manager" and "good" is lousy, and designed to beg the question.