Chiefs Matt Cassel: Good or Bad? - Page 21

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 02-28-2009, 01:32 PM

We may as well have an easy point of reference for people to be able to come back and eat their crow when this all pans out. Everyone always says I knew it all along. Step up and put it down.

I don't think a 2nd round pick is terrible, but I don't think Matt Cassel will pan out in KC. I'll put it down right here, right now. And now I'll start praying I'm wrong.

Forget the trade. The only thing I want you to commit too is whether or not Cassel is a good or bad choice for QBOTF.

munkey · 03-01-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ultra Peanut

Cassel is "safer," but far from guaranteed, while Stafford and Sanchez have far more upside.

I don't understand this logic at all...What "upside" are you referring to?

chiefzilla1501 · 03-01-2009, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munkey

I don't understand this logic at all...What "upside" are you referring to?

This always bothers me too. People keep talking about upside as if it's all about arm strength.

Cassel has a ton of upside because of his intangibles: he's easy to coach, a terrific leader, and extremely disciplined in getting better. To boot, his fundamentals are great.

I hate that people think he has limited upside because he doesn't throw a great deep ball. Who cares? Brady didn't either his rookie season. And Peyton and Brees have made their living mostly on short- to intermediate routes.

unlurking · 03-01-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munkey

I don't understand this logic at all...What "upside" are you referring to?

Upside:
Since we DON'T know for a fact that he ISN'T the second coming of John Elway, he just might BE the second coming of John Elway.

munkey · 03-01-2009, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unlurking

Upside:
Since we DON'T know for a fact that he ISN'T the second coming of John Elway, he just might BE the second coming of John Elway.

I wonder what the statistics are on the difference between first round QB's drafted and QB's picked from the 2nd down when it comes to success rate.

I have a feeling it's not all that one sided.

Mile High Mania · 03-01-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCJohnny

There's a reason he was a backup all those years. Brady threw for like 50 TDs with the same supporting cast, Cassell had less than half that. I'm not sold that Cassell is even an upgrade over Thigpen, and certainly nowhere near the value.

He's our guy, I'll back him. But I voted bad idea.

That's funny... the monster year in 2007 was a bit off the charts and I didn't think a healthy Brady would do much more than 30 in 2008. NE caught lightning in a bottle in 2007 during that stats crazy season, and holding any QB (even Peyton) to a 50 TD standard... well, that's insane.

Peyton had 48 TDs in 2004... since then? PM has thrown for 28, 31, 31 and 27... far short of the 48, so I guess he's a failure now and washed up?

Weird.

milkman · 03-01-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

This always bothers me too. People keep talking about upside as if it's all about arm strength.

Cassel has a ton of upside because of his intangibles: he's easy to coach, a terrific leader, and extremely disciplined in getting better. To boot, his fundamentals are great.

I hate that people think he has limited upside because he doesn't throw a great deep ball. Who cares? Brady didn't either his rookie season. And Peyton and Brees have made their living mostly on short- to intermediate routes.

That is not true.

If it were all about arm strength then I would like Stafford better than both Cassel and Sanchez.

But I like Sanchez better because he appears brings the same things that you say that Cassel brings in the way of intangibles.

He's coachable, confident and relaxed in the limelight, has nearly flawless mechanics, and is reputed to be dedicated to practice and film study..

He had his best games against the best teams that he faced.
Cassel, on the other hand, played his best against AFC West opponents, going 3-1 against, with the loss coming against the best AFC West team, the Chargers.

As someone else pointed out elswhere, Cassel only had two(?) wins against teams with a winning record.

Where's the upside in that?

Chiefaholic · 03-01-2009, 10:59 AM

I voted good trade becaue of the value of the players vs. pick. My only worry is that the system around him is FAR better than what we have in KC. I wouldn't have expected Sanchez or Stafford to come in and do any better. But, the draft pick would have 4 more years to be at the same level that Cassel will be next season.

chiefzilla1501 · 03-01-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

That is not true.

If it were all about arm strength then I would like Stafford better than both Cassel and Sanchez.

But I like Sanchez better because he appears brings the same things that you say that Cassel brings in the way of intangibles.

He's coachable, confident and relaxed in the limelight, has nearly flawless mechanics, and is reputed to be dedicated to practice and film study..

He had his best games against the best teams that he faced.
Cassel, on the other hand, played his best against AFC West opponents, going 3-1 against, with the loss coming against the best AFC West team, the Chargers.

As someone else pointed out elswhere, Cassel only had two(?) wins against teams with a winning record.

Where's the upside in that?

But I think that anyone who talks about Cassel's ability to win games is cherry-picking statistics. In the second half of the season, he only lost two games: the Jets and the Steelers. It just shows what a ridiculous standard some people are holding him to when a lot of people are claiming he can't win big games because he didn't look good against Pittsburgh. EVERY quarterback looks bad against Pittsburgh. Hell, that team made Flacco look like a high school QB. And the Jets game, for those who recall, was a game in which Cassel threw for 400 yards and led some great game-ending drives to send the game into OT--not his fault that the Pats didn't win the coin toss and ultimately lost. And while many of the teams he faced in the second half were easier, he also shredded Miami and Arizona apart. He beat Buffalo, a 7-9 team in a tough division twice. And he beat Oakland, a team who had a new coach and ended up winning the last two games after the NE loss.

So basically, all we have as proof that he can't handle the big game was a game against a Super Bowl defense and a game earlier in the season against Indianapolis in which they lost by a field goal. And sorry, but looking good against a Steelers defense (which, by the way, absolutely embarrassed NE's offensive line) is a far cry from looking good against Penn State and Ohio State. Meanwhile, against NFL level competition, Cassel went an impressive 6-2 in the second half of the season to lead to an 11-win season which surprisingly wasn't good enough for the playoffs.

Duck Dog · 03-01-2009, 11:14 AM

I can't believe that are actually 40 some people who will lose sleep over this.

milkman · 03-01-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

But I think that anyone who talks about Cassel's ability to win games is cherry-picking statistics. In the second half of the season, he only lost two games: the Jets and the Steelers. It just shows what a ridiculous standard some people are holding him to when a lot of people are claiming he can't win big games because he didn't look good against Pittsburgh. EVERY quarterback looks bad against Pittsburgh. Hell, that team made Flacco look like a high school QB. And the Jets game, for those who recall, was a game in which Cassel threw for 400 yards and led some great game-ending drives to send the game into OT--not his fault that the Pats didn't win the coin toss and ultimately lost. And while many of the teams he faced in the second half were easier, he also shredded Miami and Arizona apart. He beat Buffalo, a 7-9 team in a tough division twice. And he beat Oakland, a team who had a new coach and ended up winning the last two games after the NE loss.

So basically, all we have as proof that he can't handle the big game was a game against a Super Bowl defense and a game earlier in the season against Indianapolis in which they lost by a field goal. And sorry, but looking good against a Steelers defense (which, by the way, absolutely embarrassed NE's offensive line) is a far cry from looking good against Penn State and Ohio State. Meanwhile, against NFL level competition, Cassel went an impressive 6-2 in the second half of the season to lead to an 11-win season which surprisingly wasn't good enough for the playoffs.

My point is that you can't simply say that the people who are talking about upside are only looking at arm strength.

**DaFace** · 03-01-2009, 11:17 AM

Wow...I didn't even know we had 300 people on this site who pay enough attention to vote.

milkman · 03-01-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duck Dog

I can't believe that are actually 40 some people who will lose sleep over this.

Who's losing sleep?

milkman · 03-01-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaFace

Wow...I didn't even know we had 300 people on this site who pay enough attention to vote.

And true to my nature, I didn't vote.

keg in kc · 03-01-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

As someone else pointed out elswhere, Cassel only had two(?) wins against teams with a winning record.

I don't even like Cassel, but man, that's kind of a nutty argument. I mean, they won 11 games, but 9 of them don't count because they came against teams .500 or below? And all losses go on Cassel regardless?

Let's take a look.

One of the losses against a winning team came against the Dolphins, Cassel's second start. They only scored 13, and lost by 25. They avenged that loss later in the year by scoring 48 and winning by 20.

San Diego beat them by 20 week 6 (start #4), 30-10.

(Week 7 they beat Denver 41-7, but that doesn't count, since the donkeys went .500).

They also split with the Jets, and the game that they lost the Patriots offense put up 31 points.

3 point loss on the road week 9 to the Colts, who ended the season 12-4. Only scored 15 in that one.

The Steelers beat them badly week 13, 33-10.

(The Patriots beat the Cardinals 47-7 in week 16 - that's one of their 2 wins).

I didn't realize it until I looked at the schedule, but apparently they didn't lose to a single team with a losing record. SD was 8-8. The Jets were 9-7. The Dolphins were 11-5. The Colts and Steelers were 12-4. That's 3 division winners, a 12-4 wild card team and a division opponent.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 03-01-2009, 01:30 PM

keg,

One big concern with Cassel is that he had 2/3 of his TD production against the AFC and NFC West, the two worst divisions in football.

14/6 against them, 7/5 against everyone else.

View Poll Results: Is Matt Cassel a good choice or a bad choice for the Chiefs QBOTF?
Good	308	86.27%
Bad	49	13.73%
Voters: 357. You may not vote on this poll

02-28-2009, 01:32 PM
Mr. Flopnuts FINALLY! The wait is over. Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Future Is Now!!! Casino cash: $19947565	Matt Cassel: Good or Bad? We may as well have an easy point of reference for people to be able to come back and eat their crow when this all pans out. Everyone always says I knew it all along. Step up and put it down. I don't think a 2nd round pick is terrible, but I don't think Matt Cassel will pan out in KC. I'll put it down right here, right now. And now I'll start praying I'm wrong. Forget the trade. The only thing I want you to commit too is whether or not Cassel is a good or bad choice for QBOTF.
Posts: 56,649

03-01-2009, 10:59 AM	#307
Chiefaholic Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Casino cash: $280027	I voted good trade becaue of the value of the players vs. pick. My only worry is that the system around him is FAR better than what we have in KC. I wouldn't have expected Sanchez or Stafford to come in and do any better. But, the draft pick would have 4 more years to be at the same level that Cassel will be next season.
Posts: 4,833

03-01-2009, 11:14 AM	#309
Duck Dog Reap the whirlwind Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Olathe Casino cash: $10004900	I can't believe that are actually 40 some people who will lose sleep over this.
Posts: 8,902

03-01-2009, 11:17 AM	#311
DaFace Kind of a mod Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Donkey Land Casino cash: $-1993101	Wow...I didn't even know we had 300 people on this site who pay enough attention to vote.
Posts: 53,162

03-01-2009, 01:30 PM	#315
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $7129572	keg, One big concern with Cassel is that he had 2/3 of his TD production against the AFC and NFC West, the two worst divisions in football. 14/6 against them, 7/5 against everyone else. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 75,083