Clausen and Tate?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Okung's sac

But yet it's okay to say that Cassel sucks when he played behind what many people consider to be the worst, or lowest performing offensive line in football and when his receivers led the league in drops?

Sanchez doesn't suck, even though his statistics say he does, because he's a rookie, but he's playing behind what most consider to be the best offensive line in football.

It's really going to be hard to get a consensus on this. Cassel sucks dog nuts, but his stats are substantially better than what many around here think is QBOTF material in Sanchez, because Cassel has an additional year of playing experience, but he plays behind the worst line in football while Sanchez plays behind the best line in football.

So, then, you feel that experience is more important and is a greater determining factor in grading a quarterbacks performance than the quality of players surrounding the quarterback, correct?

You really have a hard copmprehending simple concepts, don't you?

Cassel was in the NFL, learning behind one of the best QBs in the league, with the best HC, and what many considered to be a damn good OC.

He had a year as the starter in the NFL.

Sanchez had two years behind a marginally talented college QB, playing for a guy considered a great recruiter, though not necessarily a great coach, and a very good college OC.

He had one year as a starter in college.

Bottom line, the years in the NFL should have prepared Cassel better than the years of college for Sanchez, and it showed.

But by season's end, Sanchez was showing the kind of QB that he can become in time.

He is more talented, throws a better, more accurate deep ball, has a stronger arm, and his teammates seem to love him, which makes him a leader.

One can argue, and since I'm the one here, I will be that one, that Cassel showed at the end of the season, with better protection and a running game to support him, what kind of QB he can become.

Does the word "mediocre" work for you?