Mayock: Skins Could Take T. Williams

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Are you telling us that despite his piss-poor QB rating against Denver (14.1) and the next week against Buffalo (35.4), you felt he played better?

You drink too much during the games or you just aren't watching the same team as the rest of us on Sundays.

I felt like he was amazingly sub-par with all things considered from week 2 through week 17...

The whole "he was worse when Charles was playing" thing just isn't true...he was the same QB every week of the season...Charles just made us a bit more competitive down the stretch...

I've been calling for Clausen before anyone...I was the one getting verbally abused (go figure) for saying we should trade our two 2nd's to move up to around 17 or 18 and take him before he was even targeted by you drafturbators...

That doesn't mean I'm going to throw Cassel under the bus quite yet...

Was he basically a bust last year? Yep.

Would many QB's succeed in KC last year? Nope.

So I assume he is going to be our starter NO MATTER WHAT next year and I'm willing to give him 8 games before I make up my mind...

[OnTheWarpath15]

Oh, and to respond to the claim that Cassel got no credit for going 10/5 in his first 7 games - why the **** would he?

Of his 10 TD's in those 7 games, only TWO of them came in the first half of games.

One of them came in the late 3rd quarter with the team down 20 points.

And the OTHER SEVEN came in the 4th quarter of blowouts, with the Chiefs losing by an average of FIFTEEN points at the time of the TD.

Let's give Cassel props for playing well late in games we were getting blown out in - mainly because HE played like shit for the first 3 quarters.

Awesome.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Oh, and to respond to the claim that Cassel got no credit for going 10/5 in his first 7 games - why the **** would he?

Of his 10 TD's in those 7 games, only TWO of them came in the first half of games.

One of them came in the late 3rd quarter with the team down 20 points.

And the OTHER SEVEN came in the 4th quarter of blowouts, with the Chiefs losing by an average of FIFTEEN points at the time of the TD.

Let's give Cassel props for playing well late in games we were getting blown out in - mainly because HE played like shit for the first 3 quarters.

Awesome.

I didn't say he should get credit but you can't use those stats to say he was better than what he was when he had Charles since, like you're pointing out in this post, it isn't true, at all.

Which is why I said it was a myth.

So...

Basically...

This argument never had to happen if you didn't chime in?

Get it yet?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by The Meat Dragon

I didn't say he should get credit but you can't use those stats to say he was better than what he was when he had Charles since, like you're pointing out in this post, it isn't true, at all.

Which is why I said it was a myth.

So...

Basically...

This argument never had to happen if you didn't chime in?

Get it yet?

I get that you are delusional, and will post anything to attempt to get under the skin of a few of us.

You've yet to counter anything Dane, Hamas or I have said.

[Hootie]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I get that you are delusional, and will post anything to attempt to get under the skin of a few of us.

You've yet to counter anything Dane, Hamas or I have said.

Yes, I have.

You just showed how meaningless his stats were during the LJ part of the season...

and then used those stats to show how he was "worse" during the Charles part...

Yet...

If you think about it...

They were the ****ing same...

Meaning he was basically the same QB the entire season...mediocre at times, terrible at other times...that's about it.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by The Meat Dragon

That doesn't mean I'm going to throw Cassel under the bus quite yet...

Was he basically a bust last year? Yep.

Would many QB's succeed in KC last year? Nope.

So I assume he is going to be our starter NO MATTER WHAT next year and I'm willing to give him 8 games before I make up my mind...

I 100% agree with these statements, especially the part about 'would someone else have succeeded in KC last year. That is what I do not get...So many people seem to think that if we wouldve had a different QB the end result would have been vastly different.....I am thinking even if we had the very best QB (Brees? Manning?) The results would maybe be 1-2 more wins
and probably a severe inujury to the QB (either ego or body).

I would +rep you if I knew how or could

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by The Meat Dragon

Would many QB's succeed in KC last year? Nope.

I think it depends on your definition of "success".

If you're defining success by wins, you're probably right. There were just far too many holes on both sides of the ball for this team to win more than 7 games.

But if you're referring to Cassel as having success, you're wrong. Cassel was clueless on the field, held onto the ball far too long, took nearly as many sacks in KC as he had in NE (47 vs. 42), has a weak arm, is afraid to make tight throws, lacks overall leadership and is clearly indecisive.

I don't know if all or even any of those characteristics can change from January 2010 to September 2010.

Cassel was a complete failure.