How do you feel now about Sanchez and Freeman at QB?

[Deberg_1990]

Suppose the Chiefs would have drafted either of these guys instead of aquiring Cassel. Would they have a better record right now? Are Sanchez or Freeman truly the type of "transcendent" QB talent to will a team to victory? They are probably better than Cassel, but "how much" better?

[jd1020]

Freeman would be nice to have but neither QB is playing lights out this year. Freeman is like top 12-15. Sanchez is top 15-20. Cassel is bottom 3. None really blow me away like WOW! We really ****ed that up.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

The Jets did, sure. The Chiefs would not have.

Now if you get to bring the entire Jets roster with him, maybe that equation changes.

The Chiefs had talent enough to win that game, quit making excuses.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Brock

The Chiefs had talent enough to win that game, quit making excuses.

Making excuses for who? Sanchez to this point is basically Cassel 2.0, in terms of numbers. I think the outcome would have been the same because there wouldn't have been any meaningful difference in quarterback play. Now if we're talking Tom Brady instead of Cassel, this is a different discussion. But we're talking Sanchez.

To take it a step further, I'm actually not sure the Chiefs would have even made the playoffs with Sanchez at quarterback, because as bad as Cassel has been during the regular season, he's been worse. The only way they (meaning the Jets) have even gotten in at all was because the defense has been strong enough to carry the team during the regular season, which has not so far been the case here.

That's the way I see it at least.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Making excuses for who? Sanchez to this point is basically Cassel 2.0, in terms of numbers. I think the outcome would have been the same because there wouldn't have been any meaningful difference in quarterback play. Now if we're talking Tom Brady instead of Cassel, this is a different discussion. But we're talking Sanchez.

To take it a step further, I'm actually not sure the Chiefs would have even made the playoffs with Sanchez at quarterback, because as bad as Cassel has been during the regular season, he's been worse. The only way they (meaning the Jets) have even gotten in at all was because the defense has been strong enough to carry the team during the regular season, which has not so far been the case here.

There is a difference in QB play from Sanchez to Cassel, though. They both run a similar offense but only one has been proven to lead a game winning drive and win playoff games.

[suds79]

It's hard to say we should have drafted Freeman because when you're at #3 you can't take a mid first round guy. (even though you could argue they did)

Hindsight being 20/20? If there was one guy I wish they would have taken? Yeah they would be much, much better with Josh.

... or at least Raji. At least he was in the running for one of those top picks when he was coming out.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by jd1020

There is a difference in QB play from Sanchez to Cassel, though. They both run a similar offense but only one has been proven to lead a game winning drive and win playoff games.

KC barely made the playoffs with Cassel's TD to INT ratio. You think they make it in with Sanchez's numbers?

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

KC barely made the playoffs with Cassel's TD to INT ratio. You think they make it in with Sanchez's numbers?

Sanchez isn't as limited in NY as Cassel is in KC. If KC plays the same role with Sanchez, yes they make the playoffs. They may even win a game or two more (Oakland OT).

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

KC barely made the playoffs with Cassel's TD to INT ratio. You think they make it in with Sanchez's numbers?

Heck, even with a top notch running game, O-line, recievers, and Defense the Jets needed a few breaks to squeak in the last couple of years.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by PGM

Heck, even with a top notch running game, O-line, recievers, and Defense the Jets needed a few breaks to squeak in the last couple of years.

They also play in a division where 10-6 doesn't quite cut it.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by jd1020

There is a difference in QB play from Sanchez to Cassel, though. They both run a similar offense but only one has been proven to lead a game winning drive and win playoff games.

Let me paint the picture in a little more detail:

The Chiefs during Sanchez's rookie season were 4-12. I don't believe there's any way that team makes the playoffs with Sanchez at QB, even if he plays significantly better during the regular season than he did with the Jets. They would have had to improve by at least 5 games to have a shot at the playoffs. So you throw out the Wild Card game against the Bengals and the Division game against the Chargers, as well as the AFC championship loss against the Colts, which was I thought actually his best half of ball that year. They simply don't exist. They wouldn't have happened.

Right there you already have a drastic change in at least the perception of Sanchez, because he doesn't have any rookie playoff wins, much less any good halves in the postseason to point at as signs of hope. All you have, assuming everything is exactly the same as it was in New York (wouldn't be obviously, but for the sake of argument...) is a rookie quarterback that completed 54% of his passes and threw 20 picks against 12 TDs on a 4-12 team.

What happens in 2010? I don't know. But again, his regular season numbers are essentially equivalent to Cassel's in all but one regard, that being he threw 17 TDs against 13 picks, as opposed to 27 TD and 7 INT. Percentage, yardage, it's close enough to I think call it a wash. Do they win 10 games with him? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. It only takes one loss to knock them out.

But let's say that they do. Why would there really be any reason to think the outcome would be different with Sanchez behind center than Cassel. Again, we're talking about Sanchez in his first playoff game, and not his fourth. We're talking about a starting QB that's still lost more games than he'd won, without showing that flicker of hope that the prior year's playoff games showed. Maybe I'm being too harsh on the guy, but I doubt he lifts the team to any kind of win. This isn't the 2009 Bengals we're talking about here, it's the Ravens. He's going to have to throw more than 15 passes.

Just the way I see it.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Let me paint the picture in a little more detail:

The Chiefs during Sanchez's rookie season were 4-12. I don't believe there's any way that team makes the playoffs with Sanchez at QB, even if he plays significantly better during the regular season than he did with the Jets. They would have had to improve by at least 5 games to have a shot at the playoffs. So you throw out the Wild Card game against the Bengals and the Division game against the Chargers, as well as the AFC championship loss against the Colts, which was I thought actually his best half of ball that year. They simply don't exist. They wouldn't have happened.

Right there you already have a drastic change in at least the perception of Sanchez, because he doesn't have any rookie playoff wins, much less any good halves in the postseason to point at as signs of hope. All you have, assuming everything is exactly the same as it was in New York (wouldn't be obviously, but for the sake of argument...) is a rookie quarterback that completed 54% of his passes and threw 20 picks against 12 TDs on a 4-12 team.

What happens in 2010? I don't know. But again, his regular season numbers are essentially equivalent to Cassel's in all but one regard, that being he threw 17 TDs against 13 picks, as opposed to 27 TD and 7 INT. Percentage, yardage, it's close enough to I think call it a wash. Do they win 10 games with him? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. It only takes one loss to knock them out.

But let's say that they do. Why would there really be any reason to think the outcome would be different with Sanchez behind center than Cassel. Again, we're talking about Sanchez in his first playoff game, and not his fourth. We're talking about a starting QB that's still lost more games than he'd won, without showing that flicker of hope that the prior year's playoff games showed. Maybe I'm being too harsh on the guy, but I doubt he lifts the team to any kind of win. This isn't the 2009 Bengals we're talking about here, it's the Ravens. He's going to have to throw more than 15 passes.

Just the way I see it.

The way I see it is that you are trying to put Sanchez directly in Cassels shoes, which if ****ing stupid.

[Chiefnj2]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Sanchez isn't as limited in NY as Cassel is in KC. If KC plays the same role with Sanchez, yes they make the playoffs. They may even win a game or two more (Oakland OT).

He isn't limited in NY??? Go online and read NY paper. People complain all the time that he's on a leash.

Plus, you are talking about 60 less points and 5 more INT's for Sanchez, if you use his numbers in 2010.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

He isn't limited in NY??? Go online and read NY paper. People complain all the time that he's on a leash.

Plus, you are talking about 60 less points and 5 more INT's for Sanchez, if you use his numbers in 2010.

Which QB do you think throws more passes behind the LoS? Cassel has the shortest and tightest leash in the league because if you give it any slack he goes full reerun.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by jd1020

The way I see it is that you are trying to put Sanchez directly in Cassels shoes, which if ****ing stupid.

Then by all means please educate me. Simply saying something is stupid doesn't do a whole lot to further a discussion.

And you can essentially throw Cassel completely out of the discussion, at least for 2009. I'm simply talking about Sanchez on his own merits. Explain to me why Sanchez in Kansas City in 2009 would have been a better quarterback than Sanchez in New York was the same year, during the regular season. Or how Sanchez in 2009 would have turned a 4-12 Chiefs squad into at the very least a 9-7 team. Because that's what it would have taken to get the team into the playoffs, and for the equivalent of his playoff performances that year with the Jets to even happen.

Then please feel free to go into what his impact on the 2010 regular season would have been, and then the 2010 playoffs. I'm certainly all ears. And I probably won't call anything you say stupid.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Then by all means please educate me. Simply saying something is stupid doesn't do a whole lot to further a discussion.

And you can essentially throw Cassel completely out of the discussion, at least for 2009. I'm simply talking about Sanchez on his own merits. Explain to me why Sanchez in Kansas City in 2009 would have been a better quarterback than Sanchez in New York was the same year. Or how Sanchez in 2009 would have turned a 4-12 Chiefs squad into at the very least a 9-7 team. Because that's what it would have taken to get the team into the playoffs, and for the equivalent of his playoff performances that year with the Jets to happen.

Then please feel free to go into what his impact on the 2010 regular season would have been, and then the 2010 playoffs. I'm certainly all ears. And I probably won't call anything you say stupid.

Sanchez is a better QB, however slight it may be, to say that they aren't in the same situation and somewhat better is reeruned. Just like this argument.

Everyone on this forum is saying we need a better QB to be better but if we had Sanchez (a better QB than Cassel) we might not make the playoffs last year because he only threw for 17 TD's and 13 INT's on a different ****ing team.