Clark Judge loves Matt Cassel, and so should you.

[Hammock Parties]

Cassel proving to be difference-maker in K.C.

By Clark Judge CBSSports.com Senior Writer Nov. 30, 2010

Let's get this out of the way up front and admit what we should know -- namely, that the Kansas City Chiefs made the right move when they acquired quarterback Matt Cassel.

Matt Cassel's 2010 numbers put him among the league's elite passers. (Getty Images)

They thought they were getting someone who could stabilize the most important position in the game, and they did. They thought they were getting someone who was smart, accurate and reliable, and they did. They thought they were getting someone who could win, and they did. In short, they thought they were getting a quarterback they could trust. And they did.

Matt Cassel is having the best season of his career a year after he, the Chiefs and general manager Scott Pioli took heat for Cassel's underwhelming play -- with one local columnist so outraged that he characterized Cassel as "horrible."


Um, maybe not. Cassel has the Chiefs on top of the AFC West. He's won more games (7) in 11 starts than the club won the past two seasons (6). He hasn't lost at home. He leads the league in touchdown percentage. He's second only to Tom Brady in ratio of touchdowns-to-interceptions. And he's fourth overall in passer rating, ahead of luminaries like Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan.

"Matt Cassel keeps setting the bar higher and higher," coach Todd Haley said after Kansas City's latest victory.

I'll second that. It's not just that the Chiefs continue to win under Cassel's direction; it's what Cassel's done to put them in that position, and the envelope, please: Over his last seven starts Cassel has 18 touchdown passes and one interception. Let me repeat: 18 and 1, a ratio that is better than anyone -- including Tom Brady -- over that period, and tell me that shouldn't put this guy front and center of the national spotlight.

It should. Only it hasn't. And one reason it hasn't is because there's a lingering feeling that Kansas City is overachieving and, well, that the Chiefs will eventually get caught by San Diego anyway. I don't buy into the overachieving argument, but after watching San Diego dissect Indianapolis the other night I do believe the Chargers, not the Chiefs, are the team to beat in the AFC West -- basically because the schedule falls their way in December, a month where they have won their last 18.

But that's a projection. Let's look at what we know, and what we know is that Matt Cassel is everything Pioli and the Chiefs envisioned when they acquired him. OK, so it took offensive coordinator Charlie Weis and a system with which Cassel was comfortable for him to flourish. But that happens. It took Brees four seasons before he started to feel comfortable in San Diego.

No question about it, Cassel struggled last season, but let's be honest: There were an abundance of reasons. One was the change of offensive coordinators immediately prior to the season, with Cassel forced to learn on the fly. Another was the Chiefs' mistake-prone receivers, with Kansas City two flubs away from tying an unofficial record for most drops in a year (51). Still another was the team's inability to run the ball until Jamaal Charles stepped into the huddle midway through the schedule.

Now fast forward to 2010, with Weis refining Haley's system to add a few wrinkles that Cassel might have known or practiced when he was with New England. It was there that Cassel first became a starter, stepping into the lineup for the first time in nine years when Brady was hurt in the 2008 opener. And it was there he was supposed to flop. Only he didn't, leading the Patriots to an 11-5 finish.

Surprising? Yes. But that was the guy Kansas City thought it was getting when it traded for Cassel. And that is the guy it has.

Look, I don't know that kicked in this season, but it's hard to ignore the results. What I do know is that Haley worked with Cassel on being more precise in his drops within the pocket, and Cassel has responded. I also know that having the league's top-ranked running game -- with the Chiefs shredding Seattle for 270 yards -- has helped. And I know the emergence of wide receiver Dwayne Bowe -- one of those guys who last season looked more like a backboard than a pass catcher -- has been a huge plus.

In the end, though, it comes back to Matt Cassel. The Chiefs had Larry Johnson to run the ball in 2007-08, and they couldn't win. They had Tony Gonzalez to catch it then, too, and they couldn't win. And they couldn't win because they didn't have someone, anyone, at quarterback to throw the right passes, avoid the big mistakes and make the smart decisions.
Now they do.

"I think he's an NFL starting quarterback you can win with and win championships with," Pioli said at training camp last summer. "Matt adjusted to a lot of change, showed his competitiveness, resiliency and his ability. Beyond the mental and emotional (aspect) and his competitiveness, he showed the physical ability to be able to win."

Pioli was right. Kansas City is not where it is today without Matt Cassel, and it's high time the club, its G.M., its head coach, its assistants and Matt Cassel himself are recognized for what is working with the Chiefs. And what is working is their quarterback.

Adding Matt Cassel not only was a good move; it was a necessary one. And it has the Chiefs where they haven't been in years. Good for them. Good for Pioli. And, most important, good for Matt Cassel.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Did you even read the second part of what you quoted? You are a ****in moron.

Oh so losing the rest of the games to get rid of Cassel would be cool with you if it didn't set back player development?

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Wow you are ****ing reeruned.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

One guy didn't wear a Chiefs uniform.

And boom goes the dynamite.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Oh so losing the rest of the games to get rid of Cassel would be cool with you if it didn't set back player development?

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Wow you are ****ing reeruned.

Yes is would be ok with me. As it should be with you. But if players were developing that includes Cassel.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Yes [Losing] would be ok with me. As it should be with you.

Did I mention **** YOU?

[Pants]

Originally Posted by Brock

I don't doubt you could find "a" quote.

Even if he finds a quote, it's still the wrong point he's making.

I understand why some might have wanted the Chiefs to lose.

If a team is playing a weak schedule and is winning in SPITE of the horrendous QB play, the QB will keep the job simply because the team is winning. Not only are then the wins built on a faulty foundation (weak schedule, good running game), the team is also hurting its position in the draft and thus eliminating the possibility of drafting a good QB. Then comes the next season and now the schedule is harder, we're stuck with the shitty QB who now costing the team wins and it all comes to a grinding halt. BAD.

NOW

IF the QB succeeds (plays well), then we don't need to worry about the former scenario. Nobody was hoping for Cassel to fail. NOBODY.

I hope this will help Pawntard understand the difference between people hoping the team loses and QB failing.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Did I mention **** YOU?

You're an idiot. There is nothing wrong with losing when there is progress being made.

[007]

The main point here is that Cassel isn't going anywhere. It's time everyone accepted that. I want him to do well every week. I want him to prove those of us that are not sold on him yet wrong. I want to get back to the Chiefs being a contender every year and eventually getting over that superbowl hump.

[stevieray]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Wow.

How's everyone look from way up there?

funny, 'cause you put yourself on the lower level, not me.

you're the one stealing from yourself.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Pants

Nobody was hoping for Cassel to fail. NOBODY.

I just pointed you out to someone who did hope for just that....did you not read it? Can you read?

[Pants]

Originally Posted by stevieray

funny, 'cause you put yourself on the lower level, not me.

you're the one stealing from yourself.

There's nothing wrong with being a homer, stevie. However, the term itself implies that any logic is thrown out the window. I'm not quite sure why you always show up and try to make a point in an argument - you're, literally, unable to do so because you're biased. You're like a mother who loves a crackhead sucking dick for money while the rest of the world despises and/or feels sorry for him.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

I just pointed you out to someone who did hope for just that....did you not read it? Can you read?

Yeah, I read it. I don't see where he said he wanted Cassel to fail. I see where he said he wanted the team to lose. It fits perfectly with what I outlined in my post. Why don't you go read it again , champ.

[KChiefs1]

I just keep picturing Cassel throwing to Bowe, Moeaki, McCluster & Larry Fitzgerald next year along with Charles in the backfield!

That's a real nice offense.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Pants

You're like a mother who would love a crackhead sucking dick for money while the rest of the world despised and/or felt sorry for him.

So if you had a daughter who turned out to be a prostitute and smoked crack you would stop loving her?

Interesting insight into your one dimensional soul, thank you.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by stevieray

funny, 'cause you put yourself on the lower level, not me.

you're the one stealing from yourself.

OK, Steve.

I'm sorry that you don't hold the ability to not only live and die with this team, but be able to be critical when necessary without fear of damaging your superfan rep. Most of us can do both.

But please, continue claiming that I'm "stealing from myself" if you think that makes you a better fan.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Pants

Yeah, I read it. I don't see where he said he wanted Cassel to fail.

Oh so you didn't see where he wanted cassel to lose his job?

Or you didnt realize losing a job = fail

Or are you just a ****ing douche troll?