Chiefs Michael Ash dives into Cassel v. Sanchez, and run defense - Page 5

Hammock Parties · 09-24-2009, 07:19 PM

http://kan.scout.com/2/902665.html

This week’s “quarterback controversy” seems largely contrived.

Todd Haley certainly didn’t help the cause by being so forthcoming during his Tuesday press conference, but he was only responding to the questions asked – questions that were apparently being raised because of a theory floated by former Chief Bill Maas on local Kansas City radio.

Since Haley did his best to end the discussion Thursday, let’s shift away from the topic of Matt Cassel vs. Brodie Croyle and talk about a quarterback controversy of a different sort - Cassel vs. Mark Sanchez.

With the obvious disclaimer that it’s much, much too early to draw definitive conclusions about either player, Sanchez is off to a solid start in New York – 435 passing yards, two touchdowns, a 90.1 quarterback rating .

The Jets, who finished 9-7 a year ago, are more talented than the Chiefs, haven’t protected Sanchez the way rookie quarterbacks often are. While it would be incredibly easy for the Jets to ease him in slowly, relying on their defense and running game, they came out with a Week 1 game plan that saw Sanchez throw 31 passes.

Following the 2008 season, Warpaint Illustrated featured several editorials concerning the Chiefs’ need for a quarterback. That topic wasn’t well-received by those who thought Tyler Thigpen had already proven himself worthy of the job.

Prior to the draft, even after the Chiefs had acquired Cassel from the Patriots, I wrote a column supporting the idea of the Chiefs still drafting Sanchez in case Cassel didn’t live up to expectations. After all, there’s nothing more important to a team than having a franchise quarterback. But that idea went over about as well as the notion of replacing Thigpen.

The Chiefs, of course, didn’t take Sanchez in April’s draft, and weren’t the only team to pass on him. The Rams had the draft’s second pick, and with 32 year-old Marc Bulger and former Raven Kyle Boller as their top two quarterbacks, surely there are some in St. Louis watching Sanchez and wondering, “what if?”

Likewise, the Seahawks – led by oft-injured 34 year-old Matt Hasselbeck – picked fourth and were heavily rumored to have interest in Sanchez. But it may have simply been a smoke screen, as they chose to take linebacker Aaron Curry instead. I’ve even seen it suggested that after the uninspiring play of Brady Quinn thus far, the Cleveland Browns – who allowed the Jets to move up and take Sanchez – should have a case of trader’s remorse.

Unlike the teams we just mentioned, though, the Chiefs had their minds made up well before the draft. Just after the Chiefs acquired their new quarterback, I wrote:

By trading for Cassel when the Chiefs were in position to draft a top-rated quarterback, our new general manager hasn’t wasted any time putting himself in the line of fire. . . . Pioli is telling us that Cassel is better than Tyler Thigpen. More importantly, he’s telling us that no matter how good Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez may turn out to be, Cassel will be better.

Again, we’re a long way from knowing if Sanchez will actually prove to be a top-flight quarterback. Matt Leinart looked like a can’t-miss superstar in his first outings against the Chiefs and Bears a few seasons ago. Aside from nearly leading his team to victory, he also threw two touchdown passes in the first quarter of both games, the first rookie to ever accomplish that feat in the first two starts of his career. But over the course of the season, Leinart only threw multiple touchdowns in one other game, showing that hot starts don’t always last.

We’re also an extremely long way from drawing any conclusions about Cassel. But if Sanchez continues playing the way he has, it’s going to be an interesting story to follow throughout the season and beyond.

Is Kansas City’s run defense better than we think?

As noted here a few weeks ago, Kansas City’s rush defense only surrendered an average of 3.1 yards per carry during the preseason. If it held up, a mark like that would rank the Chiefs among the league’s best run-stopping units.

Many are quick to dismiss preseason stats, and with good reason, but we can’t ignore that the stats from the 2008 preseason proved to be a sign of things to come for the Chiefs’ defense. After allowing 4.9 yards per carry during the four exhibition games, the average allowed during the regular season was 5.0 – a difference of only one-tenth of a yard.

In this year’s season opener, the Chiefs’ allowed a poor 4.8 yards-per-carry average. But as we covered last week, it was a tale of two halves. Before halftime, the Chiefs held the Ravens to 3.3 yards per carry – right in line with their preseason numbers. In the second half, things fell apart, with the average rising to 5.6.

Did the run defense get worse as the game wore on because the sputtering offense left Chiefs’ defenders on the field too long? Or did the run defense look good early because the Ravens came out passing and weren’t focused on establishing a ground game?

The answer may have been a little clearer after the matchup with Oakland.

The Raiders officially rushed for just 67 yards on the day, a drastic turnaround from the 300-yard explosion they put up in Arrowhead a year ago. Removing the sack and scrambling yardage for JaMarcus Russell, who lost three yards in total, the Chiefs allowed 70 yards on 22 rushing attempts. That’s an average of 3.1 yards per carry – a number that, again, is right in line with their preseason stats and their first half against Baltimore.

Based on that data, we could draw ever closer to the conclusion that the Chiefs actually have a legitimate run defense. That would mean the poor second half against the Ravens was indeed due to a worn-down, tired out squad.

But, once again, there’s a caveat that needs to be examined.

For reasons known only to the Raiders’ brain trust, Oakland didn’t focus on their running game throughout Sunday’s contest. Instead, they were content to repeatedly put the ball in Russell’s hands, who responded by only completing seven of his 24 pass attempts.

If you saw the Raiders’ season opener against San Diego, you saw them start off the game with a clear focus on running the ball. On their first two drives alone, they rushed for more yardage than they achieved throughout four quarters against the Chiefs.

Their bizarre strategy from Sunday makes it difficult to properly evaluate what we saw, leading to the same question we had coming out of Baltimore. Like the Ravens in the first half, if the Raiders had actually focused on running the ball during the game, would the Chiefs still have held them to such a low output? Or would they have eventually started giving up the big runs that plagued them a season ago?

It doesn’t seem like we’ll get an answer to that question until the Chiefs face a team that’s determined to get their ground game going.

But in the meantime, after the 300-yard disaster we saw last year, the Chiefs shutting down the run under any circumstance has to be a silver lining in what was otherwise a disappointing afternoon.

htismaqe · 09-25-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

The people who are thought of at the forefront of being anti this or anti that, have the same views they had months ago.

It wasn't like it was some major flip flopping move after they saw the results.

Never accused anybody of flip-flopping. Far from it. Flip-flopping might actually be refreshing - the arguments around here are pretty stale.

Furthermore, it's not flip-flopping to accept reality and move on. Nor is it flip-flopping to be happy if something works out, even if you were initially against it.

Mecca · 09-25-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Never accused anybody of flip-flopping. Far from it. Flip-flopping might actually be refreshing - the arguments around here are pretty stale.

Furthermore, it's not flip-flopping to accept reality and move on. Nor is it flip-flopping to be happy if something works out, even if you were initially against it.

I can't do that flop stuff. I didn't like Cassel before he was traded for, I can't 180 my view because he put the Arrowhead on his helmet. That just isn't how I do things and is the definition of being a homer.

Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but to go back and look at the Cassel thread where basically 9 out of 10 people didn't want him then to see the 180's done after the trade do amuse me.

htismaqe · 09-25-2009, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

I can't do that flop stuff. I didn't like Cassel before he was traded for, I can't 180 my view because he put the Arrowhead on his helmet. That just isn't how I do things and is the definition of being a homer.

Whoa.

First of all, there's a HUGE difference between saying "YEAH! Matt Cassel rules!" and saying "well, he's our QB, I'm gonna get behind him".

Second, are you saying that because you were against the trade, that if you turn out to be WRONG, you're not going to enjoy it, because that would make you a "homer"?

Sorry man, but that's just downright dumb.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

Maybe he'll prove me wrong, but to go back and look at the Cassel thread where basically 9 out of 10 people didn't want him then to see the 180's done after the trade do amuse me.

Again, I don't see alot of people here that didn't want to trade him that are now singing his praises. Far from it. But that doesn't mean we have to bitch every moment that he's here - that's a pretty miserable existence, considering he's here and we can't change that.

Mecca · 09-25-2009, 07:10 PM

I'm saying that until he proves he's good I'm going to be skeptical because I was skeptical before he was a part of the Chiefs.

You can go pull up the thread when there was a trade rumor and a good majority did not want him, then that all changed when it actually happened.

htismaqe · 09-25-2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

I'm saying that until he proves he's good I'm going to be skeptical because I was skeptical before he was a part of the Chiefs.

You can go pull up the thread when there was a trade rumor and a good majority did not want him, then that all changed when it actually happened.

Pretty much everybody here is skeptical. Not bringing it up every 5 minutes doesn't make them less skeptical than anybody else.

And yes, I could bring up such threads. They absolutely exist. The problem is that you can't distinguish concession from satisfaction.

You won't find many, if ANY, people that were anti-trade that are HAPPY that we have Cassel. You'll find almost all of them realize that we have Cassel and we can't change that, so we might as well support him.

This isn't an either/or proposition. Holding fast to a completely polarized point-of-view isn't noble or principled. It's simply stubborn.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 09-25-2009, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

If Cassel ends up as a league average QB, we get a new one and move on.

HELLO?!

Mecca · 09-25-2009, 07:16 PM

I am stubborn until the player proves my initial thought of him wrong.

htismaqe · 09-25-2009, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

HELLO?!

I know, I know. You brought this up in another thread.

It doesn't make it any less tangential.

Mecca · 09-25-2009, 07:18 PM

I would say if Cassel isn't the guy and we have to get another QB, that's a much bigger deal than oh well just get another one. **** ups on decisions like that get people fired.

htismaqe · 09-25-2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

I am stubborn until the player proves my initial thought of him wrong.

That's cool, man. I'm not going to begrudge you your opinion. I'm just hoping that maybe you'll return to the favor once in a while, and not just to me.

Sweet Daddy Hate · 09-25-2009, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I know, I know. You brought this up in another thread.

It doesn't make it any less tangential.

JesusMother****ingChrist.

htismaqe · 09-25-2009, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mecca

I would say if Cassel isn't the guy and we have to get another QB, that's a much bigger deal than oh well just get another one. **** ups on decisions like that get people fired.

So Haley gets fired.

Or Pioli.

And guess what? We hire a new GM and a new head coach.

I still don't have any control over it.

Mecca · 09-25-2009, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's cool, man. I'm not going to begrudge you your opinion. I'm just hoping that maybe you'll return to the favor once in a while, and not just to me.

Some guys do, some guy's don't, Tamba Hali never has and I went round and round about him numerous times.

Pollard never did either.

Mecca · 09-25-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So Haley gets fired.

Or Pioli.

And guess what? We hire a new GM and a new head coach.

I still don't have any control over it.

I would say Pioli since I assume that was his call, if we're here 4 years later and it hasn't panned out, I'd wave by to him for that.

htismaqe · 09-25-2009, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

JesusMother****ingChrist.

Dude, it's ok.

You wanted Sanchez and you won't let it go.

You made a statement that unequivocally said that you won't accept Cassel until he proves he's better than Sanchez.

If you want to now try to say that you weren't talking about Sanchez and instead talking about what might happen IF Cassel doesn't pan out, more power to you.

It's all right there in that thread in black and white what was being discussed.

09-24-2009, 07:19 PM
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4160478	Michael Ash dives into Cassel v. Sanchez, and run defense http://kan.scout.com/2/902665.html This week’s “quarterback controversy” seems largely contrived. Todd Haley certainly didn’t help the cause by being so forthcoming during his Tuesday press conference, but he was only responding to the questions asked – questions that were apparently being raised because of a theory floated by former Chief Bill Maas on local Kansas City radio. Since Haley did his best to end the discussion Thursday, let’s shift away from the topic of Matt Cassel vs. Brodie Croyle and talk about a quarterback controversy of a different sort - Cassel vs. Mark Sanchez. With the obvious disclaimer that it’s much, much too early to draw definitive conclusions about either player, Sanchez is off to a solid start in New York – 435 passing yards, two touchdowns, a 90.1 quarterback rating . The Jets, who finished 9-7 a year ago, are more talented than the Chiefs, haven’t protected Sanchez the way rookie quarterbacks often are. While it would be incredibly easy for the Jets to ease him in slowly, relying on their defense and running game, they came out with a Week 1 game plan that saw Sanchez throw 31 passes. Following the 2008 season, Warpaint Illustrated featured several editorials concerning the Chiefs’ need for a quarterback. That topic wasn’t well-received by those who thought Tyler Thigpen had already proven himself worthy of the job. Prior to the draft, even after the Chiefs had acquired Cassel from the Patriots, I wrote a column supporting the idea of the Chiefs still drafting Sanchez in case Cassel didn’t live up to expectations. After all, there’s nothing more important to a team than having a franchise quarterback. But that idea went over about as well as the notion of replacing Thigpen. The Chiefs, of course, didn’t take Sanchez in April’s draft, and weren’t the only team to pass on him. The Rams had the draft’s second pick, and with 32 year-old Marc Bulger and former Raven Kyle Boller as their top two quarterbacks, surely there are some in St. Louis watching Sanchez and wondering, “what if?” Likewise, the Seahawks – led by oft-injured 34 year-old Matt Hasselbeck – picked fourth and were heavily rumored to have interest in Sanchez. But it may have simply been a smoke screen, as they chose to take linebacker Aaron Curry instead. I’ve even seen it suggested that after the uninspiring play of Brady Quinn thus far, the Cleveland Browns – who allowed the Jets to move up and take Sanchez – should have a case of trader’s remorse. Unlike the teams we just mentioned, though, the Chiefs had their minds made up well before the draft. Just after the Chiefs acquired their new quarterback, I wrote: By trading for Cassel when the Chiefs were in position to draft a top-rated quarterback, our new general manager hasn’t wasted any time putting himself in the line of fire. . . . Pioli is telling us that Cassel is better than Tyler Thigpen. More importantly, he’s telling us that no matter how good Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez may turn out to be, Cassel will be better. Again, we’re a long way from knowing if Sanchez will actually prove to be a top-flight quarterback. Matt Leinart looked like a can’t-miss superstar in his first outings against the Chiefs and Bears a few seasons ago. Aside from nearly leading his team to victory, he also threw two touchdown passes in the first quarter of both games, the first rookie to ever accomplish that feat in the first two starts of his career. But over the course of the season, Leinart only threw multiple touchdowns in one other game, showing that hot starts don’t always last. We’re also an extremely long way from drawing any conclusions about Cassel. But if Sanchez continues playing the way he has, it’s going to be an interesting story to follow throughout the season and beyond. Is Kansas City’s run defense better than we think? As noted here a few weeks ago, Kansas City’s rush defense only surrendered an average of 3.1 yards per carry during the preseason. If it held up, a mark like that would rank the Chiefs among the league’s best run-stopping units. Many are quick to dismiss preseason stats, and with good reason, but we can’t ignore that the stats from the 2008 preseason proved to be a sign of things to come for the Chiefs’ defense. After allowing 4.9 yards per carry during the four exhibition games, the average allowed during the regular season was 5.0 – a difference of only one-tenth of a yard. In this year’s season opener, the Chiefs’ allowed a poor 4.8 yards-per-carry average. But as we covered last week, it was a tale of two halves. Before halftime, the Chiefs held the Ravens to 3.3 yards per carry – right in line with their preseason numbers. In the second half, things fell apart, with the average rising to 5.6. Did the run defense get worse as the game wore on because the sputtering offense left Chiefs’ defenders on the field too long? Or did the run defense look good early because the Ravens came out passing and weren’t focused on establishing a ground game? The answer may have been a little clearer after the matchup with Oakland. The Raiders officially rushed for just 67 yards on the day, a drastic turnaround from the 300-yard explosion they put up in Arrowhead a year ago. Removing the sack and scrambling yardage for JaMarcus Russell, who lost three yards in total, the Chiefs allowed 70 yards on 22 rushing attempts. That’s an average of 3.1 yards per carry – a number that, again, is right in line with their preseason stats and their first half against Baltimore. Based on that data, we could draw ever closer to the conclusion that the Chiefs actually have a legitimate run defense. That would mean the poor second half against the Ravens was indeed due to a worn-down, tired out squad. But, once again, there’s a caveat that needs to be examined. For reasons known only to the Raiders’ brain trust, Oakland didn’t focus on their running game throughout Sunday’s contest. Instead, they were content to repeatedly put the ball in Russell’s hands, who responded by only completing seven of his 24 pass attempts. If you saw the Raiders’ season opener against San Diego, you saw them start off the game with a clear focus on running the ball. On their first two drives alone, they rushed for more yardage than they achieved throughout four quarters against the Chiefs. Their bizarre strategy from Sunday makes it difficult to properly evaluate what we saw, leading to the same question we had coming out of Baltimore. Like the Ravens in the first half, if the Raiders had actually focused on running the ball during the game, would the Chiefs still have held them to such a low output? Or would they have eventually started giving up the big runs that plagued them a season ago? It doesn’t seem like we’ll get an answer to that question until the Chiefs face a team that’s determined to get their ground game going. But in the meantime, after the 300-yard disaster we saw last year, the Chiefs shutting down the run under any circumstance has to be a silver lining in what was otherwise a disappointing afternoon.
Posts: 279,742

09-25-2009, 07:10 PM	#64
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $2087050	I'm saying that until he proves he's good I'm going to be skeptical because I was skeptical before he was a part of the Chiefs. You can go pull up the thread when there was a trade rumor and a good majority did not want him, then that all changed when it actually happened.
Posts: 111,280

09-25-2009, 07:16 PM	#67
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $2087050	I am stubborn until the player proves my initial thought of him wrong.
Posts: 111,280

09-25-2009, 07:18 PM	#69
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $2087050	I would say if Cassel isn't the guy and we have to get another QB, that's a much bigger deal than oh well just get another one. **** ups on decisions like that get people fired.
Posts: 111,280