If Cassel is starting Week 1..............

[notorious]

If Cassel is the starting QB for the KC Chiefs week 1 of the 2012 season.............




Poll to follow.

[Chiefnj2]

You'll know well before week 1 what is going to happen.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

I don't understand this line of reasoning. By analogy, if you really loved Mel Gibson's movies before he started slurring Jooz and beating girlfriends, you'd still be supporting him today regardless of your reaction to said developments.

With Cassel at the helm, I feel sorry for his teammates, and root for the organization to pull its head out of its ass. But I don't give a flying **** if they win or lose, or what the rest of the NFL fanbase thinks of them.

Poor analogy. The Cassel decision, while stupid, is not morally repugnant.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

You'll know well before week 1 what is going to happen.

The first sign: CP server vaporizes.

[Deberg_1990]

If hes the starter week 1, ill still be a fan, but wont invest any money into the team, or follow them much.

Starting Cassel is ultimately a dead end. Im not willing to invest much time into a dead end affair.

[DaWolf]

Well I sure as hell won't be rooting for them to lose...

[007]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

If hes the starter week 1, ill still be a fan, but wont invest any money into the team, or follow them much.

Starting Cassel is ultimately a dead end. Im not willing to invest much time into a dead end affair.

I'll still watch. It's like driving past a bad accident on the road. You just have to see how bad it was.

[Bugeater]

#2, but without the "support". No way in hell will I spend the time and money on seeing that POS play in person again.

[notorious]

Damnit, is there any way to edit a poll?


I want to take out "support" from the second option.

[DTHOF]

I am a big Sirius NFL Radio listener and every time someone calls in bitching about Cassell the host, no matter who it is, craps on the person for saying so. What is it that people who don't have to endure Cassell every week sees that we don't?

The biggest problem with him that I see is no pocket presence. Instead of sidestepping the rush he goes to the fetal position.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by whoman69

Poor analogy. The Cassel decision, while stupid, is not morally repugnant.

Moral repugnance is not the only version of repugnance in the world.

Truth is, I'd love nothing more than for a light to turn on with Cassel. His work ethic and self-assurance are admirable traits.

And nothing would vindicate my football opinions, established here through over a decade of discourse, more than having the D and running game lead us to the SB while Cassel 'manages the game.' But even a game manager cannot be a liability. And Cassel is a liability. His downfield game doesn't push the secondary back off the line. His dump-offs in the flat leave me breathless expecting receivers adjusting to his wayward throw to literally disintegrate when teed off on by waiting LBs. He's so simple to defend that Emmit Smith behind the 2003 Chiefs O-Line would look like 2009 Larry Johnson.

His level of play and the FOs apparent [for now] blindness to it, are repugnant to how I like to see football played.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by notorious

If Cassel is the starting QB for the KC Chiefs week 1 of the 2012 season.............

...Pioli should be fired.

[rico]

I will watch while simultaneously mocking the front office. When the games are over I will be lurking on these boards reading primarily "Stanzi" threads.

[whoman69]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Moral repugnance is not the only version of repugnance in the world.

Truth is, I'd love nothing more than for a light to turn on with Cassel. His work ethic and self-assurance are admirable traits.

And nothing would vindicate my football opinions, established here through over a decade of discourse, more than having the D and running game lead us to the SB while Cassel 'manages the game.' But even a game manager cannot be a liability. And Cassel is a liability. His downfield game doesn't push the secondary back off the line. His dump-offs in the flat leave me breathless expecting receivers adjusting to his wayward throw to literally disintegrate when teed off on by waiting LBs. He's so simple to defend that Emmit Smith behind the 2003 Chiefs O-Line would look like 2009 Larry Johnson.

His level of play and the FOs apparent [for now] blindness to it, are repugnant to how I like to see football played.

True, but that still leaves him behind Mel Gibson. Rascism and battery still trump bad football decisions. I'm not here to bury Matt Cassel, but I wish I could.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by DTHOF

I am a big Sirius NFL Radio listener and every time someone calls in bitching about Cassell the host, no matter who it is, craps on the person for saying so. What is it that people who don't have to endure Cassell every week sees that we don't?

The biggest problem with him that I see is no pocket presence. Instead of sidestepping the rush he goes to the fetal position.

Colin Cowherd is the only radio guy I listen to that gets it.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by whoman69

True, but that still leaves him behind Mel Gibson. Rascism and battery still trump bad football decisions. I'm not here to bury Matt Cassel, but I wish I could.

One profitable use of analogy is to make the comparison more defined and stark by comparing the operant scenario to another that contains a more emotion or clear-cut choice. This removes or tempers the ambiguity or sanguinity of the operant scenario.

ie "I could never envision withdrawing support for a team over its present trajectory"

"No? Could you envision withdrawing support for an actor if he turns out to be a repugnant human being"

"Well, yeah"

"Well, picture that, only replace that level of disappointment in the actor with disappointment in the team."