PDA

View Full Version : OK its official, Cassel F***in sucks!!



Slacker6000
09-19-2010, 03:39 PM
We have no offense at all, this sucks.

Hayvern
09-19-2010, 04:24 PM
I am starting to get on the anti-Cassel bandwagon. Today's game is completely on him and his lack of getting rid of the ball.

They have to be able to convert on 3rd down. This is getting old.

bwilliams
09-19-2010, 04:29 PM
I am starting to get on the anti-Cassel bandwagon. Today's game is completely on him and his lack of getting rid of the ball.

They have to be able to convert on 3rd down. This is getting old.

I was a believer all through last season and this offseason. I made excuses for him. But neither the Chargers nor the Browns are exactly top-10 defenses. And Cassel still looks awful.

hometeam
09-19-2010, 04:54 PM
I would just like to say I called this BEFORE the trade :P

Pro_Angler
09-19-2010, 05:17 PM
I have said this since day one we got him.. and ive gotten nothing but critisism!!!

matthewschiefs
09-19-2010, 05:27 PM
He looked Horrible the 1st half. And he didn't look great the 2nd half. I just hope that if we are going to stay with him as our starter this is just him getting used to Weiss. But I now have myself halfway on the anti Cassel bandwagon.

brdempsey69
09-19-2010, 05:39 PM
Cassel has got to pick it up. The Chiefs can't go through the rest of the season like this.

Chief Tyler
09-19-2010, 05:40 PM
He looked Horrible the 1st half. And he didn't look great the 2nd half. I just hope that if we are going to stay with him as our starter this is just him getting used to Weiss. But I now have myself halfway on the anti Cassel bandwagon.

That was quick. Now it's time to get on the Anti-Haley bandwagon!

I have a hard time believing that Weis is the one keeping our best player away from the ball. Charles has 11 caries vs. 22 from Jones? From my view and that of the average fan it looks pretty apparent that best chance of success = allowing best players the chance to be successful.

Back on topic.

Bring on Brody.

DMN
09-19-2010, 05:41 PM
I hate to say it but I agree. watched play after play with him having all day to do something with the ball and he did nothing. This performance in no way has anything to do with the o line or weather. and his arm strength is atrocious.

Bottom line if we can't figure out a passing game this 2-0 start will be soon forgotten.

Drunker Hillbilly
09-19-2010, 05:47 PM
Did they win?

Chief Tyler
09-19-2010, 05:47 PM
Cassel has got to pick it up. The Chiefs can't go through the rest of the season like this.

He's not capable of picking it up. The only thing he's capable of is looking disappointed in himself, telling the camera that he needs to be better and then not actually getting any better. He went to a school that is good at making their QB's looking better than they really are and he didn't even get to start playing behind somebody who is well on his way to an early exit from the league. Everybody praises his intangibles, but you can't lead forever when you're so f***ing incompetent and you can't rely on special teams to carry you into the playoffs, let alone a winning season. It feels good to be 2-0, but as long as Cassel is under center a 2009 Denver-like meltdown is just one Cassel touch away.

brdempsey69
09-19-2010, 05:52 PM
He's not capable of picking it up. The only thing he's capable of is looking disappointed in himself, telling the camera that he needs to be better and then not actually getting any better. He went to a school that is good at making their QB's looking better than they really are and he didn't even get to start playing behind somebody who is well on his way to an early exit from the league. Everybody praises his intangibles, but you can't lead forever when you're so f***ing incompetent and you can't rely on special teams to carry you into the playoffs, let alone a winning season. It feels good to be 2-0, but as long as Cassel is under center a 2009 Denver-like meltdown is just one Cassel touch away.

I agree. USC QB's are failing miserably in 2010.

matthewschiefs
09-19-2010, 06:00 PM
That was quick. Now it's time to get on the Anti-Haley bandwagon!

I have a hard time believing that Weis is the one keeping our best player away from the ball. Charles has 11 caries vs. 22 from Jones? From my view and that of the average fan it looks pretty apparent that best chance of success = allowing best players the chance to be successful.

Back on topic.

Bring on Brody.

I am even more on the Pro Haley bandwagon. The fact is we are 2-0 for the first time in a LONG time. I don't think that there is any reason to be anti haley with starting 2-0.

Pro_Angler
09-19-2010, 06:01 PM
Yea haley has alot more to do with the 2-0 start then cassell.. Either Weis is way over rated or cassell is..wich is it?? i think a bit of both.

tammietailgator
09-19-2010, 06:02 PM
I am even more on the Pro Haley bandwagon. The fact is we are 2-0 for the first time in a LONG time. I don't think that there is any reason to be anti haley with starting 2-0.

Pro Haley yes indeed!

:chiefs:

brish
09-19-2010, 06:02 PM
I hate to say it but I agree. watched play after play with him having all day to do something with the ball and he did nothing. This performance in no way has anything to do with the o line or weather. and his arm strength is atrocious.

Bottom line if we can't figure out a passing game this 2-0 start will be soon forgotten.

Im assumin you are watching the game on tv like me.. Most of the time we can't see the receivers, so I find it hard to judge whether or not there is someone open downfield.
But I can tell you this, Dex was blanketed all game long, so that is one receiver you can take out of the equation.

I will say this though, Cassel does need to get better, alot better, but it is not all on him..

Edit: Agree with your bottom line.. This passing game needs to be rethinked somehow.. You can't have a guy like McCluster on the field, and not be able to get him the ball!

tammietailgator
09-19-2010, 06:04 PM
Bring on Brody.

He scares me... he is made of glass! Too fragile.

honda522
09-19-2010, 06:17 PM
I am still wanting blame on the play calling and the offensive line. It still is riduculus and this thread is too. Everyweek there is a thread like this and we talk about this in game day threads anyways. Why not keep it all one place.

captainamerica
09-19-2010, 06:39 PM
He scares me... he is made of glass! Too fragile.
Yeah, but we really have nothing to lose by starting him. If he gets hurt, than oh well. That just puts us right back to where we started, with Cassel. Brodie is the better QB and he gives us the better chance to win. He's more mobile, he has a much quicker release and he has the better arm. I think we should give Croyle a chance.

kcvet
09-19-2010, 06:39 PM
still they win without an O TD. go figure. and the Browns suck

brish
09-19-2010, 06:42 PM
Yeah, but we really have nothing to lose by starting him. If he gets hurt, than oh well. That just puts us right back to where we started, with Cassel. Brodie is the better QB and he gives us the better chance to win. He's more mobile, he has a much quicker release and he has the better arm. I think we should give Croyle a chance.

More mobile?!! :lol:

captainamerica
09-19-2010, 06:45 PM
I am still wanting blame on the play calling and the offensive line. It still is riduculus and this thread is too. Everyweek there is a thread like this and we talk about this in game day threads anyways. Why not keep it all one place.
How can you constantly scapegoat the offensive line when it's beyond apparent that Cassel is holding onto the ball for way too long. Fans on here did the same thing last year, game after game. It's not the O-line's fault that Cassel can't get rid of the ball quickly enough. They can't block for ever. Look at the Pats O-line. They had one of the best o-lines in the game and Cassel was still the most sacked QB in the league.

You can't keep blaming Cassel's shortcomings on the offensive line. I think the o-line has actually played pretty well lately. They looked very good in the running game today and they gave Cassel enough time to make plays. I think the o-line deserves some credit, not some criticism.

tornadospotter
09-19-2010, 06:46 PM
Did they win?
No, We won, but we would and could of played better, Cassel must get better, even the talking heads are now commenting on how many tipped or knocked down passes, he has. This is a problem, must be fixed!

captainamerica
09-19-2010, 06:46 PM
More mobile?!! :lol:
Yeah, he's more mobile in the pocket. Cassel usually just stands there. Cassel may have more speed perhaps, but I'd say Brodie is more mobile.

Pro_Angler
09-19-2010, 06:47 PM
How can you constantly scapegoat the offensive line when it's beyond apparent that Cassel is holding onto the ball for way too long. Fans on here did the same thing last year, game after game. It's not the O-line's fault that Cassel can't get rid of the ball quickly enough. They can't block for ever. Look at the Pats O-line. They had one of the best o-lines in the game and Cassel was still the most sacked QB in the league.

You can't keep blaming Cassel's shortcomings on the offensive line. I think the o-line has actually played pretty well lately. They looked very good in the running game today and they gave Cassel enough time to make plays. I think the o-line deserves some credit, not some criticism.

Totally agreed.. aside from a few nice blitz packages the o-line has been darn good.

honda522
09-19-2010, 06:59 PM
still they win without an O TD. go figure. and the Browns suck
So JC's 56 yard td run doesnt count.

kcvet
09-19-2010, 07:07 PM
So JC's 56 yard td run doesnt count.

TD run??? you mean Flower's TD. that's all we scored.

Pro_Angler
09-19-2010, 07:11 PM
yea flowers scored the TD today on the INT. And Berry gave up another one..

loyalchief91
09-19-2010, 07:18 PM
Berry's gotta get better. We aren't paying him to get beat deep every game.

Pro_Angler
09-19-2010, 07:22 PM
berry has gave up 3 td's in 2 games. I dont care if he was tied with 7 tackles for the most today with DJ.

Seek
09-19-2010, 07:34 PM
That was quick. Now it's time to get on the Anti-Haley bandwagon!

I have a hard time believing that Weis is the one keeping our best player away from the ball. Charles has 11 caries vs. 22 from Jones? From my view and that of the average fan it looks pretty apparent that best chance of success = allowing best players the chance to be successful.

Back on topic.

Bring on Brody.

From my point of view, Thomas was the better RB this game, and I was glad they started feeding them ball. The Browns were focused on Charles.

brdempsey69
09-19-2010, 07:35 PM
berry has gave up 3 td's in 2 games. I dont care if he was tied with 7 tackles for the most today with DJ.

I'm willing to spot Berry the short one that Gates caught, but those two long ones are inexcusable as Berry's job was to protect the deep zone each time and he wasn't where he was supposed to be.

Hayvern
09-19-2010, 07:35 PM
I am still wanting blame on the play calling and the offensive line. It still is riduculus and this thread is too. Everyweek there is a thread like this and we talk about this in game day threads anyways. Why not keep it all one place.

The offensive line could have done better on the run blocking, but they could not have been asked to do anything more on the pass protection.

I am the first one to complain about the offensive line when the offensive line screws up, but this game was not on the offensive line.

Yeah, there was a couple of passes that should have been caught, but even that part of the game was not the problem today. No Cassell has to work on hitting the open man when he has a chance and getting rid of the ball faster.

matthewschiefs
09-19-2010, 07:37 PM
berry has gave up 3 td's in 2 games. I dont care if he was tied with 7 tackles for the most today with DJ.


He's a rookie he is going to make mistakes but hes got to stop giveing up tds.

#58ChiefsFan
09-19-2010, 07:42 PM
berry has gave up 3 td's in 2 games. I dont care if he was tied with 7 tackles for the most today with DJ.

The other 10 guys on the field gave up those three TD's as well, Berry just gets the blame. Same as Cassel.

Relax people Berry is a rookie, played 2 games and will be targeted because of that. Believe it or not SD and CLE are both professional teams and experience always wins.

Cassel has only been working with Weis for a few months. We are not the Patriots, but Charlie has a proven record of developing QB's.

Pioli I guarantee you has a QB in mind if this season does not meet expectations.

Congrats to the Chiefs ALL of them for the win today!:chiefs:

KCINNYC
09-19-2010, 07:50 PM
We have no offense at all, this sucks.

A) I HATE fans like you.
B) We WON the game.
C) Cassel looked good 2nd half, and made crucial 3rd down conversions.
D) Save your negative B.S. until Wednesday, its "F***in (g)" Sunday.
E) Welcome to Chiefs Crowd. This being your 6th post EVER, let me tell you something, threads that start with a misspelled curse word suck, especially on game day.
F) Fans like you complain when we win it wasn't by enough points, which makes you not a fan, just a chronic complainer. I assume your life is full of failure.
G) I hate fans like you.
H) Chiefs are 2-0 and in 1st place.
I) I am not wasting another breath on worrying about crappy fans like you.

Chief Tyler
09-19-2010, 07:58 PM
From my point of view, Thomas was the better RB this game, and I was glad they started feeding them ball. The Browns were focused on Charles.

I had a soccer game all afternoon, so I've only seen stats with a few highlights. I might change my mind when I catch it on NFL network this week, but still...If Charles is going to have to carry this offense, it's hard to do it with 11 touches, a grinder like Jones is only as effective as the rest of his team, which shows in his YPC this carry.

brdempsey69
09-19-2010, 08:00 PM
Shut my mouth about USC QB's. Sanchez is carving up NE.

GlennBree
09-19-2010, 08:05 PM
A) I HATE fans like you.
B) We WON the game.
C) Cassel looked good 2nd half, and made crucial 3rd down conversions.
D) Save your negative B.S. until Wednesday, its "F***in (g)" Sunday.
E) Welcome to Chiefs Crowd. This being your 6th post EVER, let me tell you something, threads that start with a misspelled curse word suck, especially on game day.
F) Fans like you complain when we win it wasn't by enough points, which makes you not a fan, just a chronic complainer. I assume your life is full of failure.
G) I hate fans like you.
H) Chiefs are 2-0 and in 1st place.
I) I am not wasting another breath on worrying about crappy fans like you.

WORD!!! :ninerssuck:

josh1971
09-19-2010, 08:10 PM
A) I HATE fans like you.
B) We WON the game.
C) Cassel looked good 2nd half, and made crucial 3rd down conversions.
D) Save your negative B.S. until Wednesday, its "F***in (g)" Sunday.
E) Welcome to Chiefs Crowd. This being your 6th post EVER, let me tell you something, threads that start with a misspelled curse word suck, especially on game day.
F) Fans like you complain when we win it wasn't by enough points, which makes you not a fan, just a chronic complainer. I assume your life is full of failure.
G) I hate fans like you.
H) Chiefs are 2-0 and in 1st place.
I) I am not wasting another breath on worrying about crappy fans like you.


Troof. Preach on... :bananen_smilies046:

tammietailgator
09-19-2010, 08:17 PM
A) I HATE fans like you.
B) We WON the game.
C) Cassel looked good 2nd half, and made crucial 3rd down conversions.
D) Save your negative B.S. until Wednesday, its "F***in (g)" Sunday.
E) Welcome to Chiefs Crowd. This being your 6th post EVER, let me tell you something, threads that start with a misspelled curse word suck, especially on game day.
F) Fans like you complain when we win it wasn't by enough points, which makes you not a fan, just a chronic complainer. I assume your life is full of failure.
G) I hate fans like you.
H) Chiefs are 2-0 and in 1st place.
I) I am not wasting another breath on worrying about crappy fans like you.

I <3 Fans like you!!! :bananen_smilies046:

DieHardFan
09-19-2010, 08:48 PM
You got to love it! Cassel sucks it up again and it is the fans! I could not be happier to have 2 wins now. The defense is showing they are the real thing. The special teams are going to be the envy of other teams. The offense is a JOKE. You can blame the line all you want....no line in the NFL

DieHardFan
09-19-2010, 08:50 PM
You got to love it! Cassel sucks it up again and it is the fans! I could not be happier to have 2 wins now. The defense is showing they are the real thing. The special teams are going to be the envy of other teams. The offense is a JOKE. You can blame the line all you want....no line in the NFL can protect the quarterback that long on EVERY play

Slacker6000
09-19-2010, 10:55 PM
A) I HATE fans like you.
B) We WON the game.
C) Cassel looked good 2nd half, and made crucial 3rd down conversions.
D) Save your negative B.S. until Wednesday, its "F***in (g)" Sunday.
E) Welcome to Chiefs Crowd. This being your 6th post EVER, let me tell you something, threads that start with a misspelled curse word suck, especially on game day.
F) Fans like you complain when we win it wasn't by enough points, which makes you not a fan, just a chronic complainer. I assume your life is full of failure.
G) I hate fans like you.
H) Chiefs are 2-0 and in 1st place.
I) I am not wasting another breath on worrying about crappy fans like you.



Uhh yeah, we are 2-0 but does it really feel like it? I dont feel like they are 2-0 the way they've played offense this year it seems like luck. How many 3 and outs will it take for you to think he sucks? I also posted this topic right after his 2nd interception when we were losing.

Pro_Angler
09-19-2010, 11:06 PM
yea it doesnt feel like 2-0 since we arent scoring or moving the ball on offense. Non the less we are 2-0 and its great. we cannot slow down everyone in our division and besided the raiders (which also looked better then us) scored mucho pts on offense.

wildcat
09-19-2010, 11:22 PM
Cassel has not performed up to expectations thus far. That is plain and simple. However, give Weiss some time. This was only his second game calling plays for our offense. It takes a while to figure out how to best utilize the offense. It took Gailey half a season two years ago to figure out how to make our offense respectable. It took Haley a while last year. Give Weiss more than two games.

And by the way, we are 2-0 with a home game against San Fran next Sunday! Keep your heads up Chiefs fans!

chief31
09-19-2010, 11:25 PM
I am THRILLED with the end results thus far.

Atop our division at 2-0 having defeated our divional champ of the past few years and one game on the road is very satistfying.

I fully expected it to make more than two games to get Cassel comfortable with the quick passing game. Truth be told, I will be amazed if he ever does.

While I love Thomas Jones, I would like to see Charles getting more carries than Jones.

Charles was the most effective HB in The NFL when he was starting last season. He was barely noticable when he was an afterthought to Larry Johnson.

Hard not to prefer having the most effective HB in The NFL.

But the most impressive thing about this team has to be the turnaround of our defense.

Far from perfect, they are still just amazingly better than in recent years. (At least so far.)

Overall, I still see where there are some huge problems with the team. And I understand the concerns about Cassel especially.

BUt I will give it more than two games (Wins, mind you) to go calling for his head.

Changing from a "sit in the pocket and wait for something" guy to "snap the ball and go, go, go" guy is likely going to be a slow process.

matthewschiefs
09-19-2010, 11:26 PM
Cassel has not performed up to expectations thus far. That is plain and simple. However, give Weiss some time. This was only his second game calling plays for our offense. It takes a while to figure out how to best utilize the offense. It took Gailey half a season two years ago to figure out how to make our offense respectable. It took Haley a while last year. Give Weiss more than two games.

And by the way, we are 2-0 with a home game against San Fran next Sunday! Keep your heads up Chiefs fans!

Agree. We just need to take a step back and have a tiny bit of faith. But we need to get the offense going soon. Our D is not going to play like this all year.

Drunker Hillbilly
09-19-2010, 11:34 PM
Man, tough loss for us......if Cassell would have played better we might have won.

rodu
09-20-2010, 12:00 AM
Cassel's efficiency numbers are scary, 55.8:toast2:

chief31
09-20-2010, 12:17 AM
Weiss is touted as a great developer of QBs. And his track record is difficult to argue with.

Just wondering what our expectations are for a timeline of said development.

Albeit, I would expect better progress through two games. But I am far from surprised at the struggles of this developing process.

Now, I want to be clear here. I am far from confident that Cassel even can be transformed from a drop back and wait for patterns to open up kind of QB to a quick reading sort.

I didn't like the trade we made for him. I still don't really like it.

But I am not really even close to calling it after two games. (Both wins)

While I sincerely doubt his abilty to be a great QB in this offense, I have very little doubt that he will be better than he was today.

But honestly, is two games the standard for measuring the development of a QB?

Pro_Angler
09-20-2010, 12:21 AM
Weiss is touted as a great developer of QBs. And his track record is difficult to argue with.

Just wondering what our expectations are for a timeline of said development.

Albeit, I would expect better progress through two games. But I am far from surprised at the struggles of this developing process.

Now, I want to be clear here. I am far from confident that Cassel even can be transformed from a drop back and wait for patterns to open up kind of QB to a quick reading sort.

I didn't like the trade we made for him. I still don't really like it.

But I am not really even close to calling it after two games. (Both wins)

While I sincerely doubt his abilty to be a great QB in this offense, I have very little doubt that he will be better than he was today.

But honestly, is two games the standard for measuring the development of a QB?

couldnt agree more!!!!!! I just want to see improvement like you. But im worried we wont. I'm worried that they wont make a change when they should like so many teams dont do with struggling QB's for whatever thier reasons.

Drunker Hillbilly
09-20-2010, 12:24 AM
Weiss is touted as a great developer of QBs. And his track record is difficult to argue with.

Just wondering what our expectations are for a timeline of said development.

Albeit, I would expect better progress through two games. But I am far from surprised at the struggles of this developing process.

Now, I want to be clear here. I am far from confident that Cassel even can be transformed from a drop back and wait for patterns to open up kind of QB to a quick reading sort.

I didn't like the trade we made for him. I still don't really like it.

But I am not really even close to calling it after two games. (Both wins)

While I sincerely doubt his abilty to be a great QB in this offense, I have very little doubt that he will be better than he was today.

But honestly, is two games the standard for measuring the development of a QB?

Like what is happening or not, we are undefeated thus far. I agree, 2 games does a season not make. It seems some just want to point out the things that are not up to snuff. Hard to evaluate everything after 2 games. One of which was in the pouring rain! Will we finish 16-0? Not hardly but even as pesamistic as I can be, I choose to enjoy the 2 wins this week.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 12:28 AM
Cassel's efficiency numbers are scary, 55.8:toast2:

Cassel hasn't been good. Frankly, our whole offense not named Jamaal Charles has been poor. This specifically includes Charlie Weis. We've won the past two games due to Jamaal Charles, our special teams, and our defense.

I don't think we'll keep winning games unless Cassel, Bowe, Albert, and especially Weis step it up. But God, these past two wins have been sweet.

chief31
09-20-2010, 12:37 AM
couldnt agree more!!!!!! I just want to see improvement like you. But im worried we wont. I'm worried that they wont make a change when they should like so many teams dont do with struggling QB's for whatever thier reasons.

My expectations for this season are only that we become competetive. Not that we be competetive right now. Just that we become a team that opponents no longer take lightly.

If we exceed expectations, then GREAT! But I never expected Cassel to play well coming out of the gates this year.

I expect him to "BECOME" a competetive QB. There is a process to that and the first two steps I expect to be at the wrong end of the spectrum.

If he still looks terrible midway through the season, then I am likley to start speaking out against him.

But, in going from "not good" at making quick decisions, to "good" at it, I expect the first couple of steps to be at the "not good" end.


Like what is happening or not, we are undefeated thus far. I agree, 2 games does a season not make. It seems some just want to point out the things that are not up to snuff. Hard to evaluate everything after 2 games. One of which was in the pouring rain! Will we finish 16-0? Not hardly but even as pesamistic as I can be, I choose to enjoy the 2 wins this week.

Absolutely!

And the best news of all is that this a team that I expect to get better. And to start out with two wins before we get better is huge!

Fastphilly
09-20-2010, 12:41 AM
Before we start thinking about Matt Cassel's ability, lets look at who he has to throw the ball to...We have two starting recievers that are unable to stretch the field, a rookie TE, and another rookie coming in off special teams for the occassional slot route and knows zero on the offensive playbook...With the running attack we have there should be no issues with our receivers getting separation on play action passes and THEY ARE NOT!! Matt Cassel holds on to the ball too long. Is it his inability to find open receivers? Or, are our receivers unable to get open? I'm watching the games on the tube so my vision of the field is limited...Perhaps someone that attended the game can chime in.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 12:46 AM
Before we start thinking about Matt Cassel's ability, lets look at who he has to throw the ball to...We have two starting recievers that are unable to stretch the field, a rookie TE, and another rookie coming in off special teams for the occassional slot route and knows zero on the offensive playbook...With the running attack we have there should be no issues with our receivers getting separation on play action passes and THEY ARE NOT!! Matt Cassel holds on to the ball too long. Is it his inability to find open receivers? Or, are our receivers unable to get open? I'm watching the games on the tube so my vision of the field is limited...Perhaps someone that attended the game can chime in.

Eh, I'm past all excuses for Cassel. Yeah, our WRs and OL could be better. Much better. But Tyler Thigpen and Damon Huard turned Bowe into a 1000 yard WR, while managing not to get sacked 3 times a game. You telling me Cassel can't do it?

Fastphilly
09-20-2010, 12:58 AM
Eh, I'm past all excuses for Cassel. Yeah, our WRs and OL could be better. Much better. But Tyler Thigpen and Damon Huard turned Bowe into a 1000 yard WR, while managing not to get sacked 3 times a game. You telling me Cassel can't do it?
Eh, Those two QB's had Tony Gonzalez (which commanded double teams) that forced the heat off of the wideouts.

DieHardFan
09-20-2010, 01:02 AM
As fans we can wait and see...if that is what you want! If you believe Cassel is the QB to take us into the future, go ahead and keep waiting. You can blame the line as much as you want and hope for better NEXT YEAR. I will not try to argue that we have the best line in the NFL, I will say it is far from the worst. If we continue as we are now, no matter how improved the defense is, we need an offense to move the ball. We can not count on the defense or special teams to win games. It may have worked so far...but week 5 and 6 will need an offense. San Francisco is still a hurdle and we could be in real trouble if we can not move the ball. We can enjoy being undefeated to this point, one thing is sure we are STUCK

DieHardFan
09-20-2010, 01:03 AM
As fans we can wait and see...if that is what you want! If you believe Cassel is the QB to take us into the future, go ahead and keep waiting. You can blame the line as much as you want and hope for better NEXT YEAR. I will not try to argue that we have the best line in the NFL, I will say it is far from the worst. If we continue as we are now, no matter how improved the defense is, we need an offense to move the ball. We can not count on the defense or special teams to win games. It may have worked so far...but week 5 and 6 will need an offense. San Francisco is still a hurdle and we could be in real trouble if we can not move the ball. We can enjoy being undefeated to this point, one thing is sure we are STUCK with Cassel until next year.

figcrostic
09-20-2010, 01:07 AM
We have no offense at all, this sucks.

We have an offense when he hands the ball off. I might have to drop Dwayne Bowe from my fantasy roster with Cassel at QB he's messing me up.

figcrostic
09-20-2010, 01:09 AM
Weiss is touted as a great developer of QBs. And his track record is difficult to argue with.

Just wondering what our expectations are for a timeline of said development.

Albeit, I would expect better progress through two games. But I am far from surprised at the struggles of this developing process.

Now, I want to be clear here. I am far from confident that Cassel even can be transformed from a drop back and wait for patterns to open up kind of QB to a quick reading sort.

I didn't like the trade we made for him. I still don't really like it.

But I am not really even close to calling it after two games. (Both wins)

While I sincerely doubt his abilty to be a great QB in this offense, I have very little doubt that he will be better than he was today.

But honestly, is two games the standard for measuring the development of a QB?

Let's not lie. This is Cassel's third years as a starter and it's his 6th season in the league. This is no rookie. This isn't San Bradford who is fresh out of college into the starting role. Matt has many years under his belt.

toyotapower
09-20-2010, 01:12 AM
Since we're on the topic of talking about things that cassell and the offense are NOT doing:

-Throwing temper tantrums and kicking the ball
-throwing interceptions in the red zone
-fumbling
-giving up on eachother
-losing games

We're 2-0 and I'm loving it

Chiefster
09-20-2010, 01:14 AM
Since we're on the topic of talking about things that cassell and the offense are NOT doing:

-Throwing temper tantrums and kicking the ball
-throwing interceptions in the red zone
-fumbling
-giving up on eachother
-losing games

We're 2-0 and I'm loving it

I like the way you think.

stricken721
09-20-2010, 01:15 AM
Let's not lie. This is Cassel's third years as a starter and it's his 6th season in the league. This is no rookie. This isn't San Bradford who is fresh out of college into the starting role. Matt has many years under his belt.

Lets not lie. Half of those years were spent backing up Tom Brady. That's a pretty hard competition going against a Super Bowl MVP, wouldn't ya think? In college he backed up Carson Palmer and Matt Leinart who both happen to be Heisman trophy winners.. once again hard competition, right? It's not like he's had multiple tries over his career being the starter. Truth be told this is only his second season to be groomed as the starter, 2008 happened by accident, and when that came up he performed well. I don't like the way he's playing and I think the Chiefs should start looking for another QB. But I still have hope he proves me wrong.

chief31
09-20-2010, 01:18 AM
As fans we can wait and see...if that is what you want! If you believe Cassel is the QB to take us into the future, go ahead and keep waiting. You can blame the line as much as you want and hope for better NEXT YEAR.

So this season is over? How did we do? Did we win The Super Bowl? Hell, we never even lost a game. We must be the CHAMPS!!!!!!

WOOOOOO-HOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:rock_dj:

Wait a minute....:sign0094:

It's still September.

So, you don't mind if some of us hope that Cassel gets better with the rest of this season, do you?

Is two games too much of the season for improvement to happen in just the last 14 (Maybe more) games?

Fastphilly
09-20-2010, 01:21 AM
Well he improved over last week, so all hope is'nt lost..

stricken721
09-20-2010, 01:22 AM
Well he improved over last week, so all hope is'nt lost..

Yes and no. Yards and completion rate.. yes. Turnovers and touchdowns.. no.

tornadospotter
09-20-2010, 01:26 AM
I for one is in no hurry to buy a Cassel Jersey, I am not yet happy with his performance. He must get better, can he? Well he must have the ability, or he would not be in the NFL. So it is make or break. I hope he pull his head out, and quits playing scared, and just believes, he needs to make the game slow down. To do that he needs to process his reads faster, and throw the ball over the rush!

Chiefster
09-20-2010, 01:26 AM
Again, Trent Green's first couple of seasons were horrible and I, by and large, felt the same way about him as do many feel about Cassel now. I'm glad that in the end Green proved me wrong about him; I hold out hope that Cassel will do the same.

Fastphilly
09-20-2010, 01:30 AM
Yes and no. Yards and completion rate.. yes. Turnovers and touchdowns.. no.

I agree..He must improve. We are playing against a very good run defence next week and San Francisco's pass defence is suspect so Cassel should be able to move the ball through the air............I hope:chiefs3:

SIC J
09-20-2010, 02:19 AM
Lets be realistic here...... The Chiefs play calling for the most part given Cassel a chance to get in the motion of things. When the majority of the game they run 1st and 2nd down and then Cassel is left with 3rd and long, you can't expect much out of him. When they finally opened up their play book and let Cassel throw the ball, he marched the Chiefs down field through the air against the Browns. Got within the 10 and the go back to the run again?!?!?!?!

To me, the play calling hasn't been great. Cassel needs to be giving a lil more freedom. Until that happens, we will never know what his full potential really is.

Its pretty sad that even when they win you still have nothing but complaints about the game. Nothing positive out of your mouths.Until then, stop being a bunch of cry babies. The Chiefs are 2-0. Just sit back and enjoy it.

GarH
09-20-2010, 02:29 AM
I'm not sure what to think about him. He had a pretty darn good year at NE replacing Brady. We certainly haven't seen that yet at KC though. Was that year a fluke? Did he lose his confidence last year behind a bad OL that didn't give him much of a chance? I'm still want to give him a chance, but the doubts continue to mount.

Fastphilly
09-20-2010, 02:43 AM
I'm not sure what to think about him. He had a pretty darn good year at NE replacing Brady. We certainly haven't seen that yet at KC though. Was that year a fluke? Did he lose his confidence last year behind a bad OL that didn't give him much of a chance? I'm still want to give him a chance, but the doubts continue to mount.
He had a good cast around him to throw the ball to..We need a receiver that will command double team coverage..That will open things up to the other WR's/TE's. Look at D. Bowe's numbers a couple years ago when we had Tony Gonzalez forcing secondaries to alter their coverage..Bowe came up with good numbers with over 1000yds receiving.

KristofLaw
09-20-2010, 08:39 AM
Since we're on the topic of talking about things that cassell and the offense are NOT doing:

-Throwing temper tantrums and kicking the ball
-throwing interceptions in the red zone
-fumbling
-giving up on eachother
-losing games

We're 2-0 and I'm loving it

Rep!

So it's not Montana to Rice. We're up 2 so far after 2. Let's see how the season progresses, hopefully he get's a couple 90.00+ rating games soon though.

Seek
09-20-2010, 10:06 AM
I had a soccer game all afternoon, so I've only seen stats with a few highlights. I might change my mind when I catch it on NFL network this week, but still...If Charles is going to have to carry this offense, it's hard to do it with 11 touches, a grinder like Jones is only as effective as the rest of his team, which shows in his YPC this carry.

Charles had one big carrier right before half and another decent one, when the Browns were in prevent padding his stats. They were junk yards. other than, the Browns were on him.

As the game went on Jone was getting better and more and more yards.

I felt that Jones was a clear cut option in the second half.

Seek
09-20-2010, 10:08 AM
Cassel hasn't been good. Frankly, our whole offense not named Jamaal Charles has been poor. This specifically includes Charlie Weis. We've won the past two games due to Jamaal Charles, our special teams, and our defense.

I don't think we'll keep winning games unless Cassel, Bowe, Albert, and especially Weis step it up. But God, these past two wins have been sweet.

That is not fair to Moeaki.. He has played well and it becoming Cassel's favorite target.

yashi
09-20-2010, 10:42 AM
Little late to the party here, but anyways the two biggest problems I have with the offense so far:

1. Cassel is terrible, and is probably one of the worst starting quarterbacks in the league right now.
2. What is McCluster's role in this offense? I thought he was drafted to be our slot receiver, giving Cassel some relief on short quick passes (Wes Welker style), but his 2 catches for 9 yards so far this year suggest that he's not really doing well in that role.

I think we need to sign a slot receiver ASAP. I really wish we had drafted Jordan Shipley, even after taking McCluster. Then again, Urban was probably supposed to fill that role, and he ended up on IR.

2-0, but man it's hard to feel too great about the offense going forward. At least the defense looks great. Kudos to Coach Romeo!

yashi
09-20-2010, 10:43 AM
That is not fair to Moeaki.. He has played well and it becoming Cassel's favorite target.

I agree. Moeaki has definitely been a bright spot. I'm a fan.

yashi
09-20-2010, 10:44 AM
He had a good cast around him to throw the ball to..We need a receiver that will command double team coverage..That will open things up to the other WR's/TE's. Look at D. Bowe's numbers a couple years ago when we had Tony Gonzalez forcing secondaries to alter their coverage..Bowe came up with good numbers with over 1000yds receiving.

Every team can't be expected to have Randy Moss and Wes Welker. Cassel has an above average set of weapons with Bowe, Chambers, McCluster, Charles, Moeaki, so there are really no excuses for him. He needs to play better.

Hayvern
09-20-2010, 11:20 AM
Charles had one big carrier right before half and another decent one, when the Browns were in prevent padding his stats. They were junk yards. other than, the Browns were on him.

As the game went on Jone was getting better and more and more yards.

I felt that Jones was a clear cut option in the second half.

I believe this is the strategy all along and I have said as much before. We have two different backs in Jones and Charles. One of those two are going to find success against most defenses we face. Early in the game I look to see the coaches to split the carries between the two of them. Then, as one of the two starts to have success, that is the one that will see most of the touches.

That is exactly what has happened in the last two games, and what will continue to happen. I believe this is a winning strategy and am looking forward to continued success in this area. The days of a back carrying for 400 times in a season are over. With both backs in the backfield, we always have a formidable weapon ready to go!

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 12:11 PM
That is not fair to Moeaki.. He has played well and it becoming Cassel's favorite target.

True, he's been great as well. It's just that it's always a terrible sign when a team's leading receiver is a TE. Those teams never end up winning anything. Look at the Cowboys pre-Austin. Or the Chargers pre- (and post-) Jackson. Or (sadly) the Chiefs after Kennison left.

Seek
09-20-2010, 12:25 PM
True, he's been great as well. It's just that it's always a terrible sign when a team's leading receiver is a TE. Those teams never end up winning anything. Look at the Cowboys pre-Austin. Or the Chargers pre- (and post-) Jackson. Or (sadly) the Chiefs after Kennison left.

I didn't think you were that new to being a Chiefs fan. Tony G. was our leading receiver time in and time out for many wins for many years. Different coaches, different systems. If you are trying to state that having a good TE does not win superbowls, I can argue that there is much more to the team than the TE causing that.

The cowboys are 0-2 with Austin. The Chargers are 1-1 without Jackson. I am not sure I get your point as you are kind of supporting argument against yourself. Specially since the one loss the Chargers got was because of our TE.

Teams have always killed to get the next Shannon Sharp, Tony G, and A. Gates. They create huge problems in matching up. The TE is just one more weapon that also helps as a blocker.

Look at the gain Ben Watson got against the Chiefs yesterday. He beat a line backer.

N TX Dave
09-20-2010, 12:52 PM
I think all of us in here agree there are problems with the team and if they don't change we are going to lose games. Anyone that knows anything about football can see that but what many are saying is we are 2-0 not 0-2 and as long as we are winning no matter how we are that is good and to come in here and have more negitive post than positive is not understandable. I see problems but until they costs us games why complain about them. Becides there is not a lot we can do right now about it, sure I know the backup is always better than the starter when they are not playing good there are about 16 teams out there saying the same thing. It should not matter to us what a player is making in salary as long as he is not stopping the team from signing other players because the team is at the cap limit which we are not, so why keep bring that up time and again?

yashi
09-20-2010, 01:13 PM
Look at the gain Ben Watson got against the Chiefs yesterday. He beat a line backer.

And then he ran right around Berry. :(

aaronchieffan
09-20-2010, 01:14 PM
Cassel needs to play better. But he is not loseing games for the Chiefs. So I will still have some hope. But he better show me something realy soon.

matthewschiefs
09-20-2010, 01:16 PM
Cassel needs to play better. But he is not loseing games for the Chiefs. So I will still have some hope. But he better show me something realy soon.

I am the same way. I am getting close to the anti Cassel bandwagon but I am not on there yet. But if he plays like he did yesterday again next week. You better make room for me on the bandwagon.

Seek
09-20-2010, 01:27 PM
I am the same way. I am getting close to the anti Cassel bandwagon but I am not on there yet. But if he plays like he did yesterday again next week. You better make room for me on the bandwagon.

What dood does it do you being on the anti Band Wagon. It does not change the fact that he is here and playing for your team. What is next booing him at home.. So much for the arrowhead magic huh...

I highly doubt that if he keeps playing like this, that the Chiefs will continue to use his services.

This is coming from a fan who was highly opposed to trading for him and you can check the records on that if you like. Fact of the matter he is here. Instead of complaining. Try to encourage him, and then when the his employement is over. Let is go and then move on.

Hayvern
09-20-2010, 01:28 PM
True, he's been great as well. It's just that it's always a terrible sign when a team's leading receiver is a TE. Those teams never end up winning anything. Look at the Cowboys pre-Austin. Or the Chargers pre- (and post-) Jackson. Or (sadly) the Chiefs after Kennison left.

Wow, a more ridiculous statement has never been uttered.

A good tight end is a very potent offensive threat. Are you forgetting the Former Chiefs Player Who Shall Remain Nameless, Antonio Gates, Shannon Sharpe? Shannon Sharpe in particular won at least two rings at the Tight End position.

Slacker6000
09-20-2010, 01:38 PM
I'm just saying I have no faith in this team, we are 2-0 but our special teams and defense won the first game and we barely snuck by the worst team in the league in the browns.

Dont get me wrong I love that we are 2-0 and I love the team but we are not far off from being 0-2 by any means. I think Cassel is the main problem.

Seek
09-20-2010, 01:57 PM
I'm just saying I have no faith in this team, we are 2-0 but our special teams and defense won the first game and we barely snuck by the worst team in the league in the browns.

Dont get me wrong I love that we are 2-0 and I love the team but we are not far off from being 0-2 by any means. I think Cassel is the main problem.

So if you look at this in a positive frame of mind, you would say... Wow, this team is winning the worste kind of way. What happens if all of sudden, the light goes on and Cassel becomes the QB we all hope he is.

He showed some signs of it in the second half. I don't think he trust his receivers yet. He is starting to trust Moeaki.

I guess you could just say he sucks and never give him any thought or credit for any success he has and be bitter even when good things are happening.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 02:16 PM
I didn't think you were that new to being a Chiefs fan. Tony G. was our leading receiver time in and time out for many wins for many years. Different coaches, different systems. If you are trying to state that having a good TE does not win superbowls, I can argue that there is much more to the team than the TE causing that.

The cowboys are 0-2 with Austin. The Chargers are 1-1 without Jackson. I am not sure I get your point as you are kind of supporting argument against yourself. Specially since the one loss the Chargers got was because of our TE.

Teams have always killed to get the next Shannon Sharp, Tony G, and A. Gates. They create huge problems in matching up. The TE is just one more weapon that also helps as a blocker.

Look at the gain Ben Watson got against the Chiefs yesterday. He beat a line backer.

You're wrong on three levels:

1. "If you are trying to state that having a good TE does not win superbowls, I can argue that there is much more to the team than the TE causing that."

That isn't what I wrote. Reading is your friend. I said that you should never want your TE to be your primary receiver. Big (and obvious) difference.

2. Tony G. was our leading receiver in 1999 (9-7), 2001 (6-10), 2003 (13-3), 2004 (7-9), 2006 (9-7), 2007 (4-12), and 2008 (2-14). In other words, the Chiefs were 50-62 in the seven seasons in which our Tony G. was our primary receiver. We made two one-and-done playoff appearances (2003 and 2006) in those years. We didn't win a playoff game.

Suffice to say, you are very wrong when you write "Tony G. was our leading receiver time in and time out for many wins for many years."

3. How many playoff wins did the Chargers, Cowboys, and other teams in which the TE was primary receiver get? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Having a great TE is something every team should want. No team should want their TE to be their primary receiver. If your TE is getting most of the yards, it means your WRs stink. It means you aren't stretching the field. And it means that, no matter how good the rest of the team is, you'll almost certainly get killed in the playoffs.

matthewschiefs
09-20-2010, 02:24 PM
What dood does it do you being on the anti Band Wagon. It does not change the fact that he is here and playing for your team. What is next booing him at home.. So much for the arrowhead magic huh...

I highly doubt that if he keeps playing like this, that the Chiefs will continue to use his services.

This is coming from a fan who was highly opposed to trading for him and you can check the records on that if you like. Fact of the matter he is here. Instead of complaining. Try to encourage him, and then when the his employement is over. Let is go and then move on.

What I myself mean by being anti Cassel is hopeing that this offseason we go out and find a new QB. I no that this season it's going to be Cassel unless he gets hurt. And I HOPE he does well and this is not even an issue anymore. But I can't say I feel that there is a good chance that is going to happen anymore.

Seek
09-20-2010, 03:11 PM
You're wrong on three levels:

1. "If you are trying to state that having a good TE does not win superbowls, I can argue that there is much more to the team than the TE causing that."

That isn't what I wrote. Reading is your friend. I said that you should never want your TE to be your primary receiver. Big (and obvious) difference.

2. Tony G. was our leading receiver in 1999 (9-7), 2001 (6-10), 2003 (13-3), 2004 (7-9), 2006 (9-7), 2007 (4-12), and 2008 (2-14). In other words, the Chiefs were 50-62 in the seven seasons in which our Tony G. was our primary receiver. We made two one-and-done playoff appearances (2003 and 2006) in those years. We didn't win a playoff game.

Suffice to say, you are very wrong when you write "Tony G. was our leading receiver time in and time out for many wins for many years."

3. How many playoff wins did the Chargers, Cowboys, and other teams in which the TE was primary receiver get? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Having a great TE is something every team should want. No team should want their TE to be their primary receiver. If your TE is getting most of the yards, it means your WRs stink. It means you aren't stretching the field. And it means that, no matter how good the rest of the team is, you'll almost certainly get killed in the playoffs.

Your right, My reading and writing does lack, but before you further go insulting people directly, you shold also look in the mirror. Where did I say, Tony G was our leading receiver for season after season. I believe I said it was game after game for years which I would suffice to say is not incorrect. Teams do win using the TE as their primary receiver and if using the superbowl as your premise, I would argue there is other factors causing that.
As you stated, it was because of the lack of WR. I say there is much more than that as it goes down to the entire team and coaches. Winning a superbowl is dang hard and making a statement that using a TE will get you killed is in the play offs is closed minded.

To help discredit your point. Please look up Daryl (Moose) Johnston in which he won 3 superbowls playing the TE/FB postion in which he was the leading receiver in many games. As I was trying to state, he obviously had other variables to help him so it is possible to win with a TE as a leading receiver.

I can easily tell you that having Tony G as our leading receiver in 2003 was not the reason the Chiefs could not force INDY to punt in the play offs.

What we are both agreeing on, is that there needs to be more than just the TE, but there is nothing wrong using the TE if the defense is allowing it.

OPLookn
09-20-2010, 03:37 PM
The Chiefs have Cassel locked up until 2014 and the sad part is that after this year we've paid him most if not all of his guaranteed money. Pioli made a bad call on this one. Can't blame the guy because he did look awesome but the bottom line is that Cassel is a tweener. He's not going to be the starting QB when we win a super bowl but he's going to be our starting QB until we get a team that's ready to compete for the super bowl.

He hangs on to the ball for entirely way to long, his decision making skill isn't bad but he doesn't throw the ball that great. I'm fine with him this year but if we don't either draft a QB or go out and get ourselves a good one I'd say we can expect .500 football or just shy of the playoffs every year.

Before anyone goes off, no I don't know who will be available in the off season or who we could get in the draft. All I know is that unless I see dramatic improvement on his part he's not our QB for the future.

Croyle isn't either before anyone gets their hopes up. Yes hes got a quick release and can throw the ball a country mile. But he makes horrible decisions and he's been lucky to get threw the one or two games he's made it thru. Not to mention the older he gets the more Broken Croyle is an appropriate name.

As I said for now Cassel seems to be doing decent in the 2nd half an hopefully he'll learn to bring that 2nd half mentality into the 1st half. Time will tell.

Seek
09-20-2010, 03:57 PM
The Chiefs have Cassel locked up until 2014 and the sad part is that after this year we've paid him most if not all of his guaranteed money. Pioli made a bad call on this one. Can't blame the guy because he did look awesome but the bottom line is that Cassel is a tweener. He's not going to be the starting QB when we win a super bowl but he's going to be our starting QB until we get a team that's ready to compete for the super bowl.

Not unfortunately about this. Since he has already been paid his guaranteed portion, it makes it much easier for the Chiefs to part ways with him after this season. He is due a 7 million roster bonus in March. If he is cut before then, his cap hit is no big deal, specially since there is no cap at the moment.

Brilliant contract structure from Pioli.

Finding his replacement is a big set back.

yashi
09-20-2010, 04:05 PM
Not unfortunately about this. Since he has already been paid his guaranteed portion, it makes it much easier for the Chiefs to part ways with him after this season. He is due a 7 million roster bonus in March. If he is cut before then, his cap hit is no big deal, specially since there is no cap at the moment.

Brilliant contract structure from Pioli.

Finding his replacement is a big set back.

It certainly is, but it's definitely a good sign that we're able to win games without the quarterback playing particularly well right now. Seems like it would be a great opportunity for a rookie QB to be eased in next year if need be.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 04:26 PM
Your right, My reading and writing does lack, but before you further go insulting people directly, you shold also look in the mirror. Where did I say, Tony G was our leading receiver for season after season. I believe I said it was game after game for years which I would suffice to say is not incorrect. Teams do win using the TE as their primary receiver and if using the superbowl as your premise, I would argue there is other factors causing that.
As you stated, it was because of the lack of WR. I say there is much more than that as it goes down to the entire team and coaches. Winning a superbowl is dang hard and making a statement that using a TE will get you killed is in the play offs is closed minded.

To help discredit your point. Please look up Daryl (Moose) Johnston in which he won 3 superbowls playing the TE/FB postion in which he was the leading receiver in many games. As I was trying to state, he obviously had other variables to help him so it is possible to win with a TE as a leading receiver.

I can easily tell you that having Tony G as our leading receiver in 2003 was not the reason the Chiefs could not force INDY to punt in the play offs.

What we are both agreeing on, is that there needs to be more than just the TE, but there is nothing wrong using the TE if the defense is allowing it.

"Winning a superbowl is dang hard and making a statement that using a TE will get you killed is in the play offs is closed minded."

Again reading is your friend. I didn't say using a TE would get you killed in the playoffs. I said that having a TE as your primary receiver would.

Considering you were responding to my post, not I to yours, we're talking about what I originally wrote. Which is that it's a bad thing if your TE is your leading receiver. You were pretending that I was writing that good TEs make bad teams. Which was, is, and always will be wrong.

We didn't lose games because Tony G. was a bad TE. We lost games because our WRs were lousy and we couldn't stretch the field. Teams never had to respect our passing game except for short passes to Holmes and Gonzalez (in 2003). There's nothing wrong with "using the TE if the defense is allowing it." But if over the course of a season your TE has emerged as your main receiver, you have lousy WRs and will probably miss the playoffs, or be a one-and-done.

And if you insult people ("didn't think you were that new to being a Chiefs fan"), be expected to be insulted in return. I'm under no obligation to pretend that your points or good or that you know what you're talking about.

And Moose Johnston was only the Cowboys TE in your dreams. He was the Cowboys RB/FB for many years, but not their TE except seldomly in max protect/goalline siuations. His highest yardage total for a season was 472 in 1993 - He was the 5th leading receiver that season. He never caught more than 75 yards in *any* game (11-24-1993), which is the *only* game I found in which he was the leading Cowboys receiver. Where do you come up with this stuff?

Shannon Sharpe is the only exception to this I've ever seen, and he only did it on one extremely run-focused, mauling defense team (2000 Ravens) that had a (comparitively) easy postseason.

nigeriannightmare
09-20-2010, 04:29 PM
I am starting to get on the anti-Cassel bandwagon. Today's game is completely on him and his lack of getting rid of the ball.

They have to be able to convert on 3rd down. This is getting old.

The receivers need to know where they are. Bowe ran a 5 1/2 yard route on 3rd and six... not all cassels fault. Bowe led the league in dropped balls to boot and he's our first round pick....

nigeriannightmare
09-20-2010, 04:40 PM
Yeah, but we really have nothing to lose by starting him. If he gets hurt, than oh well. That just puts us right back to where we started, with Cassel. Brodie is the better QB and he gives us the better chance to win. He's more mobile, he has a much quicker release and he has the better arm. I think we should give Croyle a chance.



ummm. pretty sure he had his chance already.

Seek
09-20-2010, 04:49 PM
[quote=bwilliams;201488]
We didn't lose games because Tony G. was a bad TE. We lost games because our WRs were lousy and we couldn't stretch the field. Teams never had to respect our passing game except for short passes to Holmes and Gonzalez (in 2003). There's nothing wrong with "using the TE if the defense is allowing it." But if over the course of a season your TE has emerged as your main receiver, you have lousy WRs and will probably miss the playoffs, or be a one-and-done.
quote]

This is complete BS...I was at the Colts Chiefs play off game. Our receivers/Offensive had nothing to do with being one and done.

The 2003 teams stretched the field better than any NFL team. It was our defense that sucked.

But don't worry, You won this argument. There is not point in debatiing with you any further. As I recently said in another recent thread, there are common players in threads getting closed. Just ignore those people. I will take my own advice. Fact of the matter, the Chiefs are 2-0 and you are still bitter about it. You just can't please some people. Bye bye

yashi
09-20-2010, 04:55 PM
Dallas Clark led the Colts in receptions last year.

Seek
09-20-2010, 04:59 PM
Dallas Clark led the Colts in receptions last year.

And that is why the Saints won? The Colts receivers suck.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 05:01 PM
[quote=bwilliams;201488]
We didn't lose games because Tony G. was a bad TE. We lost games because our WRs were lousy and we couldn't stretch the field. Teams never had to respect our passing game except for short passes to Holmes and Gonzalez (in 2003). There's nothing wrong with "using the TE if the defense is allowing it." But if over the course of a season your TE has emerged as your main receiver, you have lousy WRs and will probably miss the playoffs, or be a one-and-done.
quote]

This is complete BS...I was at the Colts Chiefs play off game. Our receivers/Offensive had nothing to do with being one and done.

The 2003 teams stretched the field better than any NFL team. It was our defense that sucked.

But don't worry, You won this argument. There is not point in debatiing with you any further. As I recently said in another recent thread, there are common players in threads getting closed. Just ignore those people. I will take my own advice. Fact of the matter, the Chiefs are 2-0 and you are still bitter about it. You just can't please some people. Bye bye

Proving you a liar doesn't make me anything but right.

And I've said nothing but wonderful things about the Chiefs being 2-0.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 05:09 PM
Dallas Clark led the Colts in receptions last year.

Yep. And was lining up in the slot almost as much as at the TE spot (he averaged 11.1 yards per reception, which is much more than the average TE). Receptions are different than yardage anyway, which is what I've been talking about.

Think about it this way. Let's say Eric Berry is our leading tackler in 2010. That means he's a great player. It also means our front seven was ****. If your FS is your leading tackler, it means your defense had a bad regular season, or was one-and-done in the playoffs. Same with a TE, receiving yards, and offense. Same holds true statistically for other positions. If your FB is your leading rusher. If your CB is your leading tackler. If your NT leads the team in INTs. Those are troubling statistics if they occur.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Seek
09-20-2010, 05:36 PM
True, he's been great as well. It's just that it's always a terrible sign when a team's leading receiver is a TE. Those teams never end up winning anything. Look at the Cowboys pre-Austin. Or the Chargers pre- (and post-) Jackson. Or (sadly) the Chiefs after Kennison left.

Yes, Nothing but Great Things about the Chiefs being 2-0 other than pointing out it is a terrible Sign that Moeaki is doing good and that doom is upon us with our wide receivers that suck... I guess I didn't read that right, cause it looks like you just lied in the same thread.

I didn't lie either. The Chiefs won with Tony G as their leading receiver. They also lost too which was a sign of other facters, like the WR sucking or the defense sucking, or Herm Edwards being the coach.

What you are failing to see in your negative stance in life, is the optomistic side of live, where the TE is receiving the ball more, because he is just that good and was in the top 10 of all receivers in the NFL. Now, I am not saying Moeaki is that guy, but Tony G was.

Hayvern
09-20-2010, 05:44 PM
Yep. And was lining up in the slot almost as much as at the TE spot (he averaged 11.1 yards per reception, which is much more than the average TE). Receptions are different than yardage anyway, which is what I've been talking about.

Think about it this way. Let's say Eric Berry is our leading tackler in 2010. That means he's a great player. It also means our front seven was ****. If your FS is your leading tackler, it means your defense had a bad regular season, or was one-and-done in the playoffs. Same with a TE, receiving yards, and offense. Same holds true statistically for other positions. If your FB is your leading rusher. If your CB is your leading tackler. If your NT leads the team in INTs. Those are troubling statistics if they occur.

Why is this so hard for people to understand?

While I agree with you on things like safeties and defensive backs leading the team in tackles, I sort of have a different take on offense.

You can have a fullback that leads the team in rushing because that is the playbook you have. If you have a tremendous talent at an offensive position, you find ways to get them involved in the game. It is not a bad thing, it is called utililizing your talent.

On defense it is quite a bit different because of the breakdown of coverage zones. That is not too hard to understand at all. As I said, offense is a different animal.

Your argument would be a lot better served if we were talking about an offensive tackle being the leading receiver. (Yes, there are plays where OT can be eligible receivers). Or if you had a wide receiver that lead the team in rushing yards. Those are examples of guys playing out of position. But if you have a talent at TE and you use that talent, then having a TE leading in receptions is not a bad thing.

What it does tell you about an offense is that the deep ball is not a key part of the offensive playbook. If you are passing a lot to TEs that means you are doing a lot of shorter passing plays.

Look at what San Diego did to Jacksonville and look at how they used Gates in that game.

It is nothing more than a stategy that a team employs.

yashi
09-20-2010, 05:50 PM
While I agree with you on things like safeties and defensive backs leading the team in tackles, I sort of have a different take on offense.

You can have a fullback that leads the team in rushing because that is the playbook you have. If you have a tremendous talent at an offensive position, you find ways to get them involved in the game. It is not a bad thing, it is called utililizing your talent.

On defense it is quite a bit different because of the breakdown of coverage zones. That is not too hard to understand at all. As I said, offense is a different animal.

Your argument would be a lot better served if we were talking about an offensive tackle being the leading receiver. (Yes, there are plays where OT can be eligible receivers). Or if you had a wide receiver that lead the team in rushing yards. Those are examples of guys playing out of position. But if you have a talent at TE and you use that talent, then having a TE leading in receptions is not a bad thing.

What it does tell you about an offense is that the deep ball is not a key part of the offensive playbook. If you are passing a lot to TEs that means you are doing a lot of shorter passing plays.

Look at what San Diego did to Jacksonville and look at how they used Gates in that game.

It is nothing more than a stategy that a team employs.

Well said.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 06:12 PM
Yes, Nothing but Great Things about the Chiefs being 2-0 other than pointing out it is a terrible Sign that Moeaki is doing good and that doom is upon us with our wide receivers that suck... I guess I didn't read that right, cause it looks like you just lied in the same thread.

I didn't lie either. The Chiefs won with Tony G as their leading receiver. They also lost too which was a sign of other facters, like the WR sucking or the defense sucking, or Herm Edwards being the coach.

What you are failing to see in your negative stance in life, is the optomistic side of live, where the TE is receiving the ball more, because he is just that good and was in the top 10 of all receivers in the NFL. Now, I am not saying Moeaki is that guy, but Tony G was.

You've lied about a lot of stuff. What I wrote. Or the statistics (Moose Johnston especially) that you invented.

I didn't say it was a terrible sign Moeaki was doing good. You're either unable to comprehend the written word, or you're unwilling to be honest. I said it's a terrible sign if your TE is your primary receiver. And I backed that up. Unlike you, who started inventing stats. All it means is that we need to get our WRs more involved or to think about switching QBs. Because an offense with a TE as the main guy isn't going to work long-term. How is this going over your head?

The Chiefs lost more games than they won when Tony G. was the team's leading receiver. We went to the playoffs only twice with Tony as our primary receiver. We were one-and-done both times. Do you really believe that's a coincidence?

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 06:23 PM
While I agree with you on things like safeties and defensive backs leading the team in tackles, I sort of have a different take on offense.

You can have a fullback that leads the team in rushing because that is the playbook you have. If you have a tremendous talent at an offensive position, you find ways to get them involved in the game. It is not a bad thing, it is called utililizing your talent.

On defense it is quite a bit different because of the breakdown of coverage zones. That is not too hard to understand at all. As I said, offense is a different animal.

Your argument would be a lot better served if we were talking about an offensive tackle being the leading receiver. (Yes, there are plays where OT can be eligible receivers). Or if you had a wide receiver that lead the team in rushing yards. Those are examples of guys playing out of position. But if you have a talent at TE and you use that talent, then having a TE leading in receptions is not a bad thing.

What it does tell you about an offense is that the deep ball is not a key part of the offensive playbook. If you are passing a lot to TEs that means you are doing a lot of shorter passing plays.

Look at what San Diego did to Jacksonville and look at how they used Gates in that game.

It is nothing more than a stategy that a team employs.

Except that there's the more likely option. Our WRs aren't getting open or our QB can't get the ball to them, so our QB is continually going to his second or third option (the TE). That'll work some games. But it won't work long term.

Again, except for the 2000 Ravens (a SB team that managed to go five regular season games in a row without scoring a TD), can you find an exception to what I said?

matthewschiefs
09-20-2010, 06:26 PM
You've lied about a lot of stuff. What I wrote. Or the statistics (Moose Johnston especially) that you invented.

I didn't say it was a terrible sign Moeaki was doing good. You're either unable to comprehend the written word, or you're unwilling to be honest. I said it's a terrible sign if your TE is your primary receiver. And I backed that up. Unlike you, who started inventing stats. All it means is that we need to get our WRs more involved or to think about switching QBs. Because an offense with a TE as the main guy isn't going to work long-term. How is this going over your head?

The Chiefs lost more games than they won when Tony G. was the team's leading receiver. We went to the playoffs only twice with Tony as our primary receiver. We were one-and-done both times. Do you really believe that's a coincidence?

The Chiefs lost many of those games because they had a defense that couldn't stop ANYONE. They did not lose games because of who the leading receiver was. The fact is it really doesn't matter who a teams leading receiver is. There is no one set way that you win football games. Many teams have won a lot of games with many different styles. There is not anything that says a team that has a T.E. that leads them in receiving can't win a superbowl. 03 Tony lead the Chiefs in receiving the Chiefs had one of the top if not the top offenses in the NFL. That was not why they lost or had anything to do with why we lost to indy at home.

yashi
09-20-2010, 06:31 PM
Except that there's the more likely option. Our WRs aren't getting open or our QB can't get the ball to them, so our QB is continually going to his second or third option (the TE). That'll work some games. But it won't work long term.

Again, except for the 2000 Ravens (a SB team that managed to go five regular season games in a row without scoring a TD), can you find an exception to what I said?

Here's the problem: Not that many teams have a TE as the top receiving option, so naturally they're probably not going to win the Super Bowl, since only 1 team wins the Super Bowl. Actually the only teams I can even think of that maybe fall into that category currently are the Raiders (terrible), Colts (great), Chargers (very good, generally), and 49ers (average). Small sample, but that to me suggests to me more that if your TE is your best receiver, it doesn't really mean anything at all quite frankly.

Hell, I'd argue that our top option isn't the TE either. It just happens to have worked out that way through the first two games. But I'd be willing to bet that it won't finish that way. Bowe will be our leading receiver when it's said and done, barring injury.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 06:34 PM
The Chiefs lost many of those games because they had a defense that couldn't stop ANYONE. They did not lose games because of who the leading receiver was. The fact is it really doesn't matter who a teams leading receiver is. There is no one set way that you win football games. Many teams have won a lot of games with many different styles. There is not anything that says a team that has a T.E. that leads them in receiving can't win a superbowl. 03 Tony lead the Chiefs in receiving the Chiefs had one of the top if not the top offenses in the NFL. That was not why they lost or had anything to do with why we lost to indy at home.

We lost to Indy at home because Priest Holmes fumbled and our defense couldn't stop anyone. I agree entirely. Puposely, I haven't been going game-by-game (except to point out to Seek he was inventing things). I've been talking about the statistical trends.

A TE having a great game is a great thing. I'm very glad Moeaki is stepping up. But the fact that Moeaki was targeted 10 times and the rest of our receivers/RBs were targeted 18 is a troubling sign.

The 2006 Colts won the SB with the 32nd rank run defense. If our run defense were 32nd ranked right now, would you think that's OK, because a lot of teams have different styles of winning? Probably not. It's the same thing.

Matt Cassel has a 55.6 passer rating. He's targeting Moeaki more than everyone else. That isn't a coincidence. It's a symptom that we need to get our QB or our WRs to step up. We're not winning games because of our passing offense right now. We're winning in spite of it.

Seek
09-20-2010, 06:47 PM
You've lied about a lot of stuff. What I wrote. Or the statistics (Moose Johnston especially) that you invented.

I didn't say it was a terrible sign Moeaki was doing good. You're either unable to comprehend the written word, or you're unwilling to be honest. I said it's a terrible sign if your TE is your primary receiver. And I backed that up. Unlike you, who started inventing stats. All it means is that we need to get our WRs more involved or to think about switching QBs. Because an offense with a TE as the main guy isn't going to work long-term. How is this going over your head?

The Chiefs lost more games than they won when Tony G. was the team's leading receiver. We went to the playoffs only twice with Tony as our primary receiver. We were one-and-done both times. Do you really believe that's a coincidence?

I guess, I don't know how to read. When some says this "And I've said nothing but wonderful things about the Chiefs being 2-0." but in the same thread say "It's just that it's always a terrible sign when a team's leading receiver is a TE."

How is that second quote is supposed to be wonderful things about the Chiefs, when you are really saying it is a terrible sign. To me that is a contratidction and either just an incorrect statement or a lie. If I am truly reading that wrong, I am afraid I will never get it because there it is in black and white... You are just missing a big BUT..

To answer your question.

I think we were one and done with TG for a couple reasons. A our defesne sucked and could not force a punt under Greg Robinson. It had nothing to do with the offense, except for maybe a fumble by Priest Holmes on the five as he slowed down thinking he had a TD. I guess you could blame J. Morton for a dropped pass, but no punts... Seriously..

I also think the last time we went to the play offs, we lucked in and had no business being there, regardless of what Herman says. There was no facet of this team capable of playing in the playoffs except maybe the running game. It was an average team that lucked into the play offs and the one and done was deserving.

Under Herm Edwards your theory is accurate as it was TG who did just enough to get us in the play offs. Under DV, your theory is total BS... As I said there is more variables to a team losing in the play off than who is the leading receiver.

Regardless of were Moose did or didn't play, I don't care. I just remember being at a Dallas Chiefs game in Dallas and recall him playing TE. I hate the cowpies and so you got me. He is a FB, which I did post by the way as TE/FB... The point of the argument started when you said it was never a good sign when your TE is the leading receiver, when you yourself pointed out two seasons in which the Chiefs made the play off when TG was the leading receiver. Those were winning seasons.. you are wrong and didn't prove anything to me other than I don't know Cowpie football. Good for you...

matthewschiefs
09-20-2010, 06:51 PM
We lost to Indy at home because Priest Holmes fumbled and our defense couldn't stop anyone. I agree entirely. Puposely, I haven't been going game-by-game (except to point out to Seek he was inventing things). I've been talking about the statistical trends.

A TE having a great game is a great thing. I'm very glad Moeaki is stepping up. But the fact that Moeaki was targeted 10 times and the rest of our receivers/RBs were targeted 18 is a troubling sign.

The 2006 Colts won the SB with the 32nd rank run defense. If our run defense were 32nd ranked right now, would you think that's OK, because a lot of teams have different styles of winning? Probably not. It's the same thing.

Matt Cassel has a 55.6 passer rating. He's targeting Moeaki more than everyone else. That isn't a coincidence. It's a symptom that we need to get our QB or our WRs to step up. We're not winning games because of our passing offense right now. We're winning in spite of it.

Trent Green had a Rating of 92.6 and went to the pro bowl with a TE leading in reciving. A QB can have a bad year or a good year no matter who is leading the team in targets. Whats hurting Cassel is that he threw two picks, Has not hit some guys when they were open, and had some drops not who he is targeting.

It's not that a TE is targeted more that decides on how far a team goes in a season. It's how good the team is.

I do agree that our WRs HAVE TO step upp. But I don't think that it's a terrible thing to have a TE lead a team in catches. I think its a real good sign seeing that he's a rookie. If he can keep up his current pace he will be a good weapon for the team for years to come.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 06:55 PM
Here's the problem: Not that many teams have a TE as the top receiving option, so naturally they're probably not going to win the Super Bowl, since only 1 team wins the Super Bowl. Actually the only teams I can even think of that maybe fall into that category currently are the Raiders (terrible), Colts (great), Chargers (very good, generally), and 49ers (average). Small sample, but that to me suggests to me more that if your TE is your best receiver, it doesn't really mean anything at all quite frankly.

Hell, I'd argue that our top option isn't the TE either. It just happens to have worked out that way through the first two games. But I'd be willing to bet that it won't finish that way. Bowe will be our leading receiver when it's said and done, barring injury.

Dallas Clark gets most of his yardage in the slot, not the TE spot. A good way to tell if the Colts are running the ball is whether Clark is lined up at TE. He was starting at WR (Utecht was the TE) the year the Colts won the SB.

The following TEs were the main receiver for their team in the 2000s.

Jason Witten
Antonio Gates
Alge Crumpler
Todd Heap
Tony Gonzalez
Zach Miller
Chad Lewis
Vernon Davis
John Carlson
Kellen Winslow (on Bucs)
Shannon Sharpe

Only Sharpe on the 2000 Ravens (not exactly a passing team) went anywhere. Forget SB. I'm just talking about winning a playoff game.

And here's the thing. All of those are great TEs. And the teams were lucky to have them. But each team followed one of two paths: (1) they improved when they got a real WR, whether Austin on the Cowboys (won playoff game), Jackson on the Chargers (AFC Championship), and Crabtree on the 49ers; or (2) they imploded and had to rebuild; or (3) they finished at the bottom of the league in 2009 (Bucs, Seahawks, Raiders).

I don't know what you all are looking for here, but it's about as black and white as things get.

Seek
09-20-2010, 06:58 PM
We lost to Indy at home because Priest Holmes fumbled and our defense couldn't stop anyone. I agree entirely. Puposely, I haven't been going game-by-game (except to point out to Seek he was inventing things). I've been talking about the statistical trends.

A TE having a great game is a great thing. I'm very glad Moeaki is stepping up. But the fact that Moeaki was targeted 10 times and the rest of our receivers/RBs were targeted 18 is a troubling sign.

The 2006 Colts won the SB with the 32nd rank run defense. If our run defense were 32nd ranked right now, would you think that's OK, because a lot of teams have different styles of winning? Probably not. It's the same thing.

Matt Cassel has a 55.6 passer rating. He's targeting Moeaki more than everyone else. That isn't a coincidence. It's a symptom that we need to get our QB or our WRs to step up. We're not winning games because of our passing offense right now. We're winning in spite of it.

Again lying about saying nothing but great things for Chiefs being 2-0. You just pointed out all the negatives...

I just don't get this reading stuff.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 07:06 PM
I guess, I don't know how to read. When some says this "And I've said nothing but wonderful things about the Chiefs being 2-0." but in the same thread say "It's just that it's always a terrible sign when a team's leading receiver is a TE."

How is that second quote is supposed to be wonderful things about the Chiefs, when you are really saying it is a terrible sign. To me that is a contratidction and either just an incorrect statement or a lie. If I am truly reading that wrong, I am afraid I will never get it because there it is in black and white... You are just missing a big BUT..

Our team has played great. We have a trend that, if uncorrected, is a bad sign. Is this really still going over your head?


To answer your question.

I think we were one and done with TG for a couple reasons. A our defesne sucked and could not force a punt under Greg Robinson. It had nothing to do with the offense, except for maybe a fumble by Priest Holmes on the five as he slowed down thinking he had a TD. I guess you could blame J. Morton for a dropped pass, but no punts... Seriously..

OK. As I said, I was talking about applying yearly statistics to teams, not a game-by-game analysis. If I told you that a team finished 32nd in run defense, would you think it more likely they're picking 1st in the draft or a SB winner. Just because there are outliers doesn't mean you should count on being that outlier.


I also think the last time we went to the play offs, we lucked in and had no business being there, regardless of what Herman says. There was no facet of this team capable of playing in the playoffs except maybe the running game. It was an average team that lucked into the play offs and the one and done was deserving.

You're forgetting our Jared Allen/Tamba Hali pass rush, which was the best in the league in 2006 (IMHO).


Under Herm Edwards your theory is accurate as it was TG who did just enough to get us in the play offs. Under DV, your theory is total BS... As I said there is more variables to a team losing in the play off than who is the leading receiver.

That's true. Likewise, there are more variables than who is the leading tackler. But if your FS is your leading tackler, or if your run defense is 32nd ranked, those are signs that something needs to be improved. It doesn't absolutely preclude winning games, but you almost certainly will not do as well as if your MLB was you're leading tackler, or your run defense was ranked 1st. It's a bad sign for future success.


Regardless of were Moose did or didn't play, I don't care. I just remember being at a Dallas Chiefs game in Dallas and recall him playing TE. I hate the cowpies and so you got me. He is a FB, which I did post by the way as TE/FB... The point of the argument started when you said it was never a good sign when your TE is the leading receiver, when you yourself pointed out two seasons in which the Chiefs made the play off when TG was the leading receiver. Those were winning seasons.. you are wrong and didn't prove anything to me other than I don't know Cowpie football. Good for you...

No, it shows that you invent things rather than looking them up. It took me two minutes on the internet to find out you were lying.

bwilliams
09-20-2010, 07:09 PM
Again lying about saying nothing but great things for Chiefs being 2-0. You just pointed out all the negatives...

I just don't get this reading stuff.

I guess not. You're not so hot at the writing thing either. Or comprehensive skills.

Pointing out that Cassel has a 55.6 passer rating isn't being negative. It's being accurate. You might try it sometime.

SIC J
09-20-2010, 07:17 PM
It doesn't really matter who the leading receiver is. But it does help dramatically when you have at least 1 "star" or "threat" receiver. It takes the opposing teams concentration off the other receivers.

Everyone is putting a lot of the lack of offense on the shoulders of Cassel right now which I can see why with the numbers he's put up.

In my opinion, it has to do with many other things as well as Cassel.

1. Receivers not getting open
2. Receivers dropping passes
3. Play calling
4. Putting Cassel in long yardage situations on 3rd down
5. Not calling pass plays enough to let Cassel get in a comfort zone
6. Running game not being really effective
7. Pressure

All these things are going to contribute to Cassel not doing well either and that doesn't help his situation in helping him become a better QB.

The Chiefs will have to wait til the end of the season to really evaluate Cassel and look at his performance.

But it looks to me like the Chiefs are doing a great job at moving them in the right direction. Maybe they're concentrating more on defense than offense. After all, defense wins championships!

Pro_Angler
09-20-2010, 07:38 PM
wow you guys sure are negative towards each other,... some of you are just sarcasstic little &^%^%$ and others just dont want to hear the truth!

people have the right to say whatever they want to say!!!

I will say what I want to say!!!

we are 2-0 this is frikin wonderfull.. canwe keep this up with the way cassell is playing..hell no!! does he need to make some changes..hell yes!! does our WR's need to help him?? hell yes!! Does Weis need to realize it's 2010?? hell yes!!

Does our defense and special teams look great?? hell yes!!

Pointing out the obvious and getting critisized is stiupid! come on trash talk me!! I DONT GIVE A CRAP!! I HAVE BEEN A CHIEFS FAN FOR 38 YEARS I CRY WHEN THEY LOSE AND I GO CRAZY WHEN THEY WIN!! ASK MY WIFE SHE WILL TELL YOU THAT SHE HAS NEVER SEEN ANYONE SO PATIONATE ABOUT ANYTHING THEN I AM WITH THE CHIEFS!!

SPEAK YOUR WORST..I DON'T CARE!!!!!!!

Chiefster
09-20-2010, 07:53 PM
I don't care how the wins come, at this point, as long as they come! It's about creating a culture of winning; does that mean I think we'll go to the super bowl and win this year? No, but if it happens I'll be more than happy to serve myself a heaping portion of crow and dine on it.

Seek
09-20-2010, 09:37 PM
wow you guys sure are negative towards each other,... some of you are just sarcasstic little &^%^%$ and others just dont want to hear the truth!

people have the right to say whatever they want to say!!!

I will say what I want to say!!!

we are 2-0 this is frikin wonderfull.. canwe keep this up with the way cassell is playing..hell no!! does he need to make some changes..hell yes!! does our WR's need to help him?? hell yes!! Does Weis need to realize it's 2010?? hell yes!!

Does our defense and special teams look great?? hell yes!!

Pointing out the obvious and getting critisized is stiupid! come on trash talk me!! I DONT GIVE A CRAP!! I HAVE BEEN A CHIEFS FAN FOR 38 YEARS I CRY WHEN THEY LOSE AND I GO CRAZY WHEN THEY WIN!! ASK MY WIFE SHE WILL TELL YOU THAT SHE HAS NEVER SEEN ANYONE SO PATIONATE ABOUT ANYTHING THEN I AM WITH THE CHIEFS!!

SPEAK YOUR WORST..I DON'T CARE!!!!!!!

do you feel better now that is off your chest.

azchiefsfan
09-20-2010, 09:56 PM
I am not ready to throw Cassell under the bus yet. There is alot of bad play calling right now. Run, run, pass, punt. That is not on Cassell. But when he does have the opportunity to open up the field, he just isn't seeing the open receivers. Something isn't right, but I think for now he should start. He isn't turning the ball over (ala Croyle), so that gives us a better chance to win. I am very disturbed by his lack of productivity, but let's not light the tar pots to boiling just yet.

yashi
09-20-2010, 10:32 PM
NFL Videos: Browns defense, INT (http://www.nfl.com/videos/kansas-city-chiefs/09000d5d81aa6f77/Browns-defense-INT)

Watch the top of the screen. Bowe has his man completely beat with no safety over the top. Doesn't even see him. We can't afford to miss those opportunities.

Hayvern
09-20-2010, 11:21 PM
NFL Videos: Browns defense, INT (http://www.nfl.com/videos/kansas-city-chiefs/09000d5d81aa6f77/Browns-defense-INT)

Watch the top of the screen. Bowe has his man completely beat with no safety over the top. Doesn't even see him. We can't afford to miss those opportunities.

OMG, I can't believe how negative you are. Geez, you should just be happy that the Chiefs are 2 - 0. Why do you have to keep bringing up these shortcomings all the time?

Oh, I think the term for Cassel has been "birddogging" I think that is what they mean when a QB locks in on one receiver and never takes his eyes off of him. Cassel was going to Chambers all the way.

But you are right, Bowe was wide open and it would have been a touchdown if Cassel would have hit him.

Next time though, don't be so negative!

tornadospotter
09-21-2010, 12:54 AM
OMG, I can't believe how negative you are. Geez, you should just be happy that the Chiefs are 2 - 0. Why do you have to keep bringing up these shortcomings all the time?

Oh, I think the term for Cassel has been "birddogging" I think that is what they mean when a QB locks in on one receiver and never takes his eyes off of him. Cassel was going to Chambers all the way.

But you are right, Bowe was wide open and it would have been a touchdown if Cassel would have hit him.

Next time though, don't be so negative!
OMG! We are only 2-0, and we are so negative, what is up with this? Chiefster saying we may not make it to the Super Bowl this season. People saying that Cassel sucks. We have no O-Line, we have no receivers. :D


We all should just pack it all in, We will never agree on how we feel about the way we win. :D
But at the end of the NFL week, we are 2-0, and 1 game lead in the west. That has me fired up! All the issues are going to be fixed, the Offense will show up soon.:chiefs:

I believe, we may yet make the big show, if we continue getting the outcome we have so far, from each game we have played this season. :chiefs: :punk:

Sn@keIze
09-21-2010, 02:37 AM
I am starting to get on the anti-Cassel bandwagon. Today's game is completely on him and his lack of getting rid of the ball.

They have to be able to convert on 3rd down. This is getting old.
Im walkn towards the bandwagon myself. Im gettn there. I blame (most) of the 3rd down failures on playcalling. Since a lot were 3rd and short

I have said this since day one we got him.. and ive gotten nothing but critisism!!!then you got critizm for being close minded. the guy threw for almost 4000 yds at the time.


That was quick. Now it's time to get on the Anti-Haley bandwagon!

I have a hard time believing that Weis is the one keeping our best player away from the ball. Charles has 11 caries vs. 22 from Jones? From my view and that of the average fan it looks pretty apparent that best chance of success = allowing best players the chance to be successful.

Back on topic.

Bring on Brody.Im starting to question Weiss almost as much as Cassell now.


Did they win?We have to be realistic. We won. But our offense didnt help. These wins wont happen with this type of offensive gameplay.


He's not capable of picking it up. .he is capable. He did it in NE.


I am even more on the Pro Haley bandwagon. The fact is we are 2-0 for the first time in a LONG time. I don't think that there is any reason to be anti haley with starting 2-0.Haley is a moron.


Berry's gotta get better. We aren't paying him to get beat deep every game.He will. Gates worked him over. And these upcoming QBs are now lickn there chops seeing how he bites play action. He best be ready to eat humble pie.

He is outstanding a stopping runs tho... now back to the thread topic.


Uhh yeah, we are 2-0 but does it really feel like it? I dont feel like they are 2-0 the way they've played offense this year it seems like luck. How many 3 and outs will it take for you to think he sucks? I also posted this topic right after his 2nd interception when we were losing.Actually, I disagree. there are 3 aspects of the game. We have 2. Just last year we didnt have any. We have GOT to get that 3rd aspect.


Man, tough loss for us......if Cassell would have played better we might have won.
FAIL.

Cassel's efficiency numbers are scary, 55.8:toast2:yep.

Weiss is touted as a great developer of QBs. And his track record is difficult to argue with.

Just wondering what our expectations are for a timeline of said development.

Albeit, I would expect better progress through two games. But I am far from surprised at the struggles of this developing process.

Now, I want to be clear here. I am far from confident that Cassel even can be transformed from a drop back and wait for patterns to open up kind of QB to a quick reading sort.

I didn't like the trade we made for him. I still don't really like it.

But I am not really even close to calling it after two games. (Both wins)

While I sincerely doubt his abilty to be a great QB in this offense, I have very little doubt that he will be better than he was today.

But honestly, is two games the standard for measuring the development of a QB?good post.

I thought Weiss was suppose to fix Cassell. I just don't see the fixn.




Eh, I'm past all excuses for Cassel.
I think i am too. Im startn to think we just eat our garunteed $.

Well he improved over last week, so all hope is'nt lost..No he hasnt.


Again, Trent Green's first couple of seasons were horrible and I, by and large, felt the same way about him as do many feel about Cassel now. I'm glad that in the end Green proved me wrong about him; I hold out hope that Cassel will do the same.??


I'm not sure what to think about him. He had a pretty darn good year at NE replacing Brady. We certainly haven't seen that yet at KC though. Was that year a fluke? Did he lose his confidence last year behind a bad OL that didn't give him much of a chance? I'm still want to give him a chance, but the doubts continue to mount.
good post.

I agree. Moeaki has definitely been a bright spot. I'm a fan.
yep.

now back to the thread.

Cassel needs to play better. But he is not loseing games for the Chiefs. So I will still have some hope. But he better show me something realy soon.He is not winning them either.


I am the same way. I am getting close to the anti Cassel bandwagon but I am not on there yet. But if he plays like he did yesterday again next week. You better make room for me on the bandwagon.This seems to be the general consensus more and more every week.


What dood does it do you being on the anti Band Wagon. .It puts more pressure on the Coaches and Cassell.

Trust me. Perform or move on.


I'm just saying I have no faith in this team, Have faith brother.


I don't care how the wins come, at this point, as long as they come! It's about creating a culture of winning; does that mean I think we'll go to the super bowl and win this year? No, but if it happens I'll be more than happy to serve myself a heaping portion of crow and dine on it.
True. Lookn at how our season have been. this truly is nice.

Im not complaining. And really i dont think anyone else is.

This is the Cassell thread. Therefore dont expect this to be a sunshine thread.

I am not ready to throw Cassell under the bus yet. There is alot of bad play calling right now. Run, run, pass, punt. That is not on Cassell. But when he does have the opportunity to open up the field, he just isn't seeing the open receivers. Something isn't right, but I think for now he should start. He isn't turning the ball over (ala Croyle), so that gives us a better chance to win. I am very disturbed by his lack of productivity, but let's not light the tar pots to boiling just yet.
yes there is a lot of bad playcalling.

Weiss is starting to come into question ot me. But not yet.

I pick Weiss over that Dumbass Haley any day.

tammietailgator
09-21-2010, 03:31 AM
Hey, did you guys know that we are 2-0? Just curious... I know we have some work to do, but isn't this what its all about? Do you strive to do better at your job? I do. Maybe.... just maybe Cassell is too. Oh and our O line needs to be working it too! But I am sure they know this. See ya next week Arrowhead! Got my voice back and ready to do my job!

KristofLaw
09-21-2010, 10:07 AM
No it is not official.

KCINNYC
09-21-2010, 10:24 AM
No it is not official.

Perfectly put.

Ok, it is official. This thread stinks.

KristofLaw
09-21-2010, 10:29 AM
While his play has been disappointing we do lead the league in win/loss.

Our defence and special teams have looked good so far this season hopefully our offence will get into gear and we can ditch this topic soon. :bananen_smilies046:

Slacker6000
09-21-2010, 12:29 PM
Ok when/if the chiefs lose next week and its Cassels fault all you guys happy about the 2-0 start will be posting on here about how cassel sucks. If they win and Cassels looks decent I'll post an apology. Time will tell.
:chiefs:

N TX Dave
09-21-2010, 01:25 PM
As I said in another thread. It does not matter how good or how bad he is/does. Please everyone can see how he does we don't want to hear all season about how bad he is. He is our QB this year like it or not for better or worse there are not many options for us to go to. The staff can see how he is doing and I am sure if he does not make progress this year they will be looking for another QB next year and if they can not find another one we might be stuck with him for another year. Sure he many not be good enough to win a SB with but how many of you REALLY expected the Chiefs to go to the SB this year? Sure there is always hope but then there is reallity.
I am happy with the TEAM right now as I can see great strides in the right direction and the team is not as bad as the last 3 years and is playing with heart and that is really all I was wanting to see.
Will this team win the SB this year doubtful and I did not think they would but the team is what it is so just set back and watch it and wait until the season is over to ***** about the team then hope the weak spots can be improved on.

Hayvern
09-21-2010, 02:46 PM
Except that there's the more likely option. Our WRs aren't getting open or our QB can't get the ball to them, so our QB is continually going to his second or third option (the TE). That'll work some games. But it won't work long term.

Again, except for the 2000 Ravens (a SB team that managed to go five regular season games in a row without scoring a TD), can you find an exception to what I said?

Assuming the tight end is the second or third option. I argue that Moeacki may be a more prime option.

I am not sure what you are talking about by offense not scoring touchdowns, that is not what we were talking about.

Chiefster
09-21-2010, 02:51 PM
Wow! This thread continues???

bwilliams
09-21-2010, 03:01 PM
Assuming the tight end is the second or third option. I argue that Moeacki may be a more prime option.

I am not sure what you are talking about by offense not scoring touchdowns, that is not what we were talking about.

Considering that TEs average far fewer yards per catch than WRs, and considering that on at least a percentage of pass plays they block instead of receive, if your first option is your TE, your OC stinks. I'd much rather believe this is a matter of Cassel throwing to our rookie TE as a second or third option than that Weis is gameplanning it that way. Because if it's the former, Cassel can improve on his 55.8 passer rating and 4.9 Y/A with improved QB and WR play. If it's the latter, there's no reason for it to improve.

That is what I was talking about. You're replying to me, not vice versa. I was talking about the Ravens being an offensive dud in 2000. That was the primary reason Sharpe led that team in yards. Not because they were gameplanning it.

Hayvern
09-21-2010, 03:23 PM
Considering that TEs average far fewer yards per catch than WRs, and considering that on at least a percentage of pass plays they block instead of receive, if your first option is your TE, your OC stinks. I'd much rather believe this is a matter of Cassel throwing to our rookie TE as a second or third option than that Weis is gameplanning it that way. Because if it's the former, Cassel can improve on his 55.8 passer rating and 4.9 Y/A with improved QB and WR play. If it's the latter, there's no reason for it to improve.

That is what I was talking about. You're replying to me, not vice versa. I was talking about the Ravens being an offensive dud in 2000. That was the primary reason Sharpe led that team in yards. Not because they were gameplanning it.

OK so these are all matters of opinion. I personally think it comes down to who your wide receivers are. If your rookie tight end is the guy that is able to make the catches, then he is the go to guy.

Now this seems to be turning into a circular argument and I am going to get off the merry-go-round. Maybe the Ravens were offensive duds, if you have Shannon Sharpe on your team and he is the best you have, then you game plan it. Why is that so hard to understand?

Makes sense to me.

All in all to me, it seems that the Chiefs are trying to get their weapons involved in whatever way they can. If it just so happens that Moeacki is playing better than Chambers and Bowe, then so be it. I don't think that is a reflection on how badly anyone sucks, but that is a matter of opinion.

Agree to disagree.

Chiefster
09-21-2010, 03:25 PM
OK so these are all matters of opinion. I personally think it comes down to who your wide receivers are. If your rookie tight end is the guy that is able to make the catches, then he is the go to guy.

Now this seems to be turning into a circular argument and I am going to get off the merry-go-round. Maybe the Ravens were offensive duds, if you have Shannon Sharpe on your team and he is the best you have, then you game plan it. Why is that so hard to understand?

Makes sense to me.

All in all to me, it seems that the Chiefs are trying to get their weapons involved in whatever way they can. If it just so happens that Moeacki is playing better than Chambers and Bowe, then so be it. I don't think that is a reflection on how badly anyone sucks, but that is a matter of opinion.

Agree to disagree.

...This! :bananen_smilies046:

bwilliams
09-21-2010, 03:33 PM
OK so these are all matters of opinion. I personally think it comes down to who your wide receivers are. If your rookie tight end is the guy that is able to make the catches, then he is the go to guy.

Now this seems to be turning into a circular argument and I am going to get off the merry-go-round. Maybe the Ravens were offensive duds, if you have Shannon Sharpe on your team and he is the best you have, then you game plan it. Why is that so hard to understand?

Makes sense to me.

All in all to me, it seems that the Chiefs are trying to get their weapons involved in whatever way they can. If it just so happens that Moeacki is playing better than Chambers and Bowe, then so be it. I don't think that is a reflection on how badly anyone sucks, but that is a matter of opinion.

Agree to disagree.

If you're gameplanning for your TE to be your primary receiver, your passing game will almost certainly stink. You know, like your QB will have a 55.8 passer rating. If your passing game stinks, you will almost certainly not succeed as a team. Hope this solves your circular issue.

Unfortunately, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a guess at the unknown. One of us will be right, and one of us will be wrong. We'll know which after we look at the passing stats in 14 weeks.

Canada
09-21-2010, 04:08 PM
If you're gameplanning for your TE to be your primary receiver, your passing game will almost certainly stink. You know, like your QB will have a 55.8 passer rating. If your passing game stinks, you will almost certainly not succeed as a team. Hope this solves your circular issue.

Unfortunately, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a guess at the unknown. One of us will be right, and one of us will be wrong. We'll know which after we look at the passing stats in 14 weeks.

Im pretty sure Tony G was a big part of the gameplan when he was here, and on a lot of 3rd downs, he was the main target. Yet Trent Green still threw for a ton of yards and we had a pretty good offense.

Sick Dog
09-21-2010, 04:28 PM
Well I have tried to read most of this thread then it got too painful.

The only thing that would be interesting is if Cassel got hurt not serious and Brody came in because I am sure this is the only way he is getting in and we can see how he does with the offense.

I would hate to see the boards if the Chiefs were 0 - 2.

Now I am going to have a beer or 2:drunkhb:

Canada
09-21-2010, 04:31 PM
The only knock I have ever really heard about Brodie was the he is made of glass.

Protect him and see what happens!!

yashi
09-21-2010, 04:43 PM
Yeah, I mean Brodie was actually really good the last time we saw him get a chance to play, which was actually the only chance he's had to play under the new regime. If Cassel keeps struggling, I would definitely be interested in seeing him get a chance. Might as well, right?

matthewschiefs
09-21-2010, 04:56 PM
Yeah, I mean Brodie was actually really good the last time we saw him get a chance to play, which was actually the only chance he's had to play under the new regime. If Cassel keeps struggling, I would definitely be interested in seeing him get a chance. Might as well, right?

Brodie has had some good games at QB. Games that he made it through without getting hurt. Like the Ravens game last year. If Cassel does not get it going next week I think it would be a good time to make a change. And give him a chance after the bye week. But I really hope that Matt shows up and steps it up this week and the Chiefs get there offense going.

Seek
09-21-2010, 05:20 PM
Brodie has had some good games at QB. Games that he made it through without getting hurt. Like the Ravens game last year. If Cassel does not get it going next week I think it would be a good time to make a change. And give him a chance after the bye week. But I really hope that Matt shows up and steps it up this week and the Chiefs get there offense going.

:beat_DeadHorse: :beat_DeadHorse: :beat_DeadHorse: :beat_DeadHorse: :beat_DeadHorse: :beat_DeadHorse:
Brodie is not the future Qbof this team. He is not reliable enough to play half a season yet 2 games. The only reason you would bench Casell and use Brokie, would be to intentionally tank the rest of the season to get a higher pick to draft future starting Qb.

Seriously, if Brokie is the answer you are looking for the season is already shot and we should play for next year. Brokie can go out and have a Peyton Manning day, and it would mean nothing becuase he is glass and would be hurt later in the seaon. We are better off resigning Palko and starting him.

bwilliams
09-21-2010, 05:40 PM
Im pretty sure Tony G was a big part of the gameplan when he was here, and on a lot of 3rd downs, he was the main target. Yet Trent Green still threw for a ton of yards and we had a pretty good offense.

He was a very large part of the offense. Tony G. joined the Chiefs in 1997. He was traded in 2009. During those 12 seasons here, he led the Chiefs in receiving seven times. Below are the years and the receiving leaders and the records.

1997 - Rison (13-3)
1998 - Alexander (7-9)
1999 - Gonzalez (9-7)
2000 - Alexander (7-9)
2001 - Gonzalez (6-10)
2002 - Kennison (8-8)
2003 - Gonzalez (13-3)
2004 - Gonzalez (7-9)
2005 - Kennison (10-6)
2006 - Gonzalez (9-7)
2007 - Gonzalez (4-12)
2008 - Gonzalez (2-14)

With Gonzalez at the primary reciver, we went 50-62 (.446 winning percentage).

With someone emerged as the primary receiver, we went 45-35 (.562 winning percentage).

These numbers aren't accidents. Nor that in 2003 Gonzalez got the most help from the WR corps and from Holmes receiving.

This isn't to take away from Tony Gonzalez. He was the greatest TE in NFL history. It just demonstrates that it's a worrisome statistic when your TE is your leading receiver. You should want your WRs leading the team in receiving yardage for all the reasons I stated in earlier posts. If they're not, it's a bad sign.

#58ChiefsFan
09-21-2010, 10:22 PM
Backup quarterback = most popular player

I hope someone already posted that but I honestly cant read 15 pages of pissing and moaning about a 2-0 team

matthewschiefs
09-21-2010, 10:34 PM
:beat_DeadHorse: :beat_DeadHorse: :beat_DeadHorse: :beat_DeadHorse: :beat_DeadHorse: :beat_DeadHorse:
Brodie is not the future Qbof this team. He is not reliable enough to play half a season yet 2 games. The only reason you would bench Casell and use Brokie, would be to intentionally tank the rest of the season to get a higher pick to draft future starting Qb.

Seriously, if Brokie is the answer you are looking for the season is already shot and we should play for next year. Brokie can go out and have a Peyton Manning day, and it would mean nothing becuase he is glass and would be hurt later in the seaon. We are better off resigning Palko and starting him.

I don't think that Brodie is the QBOTF either. What I am saying is that if Cassel does not imporve and keeps throwing picks then we should see if Brodie can do better for this team THIS year. Then after the season go out and find a QB that can get the job done.

I myself hope that this issue is put to bed starting this week and Cassel starts to get it going. I agree that he is a better bet to have because he can make it without ending up on IR. But if he doesn't start to get going soon I think it would be bad not to give Brodie a look.

Seek
09-22-2010, 12:25 PM
I don't think that Brodie is the QBOTF either. What I am saying is that if Cassel does not imporve and keeps throwing picks then we should see if Brodie can do better for this team THIS year. Then after the season go out and find a QB that can get the job done.

I myself hope that this issue is put to bed starting this week and Cassel starts to get it going. I agree that he is a better bet to have because he can make it without ending up on IR. But if he doesn't start to get going soon I think it would be bad not to give Brodie a look.


The guy already got hurt in two quarter of pre-season this year. He missed two games because of it.

You can start Croyle this week, have him get hurt in in the next game or two since he can only seem to play two games before something hurts him, and then you will be back to Cassel as starter but now, with no back up to Cassel should he get hurt and then you will be using a third stringer not currently on this roster. This sitution did play itself out when Croylegot the the starting job from Huard. Fortunately Thigpen was a better QB than both Croyle and Huard for that team.

That situation could still play out, but the risk of that situation is much less if Croyle is not starting unless necessary.

Canada
09-22-2010, 12:41 PM
He was a very large part of the offense. Tony G. joined the Chiefs in 1997. He was traded in 2009. During those 12 seasons here, he led the Chiefs in receiving seven times. Below are the years and the receiving leaders and the records.

1997 - Rison (13-3)
1998 - Alexander (7-9)
1999 - Gonzalez (9-7)
2000 - Alexander (7-9)
2001 - Gonzalez (6-10)
2002 - Kennison (8-8)
2003 - Gonzalez (13-3)
2004 - Gonzalez (7-9)
2005 - Kennison (10-6)
2006 - Gonzalez (9-7)
2007 - Gonzalez (4-12)
2008 - Gonzalez (2-14)

With Gonzalez at the primary reciver, we went 50-62 (.446 winning percentage).

With someone emerged as the primary receiver, we went 45-35 (.562 winning percentage).

These numbers aren't accidents. Nor that in 2003 Gonzalez got the most help from the WR corps and from Holmes receiving.

This isn't to take away from Tony Gonzalez. He was the greatest TE in NFL history. It just demonstrates that it's a worrisome statistic when your TE is your leading receiver. You should want your WRs leading the team in receiving yardage for all the reasons I stated in earlier posts. If they're not, it's a bad sign.

Take out the last two years where the whole team sucked and the record is 46-38. Im not saying I dont want a better WR, and I think Tony is an exception to the tule, but we did alright with him being one of our main threats.(Especially as the guy with sure hands on 3rd downs) That being said, we definitely need to upgrade the WR corps.

bwilliams
09-22-2010, 01:31 PM
Take out the last two years where the whole team sucked and the record is 46-38. Im not saying I dont want a better WR, and I think Tony is an exception to the tule, but we did alright with him being one of our main threats.(Especially as the guy with sure hands on 3rd downs) That being said, we definitely need to upgrade the WR corps.

Actually, it's 44-36. But you can't ditch the worst years like that. I mean, if you ditch the one 13-3 year in 2003, we went 37-59 with Gonzalez as the primary reciever.

One of the reasons we finished 6-26 in 2008-2009 was because our passing game was so anemic in its passing (Croyle, Thigpen, Huard), its receivers (Bowe, Bradley, and whoever else), and our pass protection(Waters, Albert, and trash). And because our passing game was so anemic, our TE was getting the majority of the yardage. Which means we weren't throwing the ball long, and that we weren't getting many yards per attempt (Y/A).

It isn't that Tony being one of our main guys was a bad thing. Just that teams in which the TE is the primary receiver tend to do worse than teams in which a WR is the primary reciever. If a TE is your primary receiver, it means you're probably getting lower-than-average yards per attempt, because TEs necessarily run shorter routes. Your QBs passing accuracy is probably lower than average, because TEs are blockers on at least a percentage of passing plays. It probably means you're getting sacked more, because you aren't using the TE as a blocker as much as most teams.

It's just a statistical indicator that your passing game isn't very good. Just like all statistical indicators, there are outliers (2006 Colts in run defense, 2000 Ravens in passing offense). But it shows us that our QB, WRs, and (maybe) protection need to massively step up.

Canada
09-22-2010, 02:50 PM
I hear what you are saying, and I agree. tony G in the exception to a rule. But you are right, I hope Moeaki is not our #1

kilobytes
09-22-2010, 11:27 PM
He is not that bad. I was anti Cassel because of the money we payed him. I think he struggled because of what our o line did to him last year. Happy feet and can't focus. He focused in the 2nd half last game. He should be good this week.

tornadospotter
09-22-2010, 11:56 PM
He is not that bad. I was anti Cassel because of the money we payed him. I think he struggled because of what our o line did to him last year. Happy feet and can't focus. He focused in the 2nd half last game. He should be good this week.
I hope so, because we need him to improve his play, and play to his potential. We need that!

Canada
09-23-2010, 06:45 PM
He is not that bad. I was anti Cassel because of the money we payed him. I think he struggled because of what our o line did to him last year. Happy feet and can't focus. He focused in the 2nd half last game. He should be good this week.

I could care less what kind of $$ they pay him. In reality it was smart the way thay paid him cause if id does not work out then we can dump him with a minimal cap hit. I would like to see more improvement on the field though.

chief31
09-23-2010, 10:14 PM
I could care less what kind of $$ they pay him. In reality it was smart the way thay paid him cause if id does not work out then we can dump him with a minimal cap hit. I would like to see more improvement on the field though.


The only reason I disaproved of his contract extention was because he was all-but guaranteed to struggle last season, and would have come far cheaper, with the same structure, during this past offseason.

But, like you, I really don't care what he is paid. Especially when we aren't really spending money anyway.

N TX Dave
09-24-2010, 11:10 AM
The only reason I disaproved of his contract extention was because he was all-but guaranteed to struggle last season, and would have come far cheaper, with the same structure, during this past offseason.

But, like you, I really don't care what he is paid. Especially when we aren't really spending money anyway.

I agree with you what difference what we are paying him as long as it is not stopping from signing someone else because his salary was putting us in cap he|| which it is not so why keep bringing it up who cares, how does his salary hurt the team?

Seek
09-24-2010, 11:47 AM
I agree with you what difference what we are paying him as long as it is not stopping from signing someone else because his salary was putting us in cap he|| which it is not so why keep bringing it up who cares, how does his salary hurt the team?

I had herd, the Chiefs had the second lowest Salary in the NFL this year behind Tampa Bay, both teams are 2-0.

Ironic that the Cow Pies have the highest salary and they are 0-2.

bwilliams
09-24-2010, 11:51 AM
I had herd, the Chiefs had the second lowest Salary in the NFL this year behind Tampa Bay, both teams are 2-0.

Ironic that the Cow Pies have the highest salary and they are 0-2.

The Vikings hav the second highest salary and are 0-2 as well.

Seek
09-24-2010, 11:57 AM
The Vikings hav the second highest salary and are 0-2 as well.

I wonder if they have an OKAY its Officel, Brett Farve F()*& Sucks. thread.

They are still blaming Jessica Simpson for dating Romo down in Dallas.

Hayvern
09-24-2010, 12:20 PM
I wonder if they have an OKAY its Officel, Brett Farve F()*& Sucks. thread.

They are still blaming Jessica Simpson for dating Romo down in Dallas.

Oh I am sure they do!

Slacker6000
09-26-2010, 02:46 PM
so far still looks official!

Slacker6000
09-26-2010, 03:57 PM
hmm maybe not

Slacker6000
09-26-2010, 04:19 PM
ok its official I made a mistake and this thread sucks. GO CHIEFS!!!
:chiefs:

matthewschiefs
09-26-2010, 04:21 PM
Cassle is steping up today and that is great to see.

GlennBree
09-26-2010, 04:54 PM
ok its official I made a mistake and this thread sucks. GO CHIEFS!!!
:chiefs:

WORD! GOOD CALL!:chiefs:

azchiefsfan
09-26-2010, 04:55 PM
WTF do you think we Cassell supporters have been saying? No one should be bullet-proof and no one should be burned at the stake either for struggling at some point.

kilobytes
09-26-2010, 05:58 PM
I told you so :)

Told ya he would step it up today

Pro_Angler
09-26-2010, 05:59 PM
I told you so :)

Told ya he would step it up today


I did predict:

cassell 250yds passing 2 TD;s he hot 250 and 3 td's
I also predicted 1 rushing td and one FG..I was almost perfect..

kcvet
09-26-2010, 06:35 PM
now he has to be consistent. here's hopin

Pro_Angler
09-26-2010, 06:37 PM
now he has to be consistent. here's hopin


I think they found a play scheme that can work with Cassell. They just need to work off of it and start building on it.

OTR Chiefs fan
09-26-2010, 06:46 PM
I think they found a play scheme that can work with Cassell. They just need to work off of it and start building on it.

I agree. Finally production on both sides of the ball. Cassell looked good today. I was in support of him from the beginning, but after the last two games was starting to have my doubts. Let's hope they stay with the same scheme that utilizes his strengths.
:chiefs:

kcvet
09-26-2010, 06:47 PM
I think they found a play scheme that can work with Cassell. They just need to work off of it and start building on it.

good play calling to. especially second half. . they threw that conservative crap out the window. those 2nd half points really demoralize an opponent. the 49'ers were hanging their heads.

SIC J
09-27-2010, 02:01 AM
I told you so :)

Told ya he would step it up today

He's not "stepping it up". The Chiefs simply gave him the "opportunity" with better play calling. He took it and made the best of it.

Seek
09-27-2010, 10:29 AM
He's not "stepping it up". The Chiefs simply gave him the "opportunity" with better play calling. He took it and made the best of it.

I'll disagree. I saw Cassel Make some very tough throws yesterday that the scheme had nothing to do with. One of which was to to Moeaki that only he could catch in the end zone and one to McCluster while triple teamed.

He still made mistakes, but he made some very tough throws.

matthewschiefs
09-27-2010, 12:28 PM
I'll disagree. I saw Cassel Make some very tough throws yesterday that the scheme had nothing to do with. One of which was to to Moeaki that only he could catch in the end zone and one to McCluster while triple teamed.

He still made mistakes, but he made some very tough throws.

I agree. If he makes as big improvement as he did from last week going to Indy I think we have a good chance to beat them.

Ryfo18
09-27-2010, 12:53 PM
Cassel finally showed me something yesterday. Weis did a good job of calling short passes to get the ball in mccluster/charles' hands and then let them run wild.

If he can play like he did week in and week out, the Chiefs are going to be good.