PDA

View Full Version : 5 Reasons We'll win the West next season



AussieChiefsFan
01-19-2012, 02:14 AM
5 Reasons the Kansas City Chiefs Will Take the AFC West in 2012 | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1029963-5-reasons-the-kansas-city-chiefs-will-take-the-afc-west-in-2012)

josh1971
01-19-2012, 03:48 PM
The raiders front office can't find a head coach it likes. Errr... Rodney? They have a brand new front office, who is bringing in their own people for the first time.

I agree with his assessment that Tebow will have a bit of a rude awakening, because now everyone has plenty of game film- the surprise is over.

Bleacher Report still sucks.

azchiefsfan
01-19-2012, 04:06 PM
"I don't know that Matt Cassel needs to be replaced at starting quarterback, but real competition for the job might just push Matt to the next level and that may make him a consistent winner." THIS!!!

OPLookn
01-19-2012, 04:13 PM
"Second, we found out that it is not that hard to replace Cassel. Kyle Orton looked much more like a starter in three short games than Cassel did at any time during this season."

If it's not hard to replace him why aren't we doing it?!?

"I don't know that Matt Cassel needs to be replaced at starting quarterback, but real competition for the job might just push Matt to the next level and that may make him a consistent winner."

Might is the same word as possible which comes from probable which is statistics. Doesn't mean it won't or will happen it means it could and I could win the powerball too.

I have a big problem with #4 (A healthy team). Leaning on the thought that everyone would come back 100% is wishful. They'll be back but will they be the same as before they were hurt?

Past that I completely agree, Tebow has been figured out and SD is getting older and still has Turner. The "team to beat" is in a race to see who does what in the draft and free agency between us and the Raiders.

chief31
01-20-2012, 12:40 AM
"Second, we found out that it is not that hard to replace Cassel. Kyle Orton looked much more like a starter in three short games than Cassel did at any time during this season."

1-2, and 19 points per game for Orton.

4-0, and 25 points per game for Cassel.

I like Kyle Orton.

But I don't like the immense exaggeration that accompanies discussion about how he did here.

He did pretty well, for the circumstances he was put in.

okikcfan
01-20-2012, 12:55 AM
I still think San Diego is the most talented team in our division. First on defense and offense last year, its just they still have norv turner as their coach which is a huge plus for us

:lol: Everything is a real plus for us right now, Tebow, Cambell and Turner!:lol:

OPLookn
01-20-2012, 11:48 AM
:lol: Everything is a real plus for us right now, Tebow, Cambell and Turner!:lol:

Personally I'm reveling in the thought that the Raiders only have a 5th and 6th round pick this year. All because they went out and and got a QB that's hurt and won't take them to the playoffs next year. Then picked up a QB that didn't take them to the playoffs. Finally because they went out and got an Ohio State QB that'll never take them to the playoffs in any following years after Cambell.

:lol:

Three7s
01-20-2012, 10:05 PM
Bleacherfail strikes again.

dbolan
01-23-2012, 02:11 PM
With a value added draft, some very good FA signings and returning starters from this past season that were injured, I expect to see them in the AFC championship game at a minimum.

chief31
01-23-2012, 03:03 PM
With a value added draft, some very good FA signings and returning starters from this past season that were injured, I expect to see them in the AFC championship game at a minimum.

The problem is the impending overhaul of the offense.

matthewschiefs
01-23-2012, 03:11 PM
The problem is the impending overhaul of the offense.

I don't think that the overhaul to the offense is going to be much of an issue. I don't think it's going to change all that much as I think we are going to see Zorn as the OC now that time has passed and we haven't heard any names really talked to at all. And Myself I think it's going to be better just the playcalling system won't be so messed up.

Canada
01-23-2012, 03:19 PM
The problem is the impending overhaul of the offense.
The running game will be greatly improved with the return of Charles as well as (hopefully) some O Line on the right side!!

Jrudi
01-23-2012, 03:52 PM
With a value added draft, some very good FA signings and returning starters from this past season that were injured, I expect to see them in the AFC championship game at a minimum.

Wow that's a bold prediction for someone who thinks Crennel is going to bomb as HC...Unless you are being sarcastic..just don't know how and AFC championship season would be considered bombing? (I just like givin ya crap)

I agree with everything thing you said, except the AFC championship at a minimum... I think we will be successful (if the right moves are made) and I fully expect us to get back to the playoffs (if we remain healthy) I will be ecstatic if we make it to the AFC championship, but I would be happy and consider it a success to make it back to the playoffs... I want to win the whole thing of course.. but if Crennel can get us back to the playoffs I think the season will be considered a success.

chief31
01-23-2012, 07:18 PM
The running game will be greatly improved with the return of Charles as well as (hopefully) some O Line on the right side!!

I agree. But, from where we wound-up in 2011, improvement is a requirement, and how much improvement we see will be the issue.

Even if we restructure everything about the offense, it will be difficult not improve. But I think we need to see significant improvement, to be where we should be.

And my worry is that, knowing that our offense rated so low, The Chiefs will completely redesign the offense, citing the poor 2011 as reason to make drastic changes.

Should we make drastic changes, then we lose a lot of the growth that our players have made within it. And, while the low production of 2011 may give the impression that there was little of it, I think that would be a huge oversight.

Our O-line learned how to run block for someone who isn't Jamaal Charles, and even looked pretty good in pass protection as the season progressed. If not for the insane impact of injuries, then the growth of our offense would have produced in a way that every fan could see.

Three7s
01-23-2012, 07:21 PM
I agree. But, from where we wound-up in 2011, improvement is a requirement, and how much improvement we see will be the issue.

Even if we restructure everything about the offense, it will be difficult not improve. But I think we need to see significant improvement, to be where we should be.

And my worry is that, knowing that our offense rated so low, The Chiefs will completely redesign the offense, citing the poor 2011 as reason to make drastic changes.

Should we make drastic changes, then we lose a lot of the growth that our players have made within it. And, while the low production of 2011 may give the impression that there was little of it, I think that would be a huge oversight.

Our O-line learned how to run block for someone who isn't Jamaal Charles, and even looked pretty good in pass protection as the season progressed. If not for the insane impact of injuries, then the growth of our offense would have produced in a way that every fan could see.


They aren't going to redesign the offense. The coaches SHOULD know that there is only one style of offense that Cassel has even a slight chance of being successful. Hand it off, throw short passes, do play-action every now and then. That's the ONLY style he can do.

chief31
01-23-2012, 07:23 PM
They aren't going to redesign the offense. The coaches SHOULD know that there is only one style of offense that Cassel has even a slight chance of being successful. Hand it off, throw short passes, do play-action every now and then. That's the ONLY style he can do.

2008 proves you wrong on that.

70 chiefsfan70
01-23-2012, 07:49 PM
2008 proves you wrong on that.


I don't agree. In 2008 he proved he hangs on to the ball too long and led the league in sacks, and that was with a"hell on wheels" offense line. And a good run game and the leagues best reciever corp. The same group that made brady look super human.

Don't get me wrong we can win games with Cassel, If we have the best run game and an elete TE. But for the most Cassel usually just don't loose games.

OOH unless we are behind and he has to score on his last posession than he usually looses.

To see Cassel as a good QB is just seeing it wrong. IMO

You yourself just said(two or three post up)that our OL finished the season with better pass protection and guess what that was the new qb, Orton, the one that has not been in practice for the last 3 years. And once again I'm not an Orton fan.

I'm not complaning about Cassel, I realize we have not had a better option. Just think he gets credit, the RB, OL, deserves. Perfect example this year when JC went down.

figcrostic
01-23-2012, 07:53 PM
2008 proves you wrong on that.

Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Jabar Gaffney, Bill Belichick coaching, and 3 seasons to sit behind Tom Brady and learn about their "stable" offense inside and out. He doesn't have those luxuries here, hopefully we can find a way to play to his strengths if he is our starter which most likely he will be.

Three7s
01-23-2012, 07:58 PM
2008 proves you wrong on that.
Really? Last time I checked, he only had three games of over 300 yards passing in 2008. Yep, big-time thrower.

figcrostic
01-23-2012, 08:36 PM
Really? Last time I checked, he only had three games of over 300 yards passing in 2008. Yep, big-time thrower.

Good point

chief31
01-23-2012, 09:09 PM
I don't agree. In 2008 he proved he hangs on to the ball too long and led the league in sacks, and that was with a"hell on wheels" offense line. And a good run game and the leagues best reciever corp. The same group that made brady look super human.



So you failed to notice the 3,693 yards, the 21/11 TD/INT ratio, and the fact that he finished in the top ten in Passing yards, TDs, QB Rating, 11th in Completion %, and Average yards per passing attempt?

All so you could pint out the one lesser statistic that you could find in the man's first season starting at QB since high school?

Wow. You really have to put fourth some kind of effort to neglect all the positives to see that one negative.

chief31
01-23-2012, 09:11 PM
Really? Last time I checked, he only had three games of over 300 yards passing in 2008. Yep, big-time thrower.

Yep. Three 300 yard passing games, and 3,693 passing yards for the season.

Damn right, big time thrower, especially for a guy who had not started for about seven years.

chief31
01-23-2012, 09:16 PM
Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Jabar Gaffney, Bill Belichick coaching, and 3 seasons to sit behind Tom Brady and learn about their "stable" offense inside and out. He doesn't have those luxuries here, hopefully we can find a way to play to his strengths if he is our starter which most likely he will be.

3 seasons of bench-sitting on The Patriots means that you will be able to throw for 3,700 yards in your first season playing?

You should mention that to...... Just about every QB to ever play in The NFL.

And he won more games in 2008 than the immortal Tom Brady did the following season.

So, am I understanding your logic as Tom Brady is only slightly above average, because the rest of the offense carries him?

Three7s
01-23-2012, 10:01 PM
3 seasons of bench-sitting on The Patriots means that you will be able to throw for 3,700 yards in your first season playing?

You should mention that to...... Just about every QB to ever play in The NFL.

And he won more games in 2008 than the immortal Tom Brady did the following season.

So, am I understanding your logic as Tom Brady is only slightly above average, because the rest of the offense carries him?
Look at the Patriots schedule in 2008. He beat ONE team about .500 in the Dolphins. I'm pretty sure if Brady were healthy, they'd be looking at 14-2 minimum. I still find it funny how you praise someone because he threw for over 3500 yards with studs all over the place, but can barely throw for 3000 yards in a season with the Chiefs.

Even Brad Johnson had a good year.

figcrostic
01-23-2012, 11:02 PM
3 seasons of bench-sitting on The Patriots means that you will be able to throw for 3,700 yards in your first season playing?

You should mention that to...... Just about every QB to ever play in The NFL.

And he won more games in 2008 than the immortal Tom Brady did the following season.

So, am I understanding your logic as Tom Brady is only slightly above average, because the rest of the offense carries him?

I'm not saying he didn't have a good year and I'm not even saying he's crap either what I am saying is he doesn't have the same situation he had in New England we don't have We Welker or Moss the only one close to that level is Bowe, Baldwin is a rookie and Breaston is 2nd receiver. also Tom Brady won what 19 games the year before so don't try that crap about how he won more games then Brady. Also in 2009 the Patriots lost the following KEY players: Richard Seymour, Teddy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, Jabar Gaffney, Ellis Hobbs, Rodney Harrison, they lost Mcdaniels their OC, and Brady was coming off knee surgery.

chief31
01-23-2012, 11:08 PM
Look at the Patriots schedule in 2008. He beat ONE team about .500 in the Dolphins. I'm pretty sure if Brady were healthy, they'd be looking at 14-2 minimum. I still find it funny how you praise someone because he threw for over 3500 yards with studs all over the place, but can barely throw for 3000 yards in a season with the Chiefs.

Even Brad Johnson had a good year.

I like how 3000 yards in a run-first offense is somehow the standard of bad, for you.

Brad Johnson had a good season a few times. But Matt Cassel had two good seasons, of the four since he started playing.

chief31
01-23-2012, 11:14 PM
I'm not saying he didn't have a good year and I'm not even saying he's crap either what I am saying is he doesn't have the same situation he had in New England we don't have We Welker or Moss the only one close to that level is Bowe, Baldwin is a rookie and Breaston is 2nd receiver. also Tom Brady won what 19 games the year before so don't try that crap about how he won more games then Brady. Also in 2009 the Patriots lost the following KEY players: Richard Seymour, Teddy Bruschi, Mike Vrabel, Jabar Gaffney, Ellis Hobbs, Rodney Harrison, they lost Mcdaniels their OC, and Brady was coming off knee surgery.

Let's be serious for a second. Tom Brady is the MVP, by a long shot, of The Patriots.

And for Cassel, in his first season playing since high school, taking the rest of that team to 11-5 is exceptional.

How did The Colts do with their backup at the helm?

Any team who loses the heart of their team struggles. But, when somebody steps in and does what he did their, it is not normal.

I realize that he had a great offense to work with. But you have to good to do what he did, even if you have the greatest offense ever.

And then to do what he did here, in 2010, with such an inferior team, is well above average.

2010chiefs
01-24-2012, 01:02 AM
He's a professional QB in the NFL. It doesn't matter if he hasn't started since high school. He's expected to be decent and be even better with a great offense.

Three7s
01-24-2012, 01:23 AM
Let's be serious for a second. Tom Brady is the MVP, by a long shot, of The Patriots.

And for Cassel, in his first season playing since high school, taking the rest of that team to 11-5 is exceptional.

How did The Colts do with their backup at the helm?

Any team who loses the heart of their team struggles. But, when somebody steps in and does what he did their, it is not normal.

I realize that he had a great offense to work with. But you have to good to do what he did, even if you have the greatest offense ever.

And then to do what he did here, in 2010, with such an inferior team, is well above average.
Again, you say no talent in 2010. I beg to differ.

Tony Moeaki was just what Cassel needed for some of the easier throws. Bowe was able to make some of his usual ridiculous catches, and McCluster was good for the intermediate routes. Our O-line was perfect for zone blocking in the run game and the quick throws this offense is styled around. Once a defense was fully focused on stopping the run, even Cassel could hit some down-field passes with play-action.

Sure, the team could've used another receiver, which it has now, but to say it lacked talent is simply not true.

dbolan
01-24-2012, 08:46 AM
Wow that's a bold prediction for someone who thinks Crennel is going to bomb as HC...Unless you are being sarcastic..just don't know how and AFC championship season would be considered bombing? (I just like givin ya crap)

I agree with everything thing you said, except the AFC championship at a minimum... I think we will be successful (if the right moves are made) and I fully expect us to get back to the playoffs (if we remain healthy) I will be ecstatic if we make it to the AFC championship, but I would be happy and consider it a success to make it back to the playoffs... I want to win the whole thing of course.. but if Crennel can get us back to the playoffs I think the season will be considered a success.


Jrudi...Regardless of whether or not I think RC will not fair well, those are still my expectations
They won the AFC a year ago and had some tough learning lessons this year. Based on my earlier post, I see no reason to set the bar low after 4 years under the same management and basically the same coaching staff -Haley.

No worries about giving me crap! We are all here in support and hopes of seeing our favorite team get to the big dance!

Cheers!

70 chiefsfan70
01-24-2012, 10:21 AM
So you failed to notice the 3,693 yards, the 21/11 TD/INT ratio, and the fact that he finished in the top ten in Passing yards, TDs, QB Rating, 11th in Completion %, and Average yards per passing attempt?

All so you could pint out the one lesser statistic that you could find in the man's first season starting at QB since high school?

Wow. You really have to put fourth some kind of effort to neglect all the positives to see that one negative.


I did notice the positive in Cassel's numbers, but I'm also smart enough to see and recongnize the talent that surrounded Cassel. To give him all the credit for those wins is just wrong. To not give him some credit would be wrong as well. The Pats had an awesome OL, great RB and the most talented WR corp. in all the nfl. All of which is a QB's dream.


Cassel is no more than average, and unless he has a probowl running back and OL he shows just that. He holds the ball way to long and panics on pertential 4th quarter comebacks. Without the run he has no pass success. Any Defense we have played that shut down the run, also shut down Cassel. He is a run first QB, and lucky for him we have not brought in any competition and he fits our offense better than most teams.

I'm ok with Cassel starting in 2012, mostly because we really don't have any other competitive options. Cassel biggest plus is he seldom turns the ball over. I could see pioli drafting Trent Richardson just to fit the Cassel offense. We will need to sign a starting RB anyway to replace Jones and probably Battle, this guy should be able to pull the load in case Charles does not come back healthy.

I like DeCastro, or best availible OT with the first pick.

I agree with you on most issues and I enjoy reading all your post, but I think you give Cassel to much credit, and B Albert not enough credit.:chiefs:

OPLookn
01-24-2012, 12:23 PM
3 seasons of bench-sitting on The Patriots means that you will be able to throw for 3,700 yards in your first season playing?

You should mention that to...... Just about every QB to ever play in The NFL.

And he won more games in 2008 than the immortal Tom Brady did the following season.

So, am I understanding your logic as Tom Brady is only slightly above average, because the rest of the offense carries him?


Tom Brady is a stud, hence the 18-1 record with the only loss being the super bowl. Cassel had the exact same team the next year and went 11-5. As for the 3,700 yards you can't have it both ways. What I mean is posts like this in another thread.


I'd have Welker in the top tier.

When Brady was lost for the 2008 season, he had 111 catches, for 1,165 yards with Matt Cassel. Not to mention what he does after the catch is all about Wes Welker. And The Dolphins only started Welker in three games in 2005 & 2006. And, with only three starts, over two years, he had 96 catches and 1,121 yards.

Every receiver on that team had YAC that were attributed to Cassel. I doubt there's a stat out there that shows where he threw the pass and how many YAC the receivers had. The bottom line is Cassel had a bunch of all stars around him and he only managed to go 11-5.



I like how 3000 yards in a run-first offense is somehow the standard of bad, for you.

Brad Johnson had a good season a few times. But Matt Cassel had two good seasons, of the four since he started playing.




NE had 2278 yards rushing in 2008 on 513 attempts for 142.4 ypg which made them 6th in rushing. They had 3693 yards passing on 516 attemps for 231 ypg to put Cassel at 8th in passing. I'm not exactly sure why espn has them with 3569 yards passing and Cassel has 3693 yards passing. Regardless, 513 attemps rushing vs 516 attemps passing hardly means they're a run first offense. To me that's very balanced, 3693 yards isn't bad but when Tom Brady had the same group of players around him he passed for 1100 yards more.

Bottom line Cassel will always be average even with a good group of players around him. He takes more sacks because he's indecisive, needs a run first offense to give him open targets, stares down his receivers, has a weak arm and doesn't read the defenses. Reading the defense was taken away from him because in 08 he was just starting for the first time since high school, in 09, 10 and 11 Haley took that away from him or got the play in too late so he couldn't. So I'll give him that. I wish Cassel would prove me wrong...well as long as he's a Chief player that is. But bottom line unless he's got a good ground game that makes the defense give him all day he's just not that good.

Jrudi
01-24-2012, 01:17 PM
Jrudi...Regardless of whether or not I think RC will not fair well, those are still my expectations
They won the AFC a year ago and had some tough learning lessons this year. Based on my earlier post, I see no reason to set the bar low after 4 years under the same management and basically the same coaching staff -Haley.

No worries about giving me crap! We are all here in support and hopes of seeing our favorite team get to the big dance!

Cheers!


Aaahhhh I think there was a misunderstanding...I think you mean an AFC West Championship....

I thought you meant the AFC Championship which would mean a super bowl berth for us representing the AFC...

So actually what I said is the same thing you said...We could get a wild-card playoff spot, but yes I think anything less than an AFC West champion season would be a disappointment

dbolan
01-24-2012, 01:43 PM
Aaahhhh I think there was a misunderstanding...I think you mean an AFC West Championship....

I thought you meant the AFC Championship which would mean a super bowl berth for us representing the AFC...

So actually what I said is the same thing you said...We could get a wild-card playoff spot, but yes I think anything less than an AFC West champion season would be a disappointment

Sure had a typo there..They won the 2010 afc west and to be clear, I do expect them to get to the AFC championship game at a minimum.

Jrudi
01-24-2012, 02:41 PM
Sure had a typo there..They won the 2010 afc west and to be clear, I do expect them to get to the AFC championship game at a minimum.


I hope they do...but I would not consider it a disappointing season if they don't.

I would expect an AFC West championship at a minimum, and would be ecstatic with a playoff win...Although I would go nuts for an AFC Championship berth or further!

chief31
01-24-2012, 10:57 PM
Again, you say no talent in 2010. I beg to differ.

Tony Moeaki was just what Cassel needed for some of the easier throws. Bowe was able to make some of his usual ridiculous catches, and McCluster was good for the intermediate routes. Our O-line was perfect for zone blocking in the run game and the quick throws this offense is styled around. Once a defense was fully focused on stopping the run, even Cassel could hit some down-field passes with play-action.

Sure, the team could've used another receiver, which it has now, but to say it lacked talent is simply not true.

I did not say that. Not once, and not "again".

What I said was that he was leading an inferior team. And a team that had gone 10-38 the three prior seasons.

That is an inferior team.

Three7s
01-24-2012, 11:13 PM
I did not say that. Not once, and not "again".

What I said was that he was leading an inferior team. And a team that had gone 10-38 the three prior seasons.

That is an inferior team.


Inferior meaning the Chiefs were worse than the Patriots? I can agree to that, but you still have to realize that both schedules for the 08 and 10 year were ridiculously easy. Remember, one team over .500 he has beaten. ONE!

chief31
01-24-2012, 11:22 PM
Tom Brady is a stud, hence the 18-1 record with the only loss being the super bowl. Cassel had the exact same team the next year and went 11-5. As for the 3,700 yards you can't have it both ways.

I can, and will have it both ways.

Welker is an exceptional WR, but he does not play QB.

No matter how great your WRs are, A bad QB will not perform that well.

Sure. The talent, scheme, and coaching surrounding a QB can give them better opportunities. But a bad QB will still only look as good as he can be.




What I mean is posts like this in another thread.

Every receiver on that team had YAC that were attributed to Cassel. I doubt there's a stat out there that shows where he threw the pass and how many YAC the receivers had. The bottom line is Cassel had a bunch of all stars around him and he only managed to go 11-5.

Only 11-5......

ONLY 11-5.....

In 2006 Brady took that team to ONLY 12-4. In 2009 he took them to ONLY 10-6. In 2005, ONLY 10-6.

"ONLY" and "11-5" do not belong in the same sentence.

And when you have not started a game at QB for seven years, 11-5 is exceptional, reagardless of the rest of the team.


NE had 2278 yards rushing in 2008 on 513 attempts for 142.4 ypg which made them 6th in rushing. They had 3693 yards passing on 516 attemps for 231 ypg to put Cassel at 8th in passing. I'm not exactly sure why espn has them with 3569 yards passing and Cassel has 3693 yards passing. Regardless, 513 attemps rushing vs 516 attemps passing hardly means they're a run first offense. To me that's very balanced, 3693 yards isn't bad but when Tom Brady had the same group of players around him he passed for 1100 yards more.

Yeah. Tom Brady is the average QB too. Of course TOM BRADY threw for more yards. He has been starting in that offense for 10 years now.

He has grown into one of the best passers ever to play in The NFL.

Of course Matt Cassel, a guy who had not started a game for seven years, didn't do as well as Tom Brady could do.

But he did a whole lot better than most.

Bottom line Cassel will always be average even with a good group of players around him. He takes more sacks because he's indecisive, needs a run first offense to give him open targets, stares down his receivers, has a weak arm and doesn't read the defenses. Reading the defense was taken away from him because in 08 he was just starting for the first time since high school, in 09, 10 and 11 Haley took that away from him or got the play in too late so he couldn't. So I'll give him that. I wish Cassel would prove me wrong...well as long as he's a Chief player that is. But bottom line unless he's got a good ground game that makes the defense give him all day he's just not that good.[/QUOTE]

He took more sacks in his first season playing, because it was his first season playing.

And he has never had good pass protection since.

He was well above average in 2008, as he was in 2010.

In 2009 he was uprooted from the offense he had studied, and thrown to the front of a 2-14 team.

In 2011, the offense collapsed when the player who the offense was revolving around was lost for the year.

Could he have done better in 2011? Absolutely.

Should he have? Absolutely.

But a rough half of a season, under awful conditions, hardly makes a fair balance with his 2010 season.

If he has a lesser performance in 2012, I will lean toward the notion that he is average.

But, when given reasonable conditions to work with, he has exceeded expectations.

chief31
01-24-2012, 11:25 PM
Inferior meaning the Chiefs were worse than the Patriots? I can agree to that, but you still have to realize that both schedules for the 08 and 10 year were ridiculously easy. Remember, one team over .500 he has beaten. ONE!

Yeah. That kind of thing happens to a rookie, and a guy on a team that doesn't do well against winning teams.

We will see what he does in 2012. But he has two very good seasons, and two seasons with extremely bad conditions.

And inferior means a team that went 10-38 the three previous seasons.

chief31
01-24-2012, 11:28 PM
Jrudi...Regardless of whether or not I think RC will not fair well, those are still my expectations
They won the AFC a year ago and had some tough learning lessons this year. Based on my earlier post, I see no reason to set the bar low after 4 years under the same management and basically the same coaching staff -Haley.

No worries about giving me crap! We are all here in support and hopes of seeing our favorite team get to the big dance!

Cheers!

I am with you here.

Whoever takes over at OC is walking into a situation where expectations are high, immediately.

This team is in it's fourth season since Pioli got here. It's time to be taken seriously, or else.

chief31
01-24-2012, 11:40 PM
I did notice the positive in Cassel's numbers, but I'm also smart enough to see and recongnize the talent that surrounded Cassel. To give him all the credit for those wins is just wrong. To not give him some credit would be wrong as well. The Pats had an awesome OL, great RB and the most talented WR corp. in all the nfl. All of which is a QB's dream.


Cassel is no more than average, and unless he has a probowl running back and OL he shows just that. He holds the ball way to long and panics on pertential 4th quarter comebacks. Without the run he has no pass success. Any Defense we have played that shut down the run, also shut down Cassel. He is a run first QB, and lucky for him we have not brought in any competition and he fits our offense better than most teams.

I'm ok with Cassel starting in 2012, mostly because we really don't have any other competitive options. Cassel biggest plus is he seldom turns the ball over. I could see pioli drafting Trent Richardson just to fit the Cassel offense. We will need to sign a starting RB anyway to replace Jones and probably Battle, this guy should be able to pull the load in case Charles does not come back healthy.

I like DeCastro, or best availible OT with the first pick.

I agree with you on most issues and I enjoy reading all your post, but I think you give Cassel to much credit, and B Albert not enough credit.:chiefs:

Thanks. And I enjoy reading your comments too.

But I only seem to over-credit Cassel because there is such exaggeration against him.

I don't care what offense you put the average QB on (Keep in mind that the average QB only gets to start three seasons, or so), they don't do what Matt did in 2008.

And he certainly does do what he did in 2010.

Only when shove to the helm of 2-12 team, or when the main cog of the offense is lost for the year, has Matt Cassel been less than very good.

As for Albert, it is the same thing every season with him. He has one good half of the season, and one not-so-good half.

He is better than before. But not as consistent as I want my starting LOT to be.

OPLookn
01-25-2012, 12:23 PM
I can, and will have it both ways.

Welker is an exceptional WR, but he does not play QB.

No matter how great your WRs are, A bad QB will not perform that well.

Sure. The talent, scheme, and coaching surrounding a QB can give them better opportunities. But a bad QB will still only look as good as he can be.

Not true at all and no you can't have it both ways. I don't know why people think they can have their cake and eat it too. It's the definition of insanity...you keep expecting different results. No, no I swear Cassel will be good this year...no really. A bad QB will look good when you have an exceptional team around him. It's not hard to throw a pass to a guy that's out of the backfield and 5 yards away from you and then he runs another 8 yards. Did the QB just throw a great pass? No, the WR made moves and that's the Patriot way. Dink and dunk and let the receiver make the plays. Brady makes great plays because he can throw the ball down field accurately and the defense is wondering if it'll be a run, an under route or if he's going deep. Cassel doesn't command that respect because defenses know that after 4 years of starting that he's indecisive, has a weak arm and can't really throw down field accurately.



Only 11-5......

ONLY 11-5.....

In 2006 Brady took that team to ONLY 12-4. In 2009 he took them to ONLY 10-6. In 2005, ONLY 10-6.

"ONLY" and "11-5" do not belong in the same sentence.

And when you have not started a game at QB for seven years, 11-5 is exceptional, reagardless of the rest of the team.

Yes, ONLY 11-5! You do know that of the same two teams that played in the 2008 Super Bowl that only 24 of the same 106 players are the same right? I believe it's 7 players for the Patriots and 17 for the Giants. Seven guys!! I'm going to venture that the year after they won the Super Bowl that they kept the same team intact more or less. If they lost a lot of guys then yeah I'm willing to cut Cassel some slack.



Yeah. Tom Brady is the average QB too. Of course TOM BRADY threw for more yards. He has been starting in that offense for 10 years now.

He has grown into one of the best passers ever to play in The NFL.

Of course Matt Cassel, a guy who had not started a game for seven years, didn't do as well as Tom Brady could do.

But he did a whole lot better than most.

Cassel had been with the Patriots for 3 years prior to him starting almost all of 2008. He had time to learn the playbook and a backup QB is suppose to be ready to step in and play if Brady went down. It's the backup's job! It doesn't matter if the guy hasn't started a game for seven years. He's been practicing the same playbook with the same players for the previous 3 years. So the idea that he hadn't started a game in the past is a moot point.



He took more sacks in his first season playing, because it was his first season playing.

And he has never had good pass protection since.

He was well above average in 2008, as he was in 2010.

In 2009 he was uprooted from the offense he had studied, and thrown to the front of a 2-14 team.

In 2011, the offense collapsed when the player who the offense was revolving around was lost for the year.

Could he have done better in 2011? Absolutely.

Should he have? Absolutely.

But a rough half of a season, under awful conditions, hardly makes a fair balance with his 2010 season.

If he has a lesser performance in 2012, I will lean toward the notion that he is average.

But, when given reasonable conditions to work with, he has exceeded expectations.


As I've said before Cassel was "above average" in 2008 because of the people around him and in 2010 because the running game was top notch. I can definitely agree that 2009 can be thrown out because you're right, new scheme, a bad line and for the most part crappy players surrounding him. In 2011 Cassel lost his run game and got an average RB to step in which meant most of the burden landed on him. In the NFL the QB usually has the weight of the team on his shoulders. Instead of stepping up in 2011 after starting for three years, he had a bad year because he didn't have a schedule that could cover up his average to below average play.

If you put an awesome team around anyone of course that person is going to do better. It's great that you want to give a guy unlimited amount of time to show that he's a good guy. But unfortunately giving a guy that's going to be 30 and is on the downhill of his prime unlimited time to be good just won't work. If you're ok with mediocre then by all means defend Cassel and hope that he stays with the team forever. Because hey maybe some day we'll emulate the 2002 Tampa Bay Bucs.

chief31
01-25-2012, 01:25 PM
Not true at all and no you can't have it both ways. I don't know why people think they can have their cake and eat it too. It's the definition of insanity...you keep expecting different results. No, no I swear Cassel will be good this year...no really. A bad QB will look good when you have an exceptional team around him. It's not hard to throw a pass to a guy that's out of the backfield and 5 yards away from you and then he runs another 8 yards. Did the QB just throw a great pass? No, the WR made moves and that's the Patriot way. Dink and dunk and let the receiver make the plays. Brady makes great plays because he can throw the ball down field accurately and the defense is wondering if it'll be a run, an under route or if he's going deep. Cassel doesn't command that respect because defenses know that after 4 years of starting that he's indecisive, has a weak arm and can't really throw down field accurately.


This is not a "have your cake and eat it too" situation. It is actually possible for a QB and a WR to both be good.

Shocking as that may seem, it's true.

As for "Cassel will be good one day", he has already proven it.

I don't expect anything different. I expect tha same very good QB who went 11-5 with The Patriots, then 10-6 with The Chiefs.

Tom Brady spent his first several seasons putting up average passing stats. Must have been insane to think he would grow as a player, hunh?

And again, suggesting that Tom Brady is better is pointless. Nobody disagrees, in any way, shape, nor form. Brady is the elite, while Cassel is not there yet.

But not being Tom Brady only means that you are not the best.

chief31
01-25-2012, 01:28 PM
Yes, ONLY 11-5! You do know that of the same two teams that played in the 2008 Super Bowl that only 24 of the same 106 players are the same right? I believe it's 7 players for the Patriots and 17 for the Giants. Seven guys!! I'm going to venture that the year after they won the Super Bowl that they kept the same team intact more or less. If they lost a lot of guys then yeah I'm willing to cut Cassel some slack.

A.) They did not win that Super Bowl.

B.) That was the same team that had won three Super Bowls in recent history.

And there is no need to "cut him some slack". He won 11 games. That is exceptional.

chief31
01-25-2012, 01:32 PM
Cassel had been with the Patriots for 3 years prior to him starting almost all of 2008. He had time to learn the playbook and a backup QB is suppose to be ready to step in and play if Brady went down. It's the backup's job! It doesn't matter if the guy hasn't started a game for seven years. He's been practicing the same playbook with the same players for the previous 3 years. So the idea that he hadn't started a game in the past is a moot point.


"It's the backup's job!"

Yeah. And there is a reason that they are backups. Because the starter is the better player. And Cassel proved to be a far better starter than most chosen starters, that year.

And how can it not matter that he had not started for seven years?

If that is not a joke, then you must have been sleeping when you wrote that.

It is unbelievable how far into the realm of fantasy you are willing to go to deny reality.

chief31
01-25-2012, 01:54 PM
As I've said before Cassel was "above average" in 2008 because of the people around him and in 2010 because the running game was top notch. I can definitely agree that 2009 can be thrown out because you're right, new scheme, a bad line and for the most part crappy players surrounding him. In 2011 Cassel lost his run game and got an average RB to step in which meant most of the burden landed on him. In the NFL the QB usually has the weight of the team on his shoulders. Instead of stepping up in 2011 after starting for three years, he had a bad year because he didn't have a schedule that could cover up his average to below average play.

If you put an awesome team around anyone of course that person is going to do better. It's great that you want to give a guy unlimited amount of time to show that he's a good guy. But unfortunately giving a guy that's going to be 30 and is on the downhill of his prime unlimited time to be good just won't work. If you're ok with mediocre then by all means defend Cassel and hope that he stays with the team forever. Because hey maybe some day we'll emulate the 2002 Tampa Bay Bucs.

Here we go...

Nobody is capable of discussing anytyhing without making s**t up, are they?

You show me where I, or any person, anywhere in existence, said that Matt Cassel should get "unlimited amount of time to show that he's a good guy".

Show me that.

I even stated, in this exact thread, that "If he has a lesser performance in 2012, I will lean toward the notion that he is average.".

Lying does absolutely nothing positive for discussion.

Chiefster
01-25-2012, 02:13 PM
Anytime chief31 has more than five posts in a thread, it's a good one! :lol: :D

OPLookn
01-25-2012, 02:58 PM
This is not a "have your cake and eat it too" situation. It is actually possible for a QB and a WR to both be good.

Shocking as that may seem, it's true.

As for "Cassel will be good one day", he has already proven it.

I don't expect anything different. I expect tha same very good QB who went 11-5 with The Patriots, then 10-6 with The Chiefs.

Tom Brady spent his first several seasons putting up average passing stats. Must have been insane to think he would grow as a player, hunh?

And again, suggesting that Tom Brady is better is pointless. Nobody disagrees, in any way, shape, nor form. Brady is the elite, while Cassel is not there yet.

But not being Tom Brady only means that you are not the best.

It absolutely is, you give full credit to Cassel for throwing 3700 yards and say he was a good QB but in the same breath say that Welker made plays to make him an elite WR. I'm sorry you just can't go over 100%, no matter how badly you don't want to admit that. Welker and the receivers around Cassel made him look better. It's plain and simple. No one's debating Brady, the reason Cassel is starting here is simply because another average to below average QB isn't here. We saw that Palko clearly wouldn't beat out Cassel and Stanzi was in his first year. What kind of competition is that? Orton would be the only one to challenge Cassel and it seems both sides are parting ways.

"Cassel will be good one day" when we actually lean on him and need him to throw us to victory and he does it against a better than .500 team.




A.) They did not win that Super Bowl.

B.) That was the same team that had won three Super Bowls in recent history.

And there is no need to "cut him some slack". He won 11 games. That is exceptional.


A.) I never said they won the Super Bowl I said they went to the Super Bowl.

B.) Recent history as in 01, 03 and 04...so 4 years later. In terms of the NFL that's not recent. From 2007 to 2012 only 7 players remain from the team that went to the Super Bowl in 07.

He didn't win 11 games, the team won 11 games. Cassel was part of that team just like Dilfer was part of the exceptional 2002 Tampa Bay Bucs team. I suppose that made Dilfer exceptional too.



"It's the backup's job!"

Yeah. And there is a reason that they are backups. Because the starter is the better player. And Cassel proved to be a far better starter than most chosen starters, that year.

And how can it not matter that he had not started for seven years?

If that is not a joke, then you must have been sleeping when you wrote that.

It is unbelievable how far into the realm of fantasy you are willing to go to deny reality.

You said it yourself, the backup is a backup because the starter is better, its a simple concept. We've had the special olympics of QB's here while Cassel has been in KC. That doesn't mean he's a good starter it's like the saying in the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king. In NE who was going to beat out Cassel once Brady was hurt? The rookie from San Diego State (Kevin O'Connell)? In KC from our stable of awesome QB's we've seen Croyle, Gutierrez, Palko and Stanzi...reallY? Cassel isn't average, above average or excepctional. He just hasn't had competition.

Not having started for seven years doesn't matter once you've beent he backup for three years. If you don't understand that then the only person that needs to wake up is you. When you first get out of college and start working after you are there for over a year you're expected to be able to jump in and do the job and can't say well I haven't had a real job since high school so you should cut me some slack.

The only thing unbelievable is how much you want to try and disspell my facts and defend Cassel instead of admitting that Cassel has benefitted from the situation. You seem to want to even out the hating on Cassel so much that when a person who looks at all the details and says he's not that great you have to try and prove them wrong by trying to belittle them. I'm not trying to "hate" on Cassel I'm simply pointing out a view point that doesn't agree with yours and you don't like it. Agreeing to disagree and all.

OPLookn
01-25-2012, 03:06 PM
Here we go...

Nobody is capable of discussing anytyhing without making s**t up, are they?

You show me where I, or any person, anywhere in existence, said that Matt Cassel should get "unlimited amount of time to show that he's a good guy".

Show me that.

I even stated, in this exact thread, that "If he has a lesser performance in 2012, I will lean toward the notion that he is average.".

Lying does absolutely nothing positive for discussion.



Without making s**t up and lying...wow way to encourage positive discussion yourself. No where did you say that, although almost every post of yours though has implied that you're happy with Cassel's play as long as the cast around him is there to mask that he's not our QBotF. As I said, we'll agree to disagree but with the post above I figure that all possibility of a positive discussion has ended.

Canada
01-25-2012, 05:26 PM
Every ELITE QB has a good surrounding cast. I agree that we need to upgrade at QB (or at least give Cassel some competition) but who is available that we are gonna get realistically. We have far too many holes to fill to go blowing our wad on a QB right now.

chief31
01-25-2012, 06:39 PM
Yes, ONLY 11-5! You do know that of the same two teams that played in the 2008 Super Bowl that only 24 of the same 106 players are the same right? I believe it's 7 players for the Patriots and 17 for the Giants. Seven guys!! I'm going to venture that the year after they won the Super Bowl that they kept the same team intact more or less. If they lost a lot of guys then yeah I'm willing to cut Cassel some slack.


A.) They did not win that Super Bowl.




A.) I never said they won the Super Bowl I said they went to the Super Bowl.

Well, yes.... you actually did say they won it.

It's one thing to make up things that I said. It is entirely another thing to deny what you said.

:lol: Just teasin' here. Clearly it was just a misprint. But how could you not scroll up and verify that before doubling down on it?

chief31
01-25-2012, 06:45 PM
Without making s**t up and lying...wow way to encourage positive discussion yourself. No where did you say that, although almost every post of yours though has implied that you're happy with Cassel's play as long as the cast around him is there to mask that he's not our QBotF. As I said, we'll agree to disagree but with the post above I figure that all possibility of a positive discussion has ended.

Seriously.... You lied about my stance.

I have stated it many times. And you are misrepresenting it.

You, yourself, stated that I have not said it, yet you continue to defend pretending that I did, and even add more inaccuracies to my stance.

And, THAT is what corrupts discussion. Not my pointing out that you have done so.

chief31
01-25-2012, 06:50 PM
It absolutely is, you give full credit to Cassel for throwing 3700 yards and say he was a good QB but in the same breath say that Welker made plays to make him an elite WR. I'm sorry you just can't go over 100%, no matter how badly you don't want to admit that. Welker and the receivers around Cassel made him look better. It's plain and simple. No one's debating Brady, the reason Cassel is starting here is simply because another average to below average QB isn't here. We saw that Palko clearly wouldn't beat out Cassel and Stanzi was in his first year. What kind of competition is that? Orton would be the only one to challenge Cassel and it seems both sides are parting ways.

"Cassel will be good one day" when we actually lean on him and need him to throw us to victory and he does it against a better than .500 team.

So wait, if a good QB has a WR that helps, he is not a good QB?

You can't possibly mean that. Why would you continue down that line of thought? Joe Montana was not good because Jerry Rice was?

Tom Brady isn't good because Wes Welker is?

Peyton Manning isn't good because Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne are?

Having great WR talent on your side does not mean that you are a lesser QB.

I agree that Matt Cassel got help from an exceptional offense.

But that does not mean that his 2008 season was not a very good. It was.

70 chiefsfan70
01-25-2012, 06:55 PM
Every ELITE QB has a good surrounding cast. I agree that we need to upgrade at QB (or at least give Cassel some competition) but who is available that we are gonna get realistically. We have far too many holes to fill to go blowing our wad on a QB right now.


Thats just it! We have not had a clear cut better option come around. I've been looking for that guy, and not sure he has been available, until this year I think there should be several good at least backup quality. My favorite would be Flynn.

chief31
01-25-2012, 07:18 PM
B.) Recent history as in 01, 03 and 04...so 4 years later. In terms of the NFL that's not recent. From 2007 to 2012 only 7 players remain from the team that went to the Super Bowl in 07.

So 4 years later is not recent? Yet you immediately want to point out recent 2007 was?...... five years after?


He didn't win 11 games, the team won 11 games. Cassel was part of that team just like Dilfer was part of the exceptional 2002 Tampa Bay Bucs team. I suppose that made Dilfer exceptional too.

This is just some form of the Jedi mind trick, right?

How did the team win those games, and the players didn't?


You said it yourself, the backup is a backup because the starter is better, its a simple concept. We've had the special olympics of QB's here while Cassel has been in KC. That doesn't mean he's a good starter it's like the saying in the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king. In NE who was going to beat out Cassel once Brady was hurt? The rookie from San Diego State (Kevin O'Connell)? In KC from our stable of awesome QB's we've seen Croyle, Gutierrez, Palko and Stanzi...reallY? Cassel isn't average, above average or excepctional. He just hasn't had competition.

Not having started for seven years doesn't matter once you've beent he backup for three years.

Come on!!!!!

So, three years as a backup is more effective than a year as a starter????


If you don't understand that then the only person that needs to wake up is you. When you first get out of college and start working after you are there for over a year you're expected to be able to jump in and do the job and can't say well I haven't had a real job since high school so you should cut me some slack.

Most jobs are not NFL QB. There are some serious differences that you have chosen to completely neglect here.

But, going in on this anyway.... Any job, when you get your first real experience, you are absolutely "cut some slack".

I don't think that there is a person on this planet who actually expects one's first experience to be as good as when they have a few years of past experience. And that includes you.

There is no way for you to convince me that you believe that real experience is no more valuable than some training.


The only thing unbelievable is how much you want to try and disspell my facts and defend Cassel instead of admitting that Cassel has benefitted from the situation. You seem to want to even out the hating on Cassel so much that when a person who looks at all the details and says he's not that great you have to try and prove them wrong by trying to belittle them. I'm not trying to "hate" on Cassel I'm simply pointing out a view point that doesn't agree with yours and you don't like it. Agreeing to disagree and all.

I embrace the facts that you have brought. What attempt to dispel any facts have I made?

And you flat out lied on me. You admitted it, and somehow are acting like a victim of my attempts to belittle you?

You are just wrong here.

I toy with some sarcasm. But it is not meant to be derogatory. It's meant in fun.

When I see things like "only 11-5", or "four years is not recent, but only seven players remain five years later", or suggesting that training is equal to real experience...

I think it is absolutely valid to question that. Sorry if you took the sarcasm personally.

But I feel no need to misrepresent those opinions. They are pretty over-the-top on their own.

Misrepresenting my stance sure feels like trying to back me off it for hopes of bringing more realistic arguments to your side of the discussion.

I enjoy discussing these topics with you. I will try to curb sarcasm when we discuss things in the future.

Chiefster
01-25-2012, 07:48 PM
Are you guys Newt and Mitt in disguise? :lol:

Canada
01-25-2012, 08:49 PM
Here we go...

Nobody is capable of discussing anytyhing without making s**t up, are they?

You show me where I, or any person, anywhere in existence, said that Matt Cassel should get "unlimited amount of time to show that he's a good guy".

Show me that.

I even stated, in this exact thread, that "If he has a lesser performance in 2012, I will lean toward the notion that he is average.".

Lying does absolutely nothing positive for discussion.

INFRACTION!! Circumventing the filters so you can use profane language!! :plus1:

OPLookn
01-26-2012, 12:47 PM
So 4 years later is not recent? Yet you immediately want to point out recent 2007 was?...... five years after?

My point with the four years is not recent but seven players remain five years later was to show how much a team changes. I can't honestly say how fast the turnover was but if over half the team is gone in we'll say even 2.5 years even that's a significant amount of turnover.



This is just some form of the Jedi mind trick, right?

How did the team win those games, and the players didn't?

You had said that Cassel won 11 games and what I was implying was that the team won 11 games, not just Cassel.



Come on!!!!!

So, three years as a backup is more effective than a year as a starter????





Most jobs are not NFL QB. There are some serious differences that you have chosen to completely neglect here.

But, going in on this anyway.... Any job, when you get your first real experience, you are absolutely "cut some slack".

I don't think that there is a person on this planet who actually expects one's first experience to be as good as when they have a few years of past experience. And that includes you.

There is no way for you to convince me that you believe that real experience is no more valuable than some training.

I'll agree that most jobs are not playing professional football but then again these guys are the cream of the crop from all walks of life. They have the tools just as I know how to code programs that others don't or cant'. Everyone has a skillset that lends themself to a particular job so I don't see it differences. That might or might not be right but that's the way I look at it.

I'll agree with you that experience is better than training and while playing in the game is different than practice, the practices are designed to emulate real games. I didn't get thrown into the fire but I had my foot held to the fire for a while until they threw me in. It was a sink or swim situation with me after "practicing" so to speak so I see it the same with a NFL player.


I embrace the facts that you have brought. What attempt to dispel any facts have I made?

And you flat out lied on me. You admitted it, and somehow are acting like a victim of my attempts to belittle you?

You are just wrong here.

I toy with some sarcasm. But it is not meant to be derogatory. It's meant in fun.

When I see things like "only 11-5", or "four years is not recent, but only seven players remain five years later", or suggesting that training is equal to real experience...

I think it is absolutely valid to question that. Sorry if you took the sarcasm personally.

But I feel no need to misrepresent those opinions. They are pretty over-the-top on their own.

Misrepresenting my stance sure feels like trying to back me off it for hopes of bringing more realistic arguments to your side of the discussion.

I enjoy discussing these topics with you. I will try to curb sarcasm when we discuss things in the future.


I apologize, as we went further and further into the discussion it seemed that the tones from both sides escalated and with the last post I read yesterday it seemed that sarcasm like Elvis had left the building. The "only 11-5" part seems to be a point of contention. I use the word "only" because at 11-5 they didn't make the playoffs. But one year ago with the same people minus Brady they went to 18-1. I'll give Cassel some learning curve but how much of a learning curve does he get? One game, two, six, a season? To me Cassel knew the playbook, knew the players and should have been able to adjust to speed of the game in one or two games. If the guy's out running around like a chicken with it's head lopped off after a game or two then I don't think any amont of games will help.

The main problem I have with Cassel is that he's never had competition. Zero, zip, zilch. If he beats out competition then so be it. But because of the lack of competition to make him improve he's had an absolute horrid record against teams that are in the top half of the league. As Canada said we have other holes to fill so going out and blowing everything on a QB makes little sense. But I'm still hoping we at least bring competition in and let Cassel know that his days are numbered if he doesn't step up and become a good QB that can win a game for us if we need him to.



So wait, if a good QB has a WR that helps, he is not a good QB?

You can't possibly mean that. Why would you continue down that line of thought? Joe Montana was not good because Jerry Rice was?

Tom Brady isn't good because Wes Welker is?

Peyton Manning isn't good because Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne are?

Having great WR talent on your side does not mean that you are a lesser QB.

I agree that Matt Cassel got help from an exceptional offense.

But that does not mean that his 2008 season was not a very good. It was.

There's average or good and then there's grabbing on to the coat tails of someone great. No one's going to deny that those players aren't great. But you're taking the elite from the past twenty or thirty years and saying that it's the norm. What I'm saying is that great players carry average players and make them look good. I'm going to use college players for my example here but the same principle applies at any level. In 2011 Brandon Weeden from Oklahoma State had 4,727 yards throwing and 37 TD's. Robert Griffen III had 4,293 yards throwing and 37 TD's in 2011. Andrew Luck had 3,517 yards throwing and 37 TD's in 2011. But Weeden is projected to go in the 4th round. It's kind of eerie that they all have 37 TD's but it's a great connection for all three. Weeden had the benefit of Blackmon (1,522 yards receiving and 18 TD's) and other good receivers and RB's out of the backfield. Weeden is an average QB that according to stats looks like a stud because of the players around him. Again it's college but the same principle translates to the pro's.

Oh...and the winning the Super Bowl...*insert expletive here* I did go and say win. I scrolled back up but because my lunch hour was running out I scanned through it. The Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl in 2007 much to my dismay.

chief31
01-26-2012, 07:43 PM
My point with the four years is not recent but seven players remain five years later was to show how much a team changes. I can't honestly say how fast the turnover was but if over half the team is gone in we'll say even 2.5 years even that's a significant amount of turnover.

But that is where this line of discussion came from, my suggestion that Tom Brady had won "only" so many games in prior seasons.

The 2007 performance was an extreme exception. It's the most wins of any team, ever, in a single season. But the same basic crew had far more mortal seasons before, and after.

11-5 is a good season for any team. Especially a team that lost their first-ballot HoF QB to start the season.

And whoever came in in his place had to have done a good job. You just don't take a team with such a great player, remove that player, and still win two thirds of your games.

Clearly, he was not Tom Brady.

But a good team can only make a lesser QB look so good, and I just don't see 11-5 as the norm for that situation.


You had said that Cassel won 11 games and what I was implying was that the team won 11 games, not just Cassel.

I'll agree that most jobs are not playing professional football but then again these guys are the cream of the crop from all walks of life. They have the tools just as I know how to code programs that others don't or cant'. Everyone has a skillset that lends themself to a particular job so I don't see it differences. That might or might not be right but that's the way I look at it.

I'll agree with you that experience is better than training and while playing in the game is different than practice, the practices are designed to emulate real games. I didn't get thrown into the fire but I had my foot held to the fire for a while until they threw me in. It was a sink or swim situation with me after "practicing" so to speak so I see it the same with a NFL player.

I apologize, as we went further and further into the discussion it seemed that the tones from both sides escalated and with the last post I read yesterday it seemed that sarcasm like Elvis had left the building. The "only 11-5" part seems to be a point of contention. I use the word "only" because at 11-5 they didn't make the playoffs. But one year ago with the same people minus Brady they went to 18-1. I'll give Cassel some learning curve but how much of a learning curve does he get? One game, two, six, a season? To me Cassel knew the playbook, knew the players and should have been able to adjust to speed of the game in one or two games. If the guy's out running around like a chicken with it's head lopped off after a game or two then I don't think any amont of games will help.

The main problem I have with Cassel is that he's never had competition. Zero, zip, zilch. If he beats out competition then so be it. But because of the lack of competition to make him improve he's had an absolute horrid record against teams that are in the top half of the league. As Canada said we have other holes to fill so going out and blowing everything on a QB makes little sense. But I'm still hoping we at least bring competition in and let Cassel know that his days are numbered if he doesn't step up and become a good QB that can win a game for us if we need him to.

There's average or good and then there's grabbing on to the coat tails of someone great. No one's going to deny that those players aren't great. But you're taking the elite from the past twenty or thirty years and saying that it's the norm. What I'm saying is that great players carry average players and make them look good. I'm going to use college players for my example here but the same principle applies at any level. In 2011 Brandon Weeden from Oklahoma State had 4,727 yards throwing and 37 TD's. Robert Griffen III had 4,293 yards throwing and 37 TD's in 2011. Andrew Luck had 3,517 yards throwing and 37 TD's in 2011. But Weeden is projected to go in the 4th round. It's kind of eerie that they all have 37 TD's but it's a great connection for all three. Weeden had the benefit of Blackmon (1,522 yards receiving and 18 TD's) and other good receivers and RB's out of the backfield. Weeden is an average QB that according to stats looks like a stud because of the players around him. Again it's college but the same principle translates to the pro's.

Oh...and the winning the Super Bowl...*insert expletive here* I did go and say win. I scrolled back up but because my lunch hour was running out I scanned through it. The Patriots didn't win the Super Bowl in 2007 much to my dismay.

No hard feelings here.

And I agree with the principle of getting better stats with a more talented team, teammates, or coaching staff. But, to what degree is where we see things so differently. And the fact that it is possible for a player to be good, even though his situation is beneficial.

And the experience factor is immense. Just have a look at Tom Brady's statistics from year to year. He didn't just start out flinging out 5,000 yard seasons, nor 50 TDs. He started out with very pedestrian statistical seasons.

Many of the all-time greats have started out that way. Have a look at John Elway's career.

And it is almost unheard of to have a guy hit the field at top speed right away. Drew Brees, Big Ben, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Troy Aikman.... The list is long. And of those who start out hot, there is almost always a "hangover".

And most of those who do become "the greats" get to work within the same offense for extended periods.

Most of my work is done a ratty old computer system. If you throw me into a completely different system, it is going to take me a while to get used to the new one.

I am far from convinced that Matt Cassel is "the man" to lead this team for years to come.

But he has shown far too much promise, in only a few seasons, for me to label him as "all he can be".

Can he lead a team with a weak running game? I don't know. But I have seen him struggle to lead an offense that was designed for the running game, when that running game became weak.

There were a whole lot of circumstances that came into play. And I can't say which circumstances affected his performance the most. It was not good, overall. But he did have a nice stretch of games in all of that.

The reason I wind up looking so pro-Cassel in these discussions is because I find it impossible to KNOW how good Matt Cassel can be. And so many are just so completely confident that they KNOW.

What I will need to see, to be convinced that he is only an average QB would be for him to have a lesser performance, over a season or more, than the circumstances he is put in.

Very good circumstances in 2008, very good results.

Bad circumstances in 2009, bad results.

Decent circumstances in 2010, good results.

Bad circumstances in 2011, sub-par results.

He has had one season with good circumstances. And has had a revolving door of them since.

It is unfair to label him as a final product, considering it all.