Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 178

Thread: OK its official, Cassel F***in sucks!!

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    17
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default OK its official, Cassel F***in sucks!!


    0 Not allowed!
    We have no offense at all, this sucks.

  2. #91
    Member Since
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,953
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 115
    Given: 4

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker6000 View Post
    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.

  3. #92
    Member Since
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    786
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    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.

  4. #93
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,667
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 393
    Given: 75

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    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.

  5. #94
    Member Since
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,953
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 115
    Given: 4

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by bwilliams View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Seek; 09-20-2010 at 02:14 PM.

  6. #95
    Member Since
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,310
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    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.

  7. #96
    Member Since
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,953
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 115
    Given: 4

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by OPLookn View Post
    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.

  8. #97
    Member Since
    Oct 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,205
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    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.

  9. #98
    Member Since
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    786
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    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.

  10. #99
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lake Ozark, MO
    Posts
    1,778
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 44
    Given: 3

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Hayvern View Post
    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....

  11. #100
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Lake Ozark, MO
    Posts
    1,778
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 44
    Given: 3

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by captainamerica View Post
    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.

Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Matt Cassel SUCKS
    By Jimpac in forum The Locker Room
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-15-2010, 01:40 AM
  2. This sucks
    By dale6734 in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-08-2010, 01:52 AM
  3. NY Times Post (It's official, Cassel sucks)
    By sdeberg74 in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 12-17-2009, 07:23 PM
  4. fantasy sucks
    By Pro_Angler in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-04-2009, 11:22 PM
  5. Today Sucks
    By Canada in forum The Locker Room
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 03-19-2008, 04:11 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •