Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 178

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

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    16
    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. #111
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,599
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 381
    Given: 74

    Default


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

  3. #112
    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 bwilliams View Post
    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.

  4. #113
    Member Since
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    786
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


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

  5. #114
    Member Since
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,938
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 113
    Given: 3

    Default


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

  6. #115
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,599
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 381
    Given: 74

    Default


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

  7. #116
    Member Since
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    786
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


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

  8. #117
    Member Since
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,938
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 113
    Given: 3

    Default


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

  9. #118
    Member Since
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    786
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


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

    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Seek View Post
    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.

  10. #119
    Member Since
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    786
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


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

  11. #120
    Member Since
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Oceanside, CA
    Posts
    1,195
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    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!
    MAKE WHOOLIES!!!

    Joseph
    The Real SIC Riders
    www.SCSclothing.com
    www.SoCalStunts.com

Page 12 of 18 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 ... 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
  •