I still don't like Cassell

[iamsofaking]

Another lack luster performance by the 60 million dollar man. I know a bunch of you are going to respond in defense of him but ask yourself this. Has his performance over the past 2 seasons justified his salary? He will have made 40 million by the end of the season. I personally have not seen ANYTHING to justify this.

[TopekaRoy]

Yeah, he sure helped them stay fresh by not getting a first down well into the 2nd quarter.

In the first quarter the Chiefs only ran 6 offensive plays. 2 of them were passes and Cassel completed both. The 2nd drive was killed by a 10 yd holding penalty on Pope. Matt didn't do that.

But you are right. When the offense finally started clicking in the 2nd half and the defense had time to rest, they started playing better, so yeah, Cassel "helped them stay fresh."

[TopekaRoy]

First paragraph should have said:

You're making my point for me as to why Cassel is a good QB for this offense. His style of play allows for longer, more time consuming drives and that helps keep the defense fresh. You say the defense held their ground? Lets look at those first 3 games.

[OPLookn]

I agree that the parking is ridiculously high. I think anything over $8 is too much but it doesn't really affect me because I can't afford to go to the games. Actually, I don't even have a car to park! And at the very least, season tickets should include a season parking pass. But seriously, how much lower do you think parking would be if Cassel was making, say, 4 or 6 million a year? I'm guessing not much.

As I said the city is the one that gets the money from parking so Cassel could be making a dollar a season and it still wouldn't be lower because the Chiefs aren't the ones that get the parking money.

The other thing to take away is that the more parking costs are raised the more people will say the heck with it and not buy season tickets or go to the game. That will lead to black outs which will affect you. I agree with you though, anything over $8 is too much.

You are speculating, too when you call it "the game winning drive." We don't know what would have happened if he had completed that pass or threw an incomplete pass. The Chiefs may have won, or they may have tied and lost in overtime, or someone may have fumbled the ball away on the next play. There were plenty of other players that day who cost us the game. You want to pin more blame on Cassel because he was the last Chief to touch the ball, but Bowe dropped several easy catches. The defense gave up too many big plays. Why is Cassel more responsible than anyone else for the loss? It is a team sport.

I'm not speculating at all...a TD wins the game hence "the game winning drive". After the turnover San Diego took a couple of knees and the game was over. You're arguing semantics..."possible game tying/winning drive". Better?

Yeah, I do blame the turnover that lost us the chance at winning the game on Cassel as he's the one that threw the ball. If the RB or whoever had the ball would have fumbled it he'd have gotten the blame. As for saying it's a team game yeah it is. I've never seen an offensive lineman have the stat of pass completions or int's though. Nothing directly affects the outcome of a game more than when something goes horribly wrong (a pick, fumble, whatever). Cassel should have recognized the throw wasn't there and not thrown the ball. So yeah, it was HIS fault.

[Hayvern]

I think most of you are misled by the style of offense that we run, with the rushing attack and short, quick passes, thinking that the smaller passing statistics mean the QB is bad.

This implies that the offense they are running is meant to be this type of offense. I am sorry, but if you are going to call that lame screen pass 5 times or more per game for a loss, you are not executing something correctly.

What I mean by that is I don't think all of these short pass plays are meant to be short plays at all, I think these plays turn into short plays that resemble a screen pass because Cassel is getting Happy Feet.

I would think if you were actually going to call a screen pass, the execution of blockers would be better than what we are seeing.

[OPLookn]

This implies that the offense they are running is meant to be this type of offense. I am sorry, but if you are going to call that lame screen pass 5 times or more per game for a loss, you are not executing something correctly.

What I mean by that is I don't think all of these short pass plays are meant to be short plays at all, I think these plays turn into short plays that resemble a screen pass because Cassel is getting Happy Feet.

I would think if you were actually going to call a screen pass, the execution of blockers would be better than what we are seeing.

My football IQ might not be the best here but isn't the RB on a wheel route out of the backfield the last possible read/safety valve for a QB? I'd agree that if they're screens you'd think the blocking would be done differently.

Not to mention that running that play that many times is going to make a defense play up close too. Stack the box and tell your LB'ers if the ball isn't run in the first few seconds then work your way to the outside for the dump off. If it's luring them up for the deep ball I'd have to say that you need a QB that can throw an accurate deep ball.

[C Louie]

I think we all need to get over this. Cassel is our QB and we have to live with it. He is no Tom Brady but hey it could be worse (Damon Huard, Brodie Croyle...) and I really don't think Cassel is going anywhere.

[chief31]

This implies that the offense they are running is meant to be this type of offense. I am sorry, but if you are going to call that lame screen pass 5 times or more per game for a loss, you are not executing something correctly.

What I mean by that is I don't think all of these short pass plays are meant to be short plays at all, I think these plays turn into short plays that resemble a screen pass because Cassel is getting Happy Feet.

I would think if you were actually going to call a screen pass, the execution of blockers would be better than what we are seeing.

It is speculative on my part, just as is it on yours.

But, considering that we openly admitted to trying to get the ball to McCluster a certain number of times per game, I find it difficult to believe that a majority of the "screen passes" are not by design.

When one takes into account the level of Play Cassel was at last season, and compares it to the type of play he managed early this year, I don't get how any conclusion can be arrived at that doesn't focus on the coaching changes.

Did the QB change, or did the offensive game-planning change?

Well, the QB is the same. But the game-planning is being done by someone different.

How does anybody come to the conclusion that the QB is the reason the offense looks so much different?

And, how do you expect the execution of the blocking to better, when all other execution of blocking had been completely terrible?

By the way, I am as thrilled as anyone could possibly be to see the blocking come together last week, and noticed Cassel's inability to be comfortable with the protection.

I think that will come with time, so long as the blocking can continue to provide a real pocket.

[TopekaRoy]

...
You're arguing semantics..."possible game tying/winning drive". Better?

Yes. Much better!

... Cassel should have recognized the throw wasn't there and not thrown the ball. So yeah, it was HIS fault.

I completely agree with you here that the interception was entirely his fault. I don't think he deserves the entire blame for the loss, though he certainly shares in the blame.

... I don't think all of these short pass plays are meant to be short plays at all, I think these plays turn into short plays that resemble a screen pass because Cassel is getting Happy Feet. ...

My football IQ might not be the best here but isn't the RB on a wheel route out of the backfield the last possible read/safety valve for a QB? I'd agree that if they're screens you'd think the blocking would be done differently.

I agree with you both. The Chiefs do run a lot of short pass plays by design, but many of those are 3rd oprion/last chance plays. This was happening more early in the season when teams could double team Bowe because he was the only threat and the o-line wasn't giving Cassel enough time for the play to develop. When Breaston started coming through, Battle started getting more yards and the O-line started protecting better the situation improved dramatically. Cassel had 3 straight games with a QB rating over 100 (before facing a very good Raiders secondary) and the Chiefs started winning games.

If the O-line continues to improve and Baldwin starts to make his mark this could be a very good offfense. Imagine how much better it would be with Charles in the game.

[Three7s]

I've already argued with you enough as far as the "Cassel sucks" topic, but saying that the Raiders secondary is "very good" is not a true statement. According to nfl.com, the Raiders give up 266 passing yards per game. That puts them at 25th in the league. So no, they're definitely not good at defending the pass.

[TopekaRoy]

... saying that the Raiders secondary is "very good" is not a true statement.

My mistake. They were ranked 2nd in the NFL against the pass last year, so I assumed they were still pretty good. Of course that was when they had Asomugha. I didn't realize they had dropped so far, so fast. New England and Houston may have skewed their stats a bit, but they are nowhere near as good as they were last year.

I stand corrected.