Orton is still better

[figcrostic]

Our team just played worse and the Raiders played better.

Matt cassel #'s in 28-0 win over raiders: 161 yards, 0 tds, 2 inceptions, 0 sacks

Kyle Orton's #'s in overtime loss to raiders: 300 yards, 1 td, 2 interception, 0 sacks.

Kyle Orton played better in his second game then Matt did in his third season with the Chiefs. As you can see Kyle Orton maybe better but he is just a bandage we need a lot of help our O-line got destroyed, we got beat by their speedy WR, and two FG's blocked WTF!!!!!!

Oh and Merry Christmas!!!!

[Chiefster]

Fixed

Not upset at all I just realize I'm arguing with a troll.

I see nothing trollish in anything chief31 has said.

[figcrostic]

I see nothing trollish in anything chief31 has said.

Saying that Cassel won the game vs the raiders is a troll statement. Did the Chiefs beat the Raiders? Yes. Did Cassel play in that game? Yes. If Tyler Palko would have played in that game would the Chiefs have won? Very likely considering our defense held them to 0 points and our defense scored 2 td's, had 6 interceptions, and our special teams also scored a td. Cassel threw 160 yards and 2 interceptions that's hardly winning a game.

[Chiefster]

Saying that Cassel won the game vs the raiders is a troll statement. Did the Chiefs beat the Raiders? Yes. Did Cassel play in that game? Yes. If Tyler Palko would have played in that game would the Chiefs have won? Very likely considering our defense held them to 0 points and our defense scored 2 td's, had 6 interceptions, and our special teams also scored a td. Cassel threw 160 yards and 2 interceptions that's hardly winning a game.

On this you and I will have to agree to disagree.

For me there is, also, a good amount of merit in your point of view. The difference, as I see it, is that no one (chief31 included) is calling you a troll for expressing it. chief31 has expressed a point of view that he is entitled to; you don't have to like it or agree with it, but it is not trolling to simply have a difference of opinion.

[chief31]

thank you for being honest. Yes those 2 throws hurt us but you can always say "but it hit bowe in the hands and he should of caught it in the previous play." But no excuses, he threw that interception which was huge inside our 20.

I really think Orton if he actually had time in our offense could be a very productive qb. I like your comment, I still think orton suits us better.

Thanks.

I agree with all but the final assesment.

Seeing as how I am unsure of what kind of offense we will be running in 2012, it is pretty tough to say that either is better suited for it. But, if we are running a run-first/depend on defense kind of offense, I am sticking with Matt Cassel. And if we are running an air-it-out/spread type of offense, then I am undecided.

I have seen both work with the prior style, and Cassel has been far better at it.

And I have seen both run the latter, with Orton having shown more, in my opinion, but with far less W/L success. (Cassel - Patriots)

Overall, I lean toward Matt Cassel. But I am probably the biggest real Orton fan on this site.

I think everybody else who is heavily in Orton's corner right now are not doing it because they really think that Orton is a good QB, but that he is not Matt Cassel.

And Matt Cassel is getting a bad rap from fans, for the exact same reason that Orton got a bad rap from Bears fans.

Each was asked to lead a running offense, and each did well at that.

But neither put up pretty numbers, to please the fans, as that is not what a QB does with that style of offense does. Basically, the job of that offense's QB is to run plays that favor the running attack.

If we do decide to go with a spread-style offense, and Orton is the guy we choose, I expect he will do the job very well, and will even have plenty of success in the redzone.

But, until we know what we are doing on defense, and with the QBs we have at our disposal, nothing is going to change on my end.

[chief31]

I remember that Raider game at oakland, we need to ask ourselves what did cassel contribute in that win against KYLE BOLLER?

The simple answer, nothing much. Not nearly as much as orton did this past game

A qb that comes in throws for 300 yards and puts his team in position to win the game is a hell of an achievement for someone who has been working with our offense for 2 weeks

What did Matt Cassel do in that game?

Enough to win 28-0.

As I said above, he didn't play well. But, which QB(s) lost that game?

It was not Matt Cassel. Matt Cassel won the game, by not playing as poorly as the opponents' QBs.

As for beating good teams/defenses, look at what has happened in the majority of opportunities he has had.

Just like today, Matt Cassel has been plagued by suspect play-calling, huge dropped passes, and poor pass-protection.

The offense has been growing since 2009.

And, in 2010, they grew enough to beat lesser teams pretty consistently.

This season, the growth was stunted by the loss of the player that this offense was designed around, in JC.

And so, there were some major problems with how the offense functioned.

[chief31]

Well i think some of the bad rap from our fans is because pioli has paid him the money to be our franchise guy for a long time. And when you do that you expect good results, we havn't gotten that from cassel this year. The results have actually been bad. Orton was never thrown a ton of money and told "you are our franchise guy" Cassel was.

I also think if succop doesnt have 2 kicks blocked BY THE SAME GUY, lol I have never heard of that by the way, it was by the same guy, but if he makes that kick this conversation wouldn't happen. Most of us would be excited over orton being our qb with a chance to win the division. But we could say if we did this or if we did that we could probably extend this thread 30 pages atleast.

Well, I will still take a denver loss and oakland win next week, I can somewhat handle the raiders going to the playoffs, just not denver

Cassel was doing great when the offense was complete.

The problem was the design. It was designed, based on a great rushing attack. Complete with passing plays that are designed to open rushing lanes, as opposed to having an offense designed to get yardage through the passing game.

Now, with Todd Haley gone, and the season having been considered over, all bets are off, and we are tinkering with a whole different philosophy on offense.

We ran the ball fewer times than we passed today. And in a game that was within a TD from start, to finish.

If we were still committed to the run-first offense, then we would not have passed the ball so frequently.

A QB is going to get more yards, if his number is being called more often, and with plays designed for a passing offense.

[chief31]

But it really wasn't cassel that won the game or even contributed. We played against Kyle boller, Kyle boller! . Boller and palmer combined for 6 interceptions that game, you or i could of put on the jersey and played qb that game and we still would of won easy.

Matt Cassel did win that game. It is a fact.

Had you, or I been playing QB that day, The Chiefs would have gotten destroyed.

Odds are, The Raiders would play extremely conservative, and just won by yours, or my inept play. Just like The Chiefs wound up doing to them.

But Neither of us was playing that day. So, instead of getting destroyed, The Chiefs, with Matt Cassel at QB stomped The Raiders.

Did he play poorly that day? Yes. But he still won.

It's fact that you can not change, under any circumstances currently known to man.

[OMGLadyGaga]

The Cassel defending is getting a bit ridiculous. Hopefully we can get rid of that guy and even though I'm not saying Orton is the quarterback of the future, hopefully he has made everyone realize what a real qb looks like and the Cassel project can be brought to an end.

FWIW I like Cassel, I've always been a supporter and to be honest if we keep him I will keep supporting him but only because he is a Chief and if he does well that that means we do well. But lets face it, I don't like our chances with him.Hopefully if he gets another chance he can prove me wrong.

[figcrostic]

Thanks.

I agree with all but the final assesment.

Seeing as how I am unsure of what kind of offense we will be running in 2012, it is pretty tough to say that either is better suited for it. But, if we are running a run-first/depend on defense kind of offense, I am sticking with Matt Cassel. And if we are running an air-it-out/spread type of offense, then I am undecided.

I have seen both work with the prior style, and Cassel has been far better at it.

And I have seen both run the latter, with Orton having shown more, in my opinion, but with far less W/L success. (Cassel - Patriots)

Overall, I lean toward Matt Cassel. But I am probably the biggest real Orton fan on this site.

I think everybody else who is heavily in Orton's corner right now are not doing it because they really think that Orton is a good QB, but that he is not Matt Cassel.

And Matt Cassel is getting a bad rap from fans, for the exact same reason that Orton got a bad rap from Bears fans.

Each was asked to lead a running offense, and each did well at that.

But neither put up pretty numbers, to please the fans, as that is not what a QB does with that style of offense does. Basically, the job of that offense's QB is to run plays that favor the running attack.

If we do decide to go with a spread-style offense, and Orton is the guy we choose, I expect he will do the job very well, and will even have plenty of success in the redzone.

But, until we know what we are doing on defense, and with the QBs we have at our disposal, nothing is going to change on my end.

WOW!! You are one delusional little boy!

[chief31]

And, for the record, Matt Cassel led the offense down the field for two rushing TDs in that game against The Raiders. And one of the two INTs was a half-ending hail mary attempt with :03 left, and the ball at our own 45 yard line.

He played poorly. But he not as bad as it is made out.