2

Thumbs Up |
Received: 13 Given: 0 |
Can some one explain this to me:
"Because there exists a QB who became a worse player after his best season, therefor anyone who had a season comparable to that player's best season must be a bad player."
That's what I'm hearing over and over. Matt Cassel had a good season and then he sucked. We all know that. Why does that have to do with anything else? Does every personnel guy who studies game film have to go, "Wait. This guy had a season who's numbers are comparable to this Matt Cassel guy's numbers from his best season. Hold on. That must mean that this guy is going to become a bad player." Huh? What? Why would Dorsey or Reid care one bit about what happened to one specific guy who has nothing to do with their 2013 KC Chiefs? So this particular guy we're talking about happens to have been a Chief. How does that mean he has some magical ability to rub off his lack of mojo onto some one else any more than anyone else? Why not cherry pick some QB who then went on to be a better player? Who cares about Matt Cassel!
The only thing Alex Smith has proved is that he can lose his job to an unproven rookie - and he did it well.
SHUT IT
I think even Matt Cassel has some of those accolades...
SHUT IT
Dogonne it!!!!!!!!!!!!
SHUT IT
Keeping my britches between the ditches! :character00182:
Thumbs Up |
Received: 3 Given: 0 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 49 Given: 10 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 49 Given: 10 |
Why is that always the comparison? "But hes better than Cassel." Who cares, for what we gave up we should of picked up an *** kicking fool and he is no *** kicking fool. He is Captain Checkdown, he has come to save America!
BTW, your first post on here criticizing Alex Smith has made me one of your biggest fans.
Bookmarks