36 replies to this topic

[Raised on Riots]

There's no "all or nothing" involved.

Three types;

1) Carries Team

2) Team Carries

3) Sucks and shouldn't be in the NFL.

[IMISS#58]

Raised on Riots, on 18 December 2009 - 08:02 PM, said:

There's no "all or nothing" involved.

Three types;

1) Carries Team

2) Team Carries

3) Sucks and shouldn't be in the NFL.

So some say its the QB, some say its dropped passes, some say its the line, and before LJ left it was the running game. Putting all of these together would mean that it isn't just Cassel that sucks it is the whole team. The only thing they are doing collectively is sucking it up as a TEAM. That has been my point it isn't just Cassel. I just don't understand why so many people can think it is just his fault and only his fault. I know he has missed intended receivers. Held the ball to long and on and on. Everyone on off.team is not helping each other and thus the QB gets blamed. Anyone want to talk about who's fault it is on D or is that because Cassel can't tackle?

[nathanKent]

Zig, on 18 December 2009 - 07:37 PM, said:

1 or 2 bad OL can make the others look bad...

Well, if you guys had bothered to train O'Callaghan, we wouldn't be dealing with this BS in KC, would we?

[The_Jonas]

Zig, on 18 December 2009 - 07:37 PM, said:

You know what's funny, I remember having a convo mostly with Nola a couple of years ago and I was lamenting about how Brady/ the Pats weren't very good at hitting the 'bombs'. I said it like that (Brady/Pats) because it's so hard to tell why they weren't working,was it Brady or the WR?, but they usually weren't...Getting Moss helped a lot but really, it's not a very high % pass for most teams that don't have Manning or Brees. I think the problem is people see mostly 'highlights' of games and of course if there was a completed 'bomb', you'll usually see it. I just think most of you underestimate how hard it is to hit those deep ones. I imagine having different WRs all the time doesn't help as they all run different speeds...I can't tell you how many times Brady has 'overthrown' Moss. Even in '07 before his injury. If you saw that Sat night game against the Giants in '07 you saw what I mean...they called the same bomb the next play and hit it... Then they missed several in the SB Brady and Moss...Think about that...You can't really tell on TV but if the WR lets up just a bit thinking the pass isn't coming his way, ..well he's going to get overthrown...just saying, it's hard to tell sometimes who is 'at fault'. And from what I read last week from Chambers himself, the Chiefs have guys running wrong/bad routes all over the place. I said this before but I would tag Cleveland as the only worse situation for a QB. I have no idea how you evaluate anyone on your team to be honest...1 or 2 bad OL can make the others look bad...DL doesn't do it's job the backers can look bad etc...I'm actually working on a piece about how hard it is to evaluate a player while taking his teammates into account. For instance I thought we were getting a very good player in Adalius Thomas, but turns out maybe playing on a great defense in Baltimore made him 'better' and it works the other way too...it's hard to be successful on a bad team...

lot of random thoughts and rambling but basically I'm agreeing with you


I think

Heh... Yeah, Brady struggled with the deep pass with Gaffeny and Caldwell, and it was less of an issue with Moss. The thing is that Cassel wasn't exactly connecting with Moss downfield either.

The reason you rarely see bombs take place isn't just a QB accuracy issue. It's a team issue. It requires either 1 on 1 coverage deep or broken coverage. It also requires the OL to hold their blocks long enough for the QB to make the read and throw.

Hitting a deep pass in 1 on 1 coverage usually requires a perfect throw and are actually hard to complete for most QB's (Phillip Rivers hits these things like swing passes.... he's good). When a WR is wide open by 10 yards because a defense blew a coverage... a QB MUST hit that pass. There's no excuse for not hitting a WIDE OPEN WR.. unless you get hit while throwing or something. Especially twice in the endzone.

The problem isn't that Cassel once and a while overthrows those 'over the shoulder' deep passes... it's not that he does it half of the time. IT's not even that he does it 2/3's of the time.

It's that he only completes that pass maybe 1/10 times and that, imo, is giving him some credit he hasn't earned. I"ll bet if someone wanted to watch the film he's hitting less than 10% of those passes. The NFL average is about 35%.

Keep in mind though... it's not that Cassel is playing so poorly here He made me think he sucks. He's doing exactly what I expected based on what I saw last year.

[Raised on Riots]

"Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiild horses...please drag me awayeeee"...

[The_Jonas]

Raised on Riots, on 18 December 2009 - 08:02 PM, said:

There's no "all or nothing" involved.

Three types;

1) Carries Team

2) Team Carries

3) Sucks and shouldn't be in the NFL.

Find me one example of a QB leading a team as bad as ours to a good record. In all of NFL history. Just ONE. Good QB's have played poorly on bad teams, but what about good QB's playing great on terrible teams... You must show me this. I"m not really defending Cassel, but nobody is 'carrying' all of the dead weight we're providing.

Christ... the Steelers won 4 SB's in the 70's and Bradshaw sucked. He was made to look decent by the fact that he had an entire OL on their way to the HOF, two HOF WR's and a HOF HB. Dude could barely complete a swing pass and was jamarcus Russel bad early in his career.

Terry Bradshaw didn't just become better one day... the talent around him started overshadowing his many many many weaknesses as a QB.

[Raised on Riots]

The_Jonas, on 19 December 2009 - 03:15 PM, said:

Find me one example of a QB leading a team as bad as ours to a good record. In all of NFL history. Just ONE. Good QB's have played poorly on bad teams, but what about good QB's playing great on terrible teams... You must show me this. I"m not really defending Cassel, but nobody is 'carrying' all of the dead weight we're providing.

Christ... the Steelers won 4 SB's in the 70's and Bradshaw sucked. He was made to look decent by the fact that he had an entire OL on their way to the HOF, two HOF WR's and a HOF HB. Dude could barely complete a swing pass and was jamarcus Russel bad early in his career.

Terry Bradshaw didn't just become better one day... the talent around him started overshadowing his many many many weaknesses as a QB.

As bad as ours? I don't think that's even possible. In recent times, I would say Stafford fits the mold as one who can carry his team, while the next most current guy would be Manning who has managed to win despite questionable line play and other less than stellar offensive counterparts, or as his good offensive counterparts have aged. Before that? Pre-Shannahan Elway comes to mind.

On the opposite end, I'd go with Trent Dilfer or Rich Gannon; guys who clearly benefited from the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts.

[Zig]

nathanKent, on 18 December 2009 - 11:19 PM, said:

Well, if you guys had bothered to train O'Callaghan, we wouldn't be dealing with this BS in KC, would we?

You guys are just never happy! What, do you expect the Pats to give you their good players?

come on man!




I never claimed to know much about O'Cal but I do know there was a lot of hype about him from a lot of Pats fans that sounded smarter than me.... And he was well coached here that's for sure. 5th rounder, his 4th year...prolly is what he is.


suckas!

[The_Jonas]

Raised on Riots, on 19 December 2009 - 03:29 PM, said:

As bad as ours? I don't think that's even possible.

This is essentially my point. I mean... even if we had Manning, he would look decidedly unmanninglike this season. Though we'd also be pretty close or at .500, his numbers wouldn't look as pretty.

Raised on Riots, on 19 December 2009 - 03:29 PM, said:

In recent times, I would say Stafford fits the mold as one who can carry his team, while the next most current guy would be Manning who has managed to win despite questionable line play and other less than stellar offensive counterparts, or as his good offensive counterparts have aged. Before that? Pre-Shannahan Elway comes to mind.

Elway (maybe the greatest QB ever) didn't carry a team, but he certainly carried the offense. Denver had a very good defense in those days. People forget that. They had guys like Atwater and Mecklenburg. Look it up. When the defense faltered in those days, the Broncos did not have a winning record even with Elway. Look at 89 (12-4, 1st in points allowed) 90 (5-11 23rd in points allowed) and then 91 (12-4 3rd in points allowed). Meanwhile the offense actually produced the most yardage in 1990.

As for Manning, I have no idea what you're talking about. He's had an up and down defense for his career and spent his entire career with loaded offensive staffs. They had James, they had Faulk, they had Harrison, they have Wayne, they have Clark, they had Glenn, they have Saturday. Does Manning make EVERYONE on offense a better player? Yes. Great QB's do that. We don't have 3 guys that could make Indy's offensive roster though and they've consistently kept weapons around him.

Brady carried the Pats offense in 2006. I don't think Manning ever played with an offensive staff that bad. IT may be the best QB performance with the worst offensive cast I can think of.

I dunno if Stafford will ever develop into a good QB, but I've watched him a couple times and he's capable of doing things that 99% of QB's are simply not physically capable of. Plenty of those guys come and fail though.

Raised on Riots, on 19 December 2009 - 03:29 PM, said:

On the opposite end, I'd go with Trent Dilfer or Rich Gannon; guys who clearly benefited from the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts.

Or on an older scale Mark Rypien.

[Raised on Riots]

O' FAILagain. Let's get it right people.

[Raised on Riots]

The_Jonas, on 19 December 2009 - 04:02 PM, said:

This is essentially my point. I mean... even if we had Manning, he would look decidedly unmanninglike this season. Though we'd also be pretty close or at .500, his numbers wouldn't look as pretty.



Elway (maybe the greatest QB ever) didn't carry a team, but he certainly carried the offense. Denver had a very good defense in those days. People forget that. They had guys like Atwater and Mecklenburg. Look it up. When the defense faltered in those days, the Broncos did not have a winning record even with Elway. Look at 89 (12-4, 1st in points allowed) 90 (5-11 23rd in points allowed) and then 91 (12-4 3rd in points allowed). Meanwhile the offense actually produced the most yardage in 1990.

As for Manning, I have no idea what you're talking about. He's had an up and down defense for his career and spent his entire career with loaded offensive staffs. They had James, they had Faulk, they had Harrison, they have Wayne, they have Clark, they had Glenn, they have Saturday. Does Manning make EVERYONE on offense a better player? Yes. Great QB's do that. We don't have 3 guys that could make Indy's offensive roster though and they've consistently kept weapons around him.

Brady carried the Pats offense in 2006. I don't think Manning ever played with an offensive staff that bad. IT may be the best QB performance with the worst offensive cast I can think of.

I dunno if Stafford will ever develop into a good QB, but I've watched him a couple times and he's capable of doing things that 99% of QB's are simply not physically capable of. Plenty of those guys come and fail though.



Or on an older scale Mark Rypien.

We're basically agreeing here. MY point is, if we had Manning on this team this season, he might not look "Manning-like" as often as he does with Indy, but you WOULD see those flashes and plays, even with this crappy offense, and I can guarandamntee we'd have a better W/L record to boot.

Milkman has a take on this and I agree with him 100%:

"Give me a true Franchise QB and a top 5/10 defense, and I'll take my chances with THAT every year, every time".( or something to that effect )

[Zig]

The_Jonas, on 19 December 2009 - 03:03 PM, said:

Heh... Yeah, Brady struggled with the deep pass with Gaffeny and Caldwell, and it was less of an issue with Moss. The thing is that Cassel wasn't exactly connecting with Moss downfield either.

The reason you rarely see bombs take place isn't just a QB accuracy issue. It's a team issue. It requires either 1 on 1 coverage deep or broken coverage. It also requires the OL to hold their blocks long enough for the QB to make the read and throw.

Hitting a deep pass in 1 on 1 coverage usually requires a perfect throw and are actually hard to complete for most QB's (Phillip Rivers hits these things like swing passes.... he's good). When a WR is wide open by 10 yards because a defense blew a coverage... a QB MUST hit that pass. There's no excuse for not hitting a WIDE OPEN WR.. unless you get hit while throwing or something. Especially twice in the endzone.

The problem isn't that Cassel once and a while overthrows those 'over the shoulder' deep passes... it's not that he does it half of the time. IT's not even that he does it 2/3's of the time.

It's that he only completes that pass maybe 1/10 times and that, imo, is giving him some credit he hasn't earned. I"ll bet if someone wanted to watch the film he's hitting less than 10% of those passes. The NFL average is about 35%.

Keep in mind though... it's not that Cassel is playing so poorly here He made me think he sucks. He's doing exactly what I expected based on what I saw last year.

he struggled with it with Branch and Givens...Patten...but again, it wasn't all on Brady either.

As for Cassel last year, you really have to break it down from the 1st 8-9 games to the last 7-8. Starting with the back to back 400 yard games. It was half time of the Jets game in week 9 or so before they had to pass themselves back into a game and the 'hermcuffs' came off. The offense had been very much 'dumbed down' or 'vanilla' before then. They went 5-1 the last games and the 1 loss to was to the Steelers. Cassel was actually playing well in the 1st half but Moss dropped 2TDs...you prolly remember me saying this before...Pats fumbled a KR= easy TD for Steelers...Pats should have had at least 14-17 point lead at halftime but instead were done by 10 or so...Steelers turned up the heat, it started pouring and the game got ugly. I hate talking about it because they should have won that game...

so really he had 6.5 games here where he had the whole playbook to play with and I still think he did pretty good down the stretch. I know he did cuz I saw it lol.

[The_Jonas]

Raised on Riots, on 19 December 2009 - 04:16 PM, said:

We're basically agreeing here. MY point is, if we had Manning on this team this season, he might not look "Manning-like" as often as he does with Indy, but you WOULD see those flashes and plays, even with this crappy offense, and I can guarandamntee we'd have a better W/L record to boot.

Milkman has a take on this and I agree with him 100%:

"Give me a true Franchise QB and a top 5/10 defense, and I'll take my chances with THAT every year, every time".( or something to that effect )

Oh hell yes.
Imagine... a top 5 defense AND a franchise QB. That would be amazing.

There's plenty of ways to build a SB contender, but IMO, that's the best way because it's most likely to have the longest lasting results. Give that franchise QB either a great OL (therefore a good running game) or some great pass catchers and look out!

Ah... to dream.

[Raised on Riots]

The_Jonas, on 19 December 2009 - 04:37 PM, said:

Oh hell yes.
Imagine... a top 5 defense AND a franchise QB. That would be amazing.

There's plenty of ways to build a SB contender, but IMO, that's the best way because it's most likely to have the longest lasting results. Give that franchise QB either a great OL (therefore a good running game) or some great pass catchers and look out!

Ah... to dream.

And therein lies my point of contention with "The Patriot Way" because "TPW", as it is marketed/sold to the NFL and the fans of the NFL; never accounts for Tom Brady or the other key impact players on that team.

It's sold as philosophy of "53 good to above-average players preparing, studying, playing, and working hard as a team". Well, I can guarantee you that Randy Moss and Tom Brady are anything but "good to above average".

This a playmakers league, and the game has changed a LOT since the days of Joe Montana and Walter Payton. It's a pass-heavy era where having a lethal secondary and at least a serviceable pass-rush is your greatest defensive asset. It's why I want to see Eric Berry or Taylor Mays on this team next year.

It's why I say "draft and draft and draft and draft until you hit on that Franchise Quarterback". Because it's THAT important. And regardless of your needs, if there's a playmaker on the board when you're on the clock; you TAKE him. EVERY time.

[The_Jonas]

Raised on Riots, on 19 December 2009 - 05:07 PM, said:

And therein lies my point of contention with "The Patriot Way" because "TPW", as it is marketed/sold to the NFL and the fans of the NFL; never accounts for Tom Brady or the other key impact players on that team.

It's sold as philosophy of "53 good to above-average players preparing, studying, playing, and working hard as a team". Well, I can guarantee you that Randy Moss and Tom Brady are anything but "good to above average".

This a playmakers league, and the game has changed a LOT since the days of Joe Montana and Walter Payton. It's a pass-heavy era where having a lethal secondary and at least a serviceable pass-rush is your greatest defensive asset. It's why I want to see Eric Berry or Taylor Mays on this team next year.

It's why I say "draft and draft and draft and draft until you hit on that Franchise Quarterback". Because it's THAT important. And regardless of your needs, if there's a playmaker on the board when you're on the clock; you TAKE him. EVERY time.

Not to mention on defense they had guys like Law, Harrison, Seymour...

You need stars and you need solid players around them.

Defense always starts up front because if a team can run on you, they can pass on you. That being said... just because you stopped them from running doesn't mean you can stop them from passing.

Safety is a position that has evolved a lot from the days of Deron Cherry playing centerfield. A guy that can man up, blitz, and tackle well from either safety position has in fact evolved into an extremely vital part of any defense. With the growing popularity of spread formations, this is only going to get MORE true.

It's funny. Back when Walsh was building the 9ers they had a good offense in 80 but their secondary was just atrocious. Walsh spent his first 3 picks on DB's and one guy specifically transformed the entire defense (along with trading for Dean) and that guy was a CB named Ronnie Lott.

We just need guys who are physical. Our team gets beat up and down the field. When Ronnie played... he never lost. His team may have lost, but Ronnie beat the f**king shit out of anyone who dared cross his path. He, as an individual, never lost. We need guys like that on defense. Guys like that roaming the defensive backfield.

A guy like Dean wouldn't hurt either.

[Raised on Riots]

LB's too. I remember watching Seau when SD was a really, REALLY horrible team, and though he couldn't do everything on his own and his team got piss-pounded by KC, he was still firing on all cylinders, playing physical, making himself known on every play, working his team mates, and working the home field crowd.

All this talk about "changing the culture" and getting the younger guys in to a mindset of winning starts with guys like that; capable Vets who bring excellence and passion for the game to every practice, every game, every time.

[nathanKent]

Zig, on 19 December 2009 - 04:00 PM, said:

You guys are just never happy! What, do you expect the Pats to give you their good players?

come on man!




I never claimed to know much about O'Cal but I do know there was a lot of hype about him from a lot of Pats fans that sounded smarter than me.... And he was well coached here that's for sure. 5th rounder, his 4th year...prolly is what he is.


suckas!

Well, it probably didn't take a football genius to realize that a guy struggling to supplant Nick Kaczur wouldn't make a good starter on a struggling team.