2011 NFL Season - A New Game

[SmoothieX]

I can't even give tickets away. I kind of want to go the Monday Night Football game on 10/31 vs the Chargers (I love the MNF game atmosphere), but I can't find anybody to go with me, even if I pay for their ticket.

I bet ESPN, NBC, and NFLN are kicking themselves for scheduling all those 49ers and Chiefs primetime games.

I'm going to see the Chiefs on MNF...only problem for you is that its in Foxborough and I don't have an extra ticket.

I can't wait to see the Jets get trampled by the Ravens this weekend.

I just want to see the Jets get trampled every week. The following week's game in NE should be a big one for both teams. Sadly my wife will be on a flight and unable to watch the game with me that week. Her head may implode if she doesn't get score updates.

 

[Skywalker]

Yeah, it would be nice to see them get trampled every week. They really should be 1-2 right now, they just happened to get Tony Romo before he leveled up.

 

[SmoothieX]

You also have to wonder at what point will the team start tuning out Rex's antics. He's good for a jolt of energy and 'turnaround management' so to speak, but I can't imagine he's got a 10 year shelf life anywhere if they don't start making Superbowls.

 

[gh4chiefs]

I bet ESPN, NBC, and NFLN are kicking themselves for scheduling all those 49ers and Chiefs primetime games.
.

I think there are 3 primetime games with the Chiefs, 2 on MN, and a Sunday night game. The one MNF game is with the Pats as you pointed out, so that should still be somewhat of a draw for them. Not sure how the Chargers vs. Chiefs MNF will draw, I assume not very well.

The Sunday night game is against Pittsburgh, and could be flexed to a different game I think.

ETA: BTW Smoothie, could you PLEASE take Matt Cassel back? PLEASE!

 

[SmoothieX]

I'm pretty happy with the current QB situation around here, last week not withstanding.

Cassel had a solid year here in '08 when Brady got hurt, especially after they took the reigns off him. He got some consideration for MVP last year and played great. It was hard to tell if he succeeded because of 'The Patriot Way' and all the talent around him, but he showed he's got it last year.

What gives this year? I heard he's pretty banged up.

 

[gh4chiefs]

I don't know what gives with him. I don't understand how he can go from what he was subing for Brady in 08 to where he is now. Yes he had a 6-8 game stretch last year where he looked decent, but taken as a whole, his tenure in KC to use the current vernacular, is "epic fail."

This Youtube video pretty much sums up his performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyFzIG6E14U&feature=player_embedded

 

[Thestral]

Raiders are not as awful as people think. And the Jets don't have a lot on offense. Plus it was the whole fly cross country and play on the other coast thing. I don't know why that matters, but it sure seems to.

True. But one team didn't make the playoffs last year, the other went to the AFC Championship. We're not talking the Bills finally getting karmic satisfaction here.

He's good for a jolt of energy and 'turnaround management' so to speak, but I can't imagine he's got a 10 year shelf life anywhere if they don't start making Superbowls.

2 AFC Championship appearances in 2 years? Teams would kill for that, and the Jets would be insane to even consider dumping him at this point.

 

[Timby]

I don't know what gives with him. I don't understand how he can go from what he was subing for Brady in 08 to where he is now. Yes he had a 6-8 game stretch last year where he looked decent, but taken as a whole, his tenure in KC to use the current vernacular, is "epic fail."

Well, he is the QB of the biggest dumpster fire in the league. That being said, his 2008 performance was largely due to the Patriots protecting the shit out of him and running a ridiculously simplified gameplan. Last year, he had an easy schedule and an amazing run game to take the heat off of him (plus that utterly insane 1.6% interception percentage -- talk about a statistical aberration).

You also can't discount that he's panicking in the pocket, and for good reason -- the Chiefs' offensive line may actually be worse than the Bears', which I didn't think was actually possible going into this season.

But, ultimately, Cassel's a guy who's always had serious limitations, and I never understood Scott Pioli's decision to build around him. You can have some success with him if you scheme around those limitations, but you can't hide your QB forever. The Chiefs needed a guy who wasn't going to make very many mistakes to manage the game, get the ball to Dwayne Bowe, and get out of the way of the rushing attack, and after 2008, that's essentially what Cassel was -- Trent Dilfer 2.0, basically. But that kind of quarterback cannot succeed when the rest of the team around him is just unbelievably terrible. I mean, holy shit, the Chiefs are bad.

 

[gh4chiefs]

But that's just it, they're not THAT devoid of talent. Depth yes, but their starters are not THAT bad. I'm not saying they're SB worthy talent, I'm just saying they're not as bad as this 3 game stretch would indicate. Something else is going on, something is not allowing them to play to their potential (which might be a middle of the road 8-8 team). Injuries are a big part of obviously, they've lost 3 starters to ACLs already this year.

I can't prove it, but methinks there is some serious discord going on between Haley and the OC and/or Haley and Pioli. Because they seriously regressed from where they were last year with basically the same people. The big difference is the injury bug and Charlie Weis is no longer OC.

ETA: Except for the most important postion, they are VERY devoid of talent at that position (the QB).

 

[Timby]

There were rumors last year that Weis and Haley had a major beef with one another (because Haley's a prick, basically), in any event.

But, ultimately, I think you're giving the team too much credit: Obviously, the biggest problem is the offensive and defensive lines, and by some extension the linebackers. They're running so many guys who are suited to a 4-3 in a 3-4 scheme ... it's got to be almost everyone at this point. To run a 3-4, you need a really good nose tackle, plus linebackers who can play coverage, and the Chiefs have neither of those. The ends can't get any pressure, which is leading to defensive calls of either non-stop blitzes or coverage plays that get shredded. They simply do not have the personnel to run the defense they want to.

On the other side of the ball, the offensive line can't pass block for shit, Cassel panics right after the snap due to getting sacked all the time, they lost just about all their playmakers on offense, and the playcalling is obscenely terrible.

The Chiefs aren't as bad on paper as the statistics show, but holy shit, something needs to happen there. At this point, Haley should just take over playcalling, because Bill Muir is running that offense about as capably as a drunken six-year-old. Who's been shot. In the head. With a bazooka.

 

[gh4chiefs]

We can agree to disagree, because while it's not great, I don't think the O-line is as bad as you think it is. I don't think Cassel is being sacked as much as you think, but you are right in that he can't take ANY pressure whatsoever without going into the fetal position and shitting his pants. One of his nicknames has become "Captain Checkdown."

The defensive line is a problem, at least with pass rushing. They do a little better against the run.

Ironically they didn't play much better against SD last week, but yet came within a missed FG of tying the game. And might have tied or won the game if not for the aforemention pants shitting by Casshole in the final drive.

I really don't know what to expect from them this week against the Vikings. I may be a glutton for punishment, but I'm going to the game. At least the weather will be nice.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

There were rumors last year that Weis and Haley had a major beef with one another (because Haley's a prick, basically), in any event.

But, ultimately, I think you're giving the team too much credit: Obviously, the biggest problem is the offensive and defensive lines, and by some extension the linebackers. They're running so many guys who are suited to a 4-3 in a 3-4 scheme ... it's got to be almost everyone at this point. To run a 3-4, you need a really good nose tackle, plus linebackers who can play coverage, and the Chiefs have neither of those. The ends can't get any pressure, which is leading to defensive calls of either non-stop blitzes or coverage plays that get shredded. They simply do not have the personnel to run the defense they want to.

On the other side of the ball, the offensive line can't pass block for shit, Cassel panics right after the snap due to getting sacked all the time, they lost just about all their playmakers on offense, and the playcalling is obscenely terrible.

The Chiefs aren't as bad on paper as the statistics show, but holy shit, something needs to happen there. At this point, Haley should just take over playcalling, because Bill Muir is running that offense about as capably as a drunken six-year-old. Who's been shot. In the head. With a bazooka.

I'll admit I'm not even close to an expert on defenses, but once the play starts and guys are all over the place, how much difference is there really between the 3-4 & 4-3.

I realize one has 4 linebackers & the other has 3. I've seen the Bears put a linebacker "on the line".

I think the problem is just some overpaid jackass whining about how he's used.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I think a large part of Cassel's success in 2008 came from the fact that he was with the Patriots. Say what you want about the Pats and Belichick, but the guys runs a good shop and I think Cassel benefited from their scheme that year. That's the big difference between the Colts and the Pats in my opinion. Manning is an awesome player and the Colts ride on his shoulders, but as we've seen, they're in trouble when they lose him. In the case of the Pats though, Brady's an awesome QB as well and he'll carry them for a long ways, but I don't feel the Pats are entirely dependant on him. If you lose Brady, you can still count on the Pats doing decently as long as you don't have a complete disaster of a QB. Because of this, Cassel looked good while he was a part of this.

I agree with Timby that Cassel's not a QB that you can use to carry the team. If you have a good team already put together, Cassel would be a good option, but if you're a mess and need the QB to carry the team and need the QB to win games for you, Cassel's not the guy.

Sounds like a certain guy I'm stuck rooting for right now.

 

[gh4chiefs]

I agree with Timby that Cassel's not a QB that you can use to carry the team. If you have a good team already put together, Cassel would be a good option, but if you're a mess and need the QB to carry the team and need the QB to win games for you, Cassel's not the guy.

I'm of the opinion that for a team to succeed in today's NFL they MUST HAVE a franchise QB. The Ravens and Dilfer was an anomaly. You have to have that Manning, Brady, Rothelisburger (sp?) or dare I say it, John Elway, to take teams to that high level of competitiveness that ends with a SB victory.

Matt Cassel is not taking any team to the SB. He might win you a lot of games with the right talent around him (see 2008), but a SB? The only way he gets to the SB is either as Brady's backup, or with a ticket to the game.

And as long as the Chiefs stick with him, they ain't going anywhere. Which I guess for you is a good thing.

 

[nevermore]

To run a 3-4, you need a really good nose tackle, plus linebackers who can play coverage, and the Chiefs have neither of those.

Didn't the Chiefs pick up Kelly Gregg? He has been a very good 3-4 nose tackle for many years in Baltimore; are they not starting him? I know he's on the downslope of his career, but I mean, he anchored the D-line in Baltimore for years when we led the league in run D...you would think they would use him if they've got him.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I agree with Timby that Cassel's not a QB that you can use to carry the team. If you have a good team already put together, Cassel would be a good option, but if you're a mess and need the QB to carry the team and need the QB to win games for you, Cassel's not the guy.

I'm of the opinion that for a team to succeed in today's NFL they MUST HAVE a franchise QB. The Ravens and Dilfer was an anomaly. You have to have that Manning, Brady, Rothelisburger (sp?) or dare I say it, John Elway, to take teams to that high level of competitiveness that ends with a SB victory.

Matt Cassel is not taking any team to the SB. He might win you a lot of games with the right talent around him (see 2008), but a SB? The only way he gets to the SB is either as Brady's backup, or with a ticket to the game.

And as long as the Chiefs stick with him, they ain't going anywhere. Which I guess for you is a good thing.

In general, I would agree with you to a point. When one considers the fact that the league is becoming more and more passing-oriented with the rules and how things are run, and how hard it is to put together absolutely dominant teams with parity and salary caps and players demanding monsterous salaries, a capable QB who can win the games for you is a must. But, if you're lucky enough to put together a defense that can win the game for you or to a lesser degree, a running game that can carry the team, then a great QB is just an added bonus. If you have a good or average defense/ run game, then you need the QB to get you to the next level. But if you have a truly great defense or run game, then you only need a QB who won't get the team into trouble. A great run game is hard to say that for because it could potentially be easier to stop if the opponents start gearing entirely for the run.

To use an example I'm familiar with, there's the Broncos. For several year (obviously, not the last few), they've had a habit of fielding great defenses that would wear down towards the end. In 2006, we only allowed 4 TD through the first 7 games and we became the first team since the '40s to start the season 11 quarters without allowing a TD. In the first 7, they only allowed more than 10 points once, and that was in a game where Denver turned the ball over 5 times. Even then, the D only allowed 18 points, all in the form of field goals. Things started going downhill after the 7th game, but if the defense had kept that going, I think they could have carried a struggling Plummer a long ways. A dominant enough defense can sometimes be all you need to get through.

 

[gh4chiefs]

I agree with Timby that Cassel's not a QB that you can use to carry the team. If you have a good team already put together, Cassel would be a good option, but if you're a mess and need the QB to carry the team and need the QB to win games for you, Cassel's not the guy.

I'm of the opinion that for a team to succeed in today's NFL they MUST HAVE a franchise QB. The Ravens and Dilfer was an anomaly. You have to have that Manning, Brady, Rothelisburger (sp?) or dare I say it, John Elway, to take teams to that high level of competitiveness that ends with a SB victory.

Matt Cassel is not taking any team to the SB. He might win you a lot of games with the right talent around him (see 2008), but a SB? The only way he gets to the SB is either as Brady's backup, or with a ticket to the game.

And as long as the Chiefs stick with him, they ain't going anywhere. Which I guess for you is a good thing.

In general, I would agree with you to a point. When one considers the fact that the league is becoming more and more passing-oriented with the rules and how things are run, and how hard it is to put together absolutely dominant teams with parity and salary caps and players demanding monsterous salaries, a capable QB who can win the games for you is a must. But, if you're lucky enough to put together a defense that can win the game for you or to a lesser degree, a running game that can carry the team, then a great QB is just an added bonus. If you have a good or average defense/ run game, then you need the QB to get you to the next level. But if you have a truly great defense or run game, then you only need a QB who won't get the team into trouble. A great run game is hard to say that for because it could potentially be easier to stop if the opponents start gearing entirely for the run.

To use an example I'm familiar with, there's the Broncos. For several year (obviously, not the last few), they've had a habit of fielding great defenses that would wear down towards the end. In 2006, we only allowed 4 TD through the first 7 games and we became the first team since the '40s to start the season 11 quarters without allowing a TD. In the first 7, they only allowed more than 10 points once, and that was in a game where Denver turned the ball over 5 times. Even then, the D only allowed 18 points, all in the form of field goals. Things started going downhill after the 7th game, but if the defense had kept that going, I think they could have carried a struggling Plummer a long ways. A dominant enough defense can sometimes be all you need to get through.

I think your example kind of proves my point exactly. Jake Plummer? Seriously? As Keyshawn would say "C'mon man!"

ETA: I'll counter your example with one of my own. I know a team that in 97 went 13-3, and did mainly on the back of their defense. In a 7-8 game stretch during the second half of that season, they didn't allow a second half TD. (May still be a NFL record, I'm not sure.) So they win the division by way of a tiebreaker over their division rival who was also 13-3.

The first team I'm talking about is the Chiefs and had Elvis Grbac as QB. (Rich Gannon filled in for most of the second half of the season.) The other team was the Broncos and of course they had John Elway. Needless to say the franchise QB was able to overcome the shutdown defense of the Chiefs.

 

[gh4chiefs]

To run a 3-4, you need a really good nose tackle, plus linebackers who can play coverage, and the Chiefs have neither of those.

Didn't the Chiefs pick up Kelly Gregg? He has been a very good 3-4 nose tackle for many years in Baltimore; are they not starting him? I know he's on the downslope of his career, but I mean, he anchored the D-line in Baltimore for years when we led the league in run D...you would think they would use him if they've got him.

They did pick him up and have been starting him. Unfortunately he hasn't really been very effective. As Chiefs fans we were excited to get him, but now we're scratching our heads trying to figure why he's suddenly seemingly declined drastically.

 

[Pegaritaville]

I agree with Timby that Cassel's not a QB that you can use to carry the team. If you have a good team already put together, Cassel would be a good option, but if you're a mess and need the QB to carry the team and need the QB to win games for you, Cassel's not the guy.

I'm of the opinion that for a team to succeed in today's NFL they MUST HAVE a franchise QB. The Ravens and Dilfer was an anomaly. You have to have that Manning, Brady, Rothelisburger (sp?) or dare I say it, John Elway, to take teams to that high level of competitiveness that ends with a SB victory.

Agreed. One of the things the Packers have done right over the last few decades or so and the Vikings have failed miserably at. You can have a shitload of talent, but very rarely will a has-been QB get you to the Super Bowl.

 

[gh4chiefs]

I don't think Cassel is being sacked as much as you think,

According to NFL.com, he's been sacked 5 times, the same number as Aaron Rodgers, (who has the #1 overall QB rating, while Cassel is next to last) and only 2 more than Tom Brady. It puts him about the middle of the pack on sacks taken, and there are several teams that have double digit sacks.

One of his 5 sacks occurred at the end of the first half of the Lions game when he was attempting to throw a hail Mary.