Chiefs Give Cassel $63 million deal

Chris Luva Luva · Post by **Chris Luva Luva** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:03 am

PulpExposure wrote:The difference is Cassel had one decent year for a loaded Patriots team last year.

I know. I just felt like arguing. :lol:

brad7686 · Post by **brad7686** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:39 pm

qb's get too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. It's bad enough somebody actually wants the guy to start, but to give him a contract like that is just insane.

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 2:38 pm

El Mexican said:

Some of our past FA mistakes do have an impact on the present team because they occupied a roster spot where a good rookie could have been developed.

If you believe this, then you should have no trouble identifying "good rookies" who were cut and caught on with other teams, and made significant contributions...

I think Frank Wychek and Keenan McCardell are no longer in the league... and predate the current regime, so I won't let you have those...

El Mexican · Post by **El Mexican** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:01 pm

Countertrey wrote:El Mexican said:
Some of our past FA mistakes do have an impact on the present team because they occupied a roster spot where a good rookie could have been developed.

If you believe this, then you should have no trouble identifying "good rookies" who were cut and caught on with other teams, and made significant contributions...

I think Frank Wychek and Keenan McCardell are no longer in the league... and predate the current regime, so I won't let you have those...

The key term here is "developed".

Even if the team drafted a player, did he had the chance to play whilst a 10 million bust was the starter?

That's the type of logic that has given the FO a less than stellar reputation around the league regarding roster management.

Fortunatly, it's seems they are trying to change now.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:29 pm

El Mexican wrote:
Countertrey wrote:El Mexican said:
Some of our past FA mistakes do have an impact on the present team because they occupied a roster spot where a good rookie could have been developed.

If you believe this, then you should have no trouble identifying "good rookies" who were cut and caught on with other teams, and made significant contributions...

I think Frank Wychek and Keenan McCardell are no longer in the league... and predate the current regime, so I won't let you have those...
The key term here is "developed".

Even if the team drafted a player, did he had the chance to play whilst a 10 million bust was the starter?

That's the type of logic that has given the FO a less than stellar reputation around the league regarding roster management.

Fortunatly, it's seems they are trying to change now.

That makes absolutely no sense. Wouldn't that drafted player still be on the roster once the 10 million bust was exposed? Don't players that are not starters still practice and develop even when they aren't playing? Do non-starters ever get playing time, especially if they show talent in practice?

El Mexican · Post by **El Mexican** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:51 pm

Deadskins wrote:
El Mexican wrote:
Countertrey wrote:El Mexican said:
Some of our past FA mistakes do have an impact on the present team because they occupied a roster spot where a good rookie could have been developed.

If you believe this, then you should have no trouble identifying "good rookies" who were cut and caught on with other teams, and made significant contributions...

I think Frank Wychek and Keenan McCardell are no longer in the league... and predate the current regime, so I won't let you have those...
The key term here is "developed".

Even if the team drafted a player, did he had the chance to play whilst a 10 million bust was the starter?

That's the type of logic that has given the FO a less than stellar reputation around the league regarding roster management.

Fortunatly, it's seems they are trying to change now.

That makes absolutely no sense. Wouldn't that drafted player still be on the roster once the 10 million bust was exposed? Don't players that are not starters still practice and develop even when they aren't playing? Do non-starters ever get playing time, especially if they show talent in practice?

Not necesarily.

By drafting a solid rookie prospect (3rd and 4th) round, any team is looking at a future player in development.

With all the FA busts that were brought here, we hardly had a chance to see the player in actual gametime, because the guy that came in to occupy that roster spot was given at least a two year window to prove himself. The problem is, of course, that the FA is eating up a roster spot.

Im talking about the Deion Sanders, Mark Carrier, Archuleta tyoe mistakes, where the big free agent splash sacrificed quality depht, which can only consitently be achieved by various solid draft classes.

But, as I said earlier, the FO seems to be changing. Last years draft can become the best example if the WRs and TE actually get some playing time, and produce, during this season.

I have been very critical towards Kelly, Thomas and Davis, but I'll give the FO the benefit of the doubt in the strategy they are trying to use, vastly different than what we saw in the past.

Hope they are, at the very least, solid starters.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:18 pm

The three FA's you mentioned were here for one year apiece. Deion took Darrell Green's spot, but didn't play particularly poorly. If he had, Darrell would have been back in as the starter. AA was benched, so that also throws your theory out the window. Anyway, any starter is not taking a spot from a player who is close to being a starter himself. It is the lowest players that are cut to make room for one of these guys.

PulpExposure · Post by **PulpExposure** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:08 pm

SkinsJock wrote:It would be a stupid decision by somebody if they brought in a player that could only play for 12 games a year

You do know that's just about what he averages in games played per year, for his career, right?

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:13 pm

El Mexican wrote:
Countertrey wrote:El Mexican said:
Some of our past FA mistakes do have an impact on the present team because they occupied a roster spot where a good rookie could have been developed.

If you believe this, then you should have no trouble identifying "good rookies" who were cut and caught on with other teams, and made significant contributions...

I think Frank Wychek and Keenan McCardell are no longer in the league... and predate the current regime, so I won't let you have those...
The key term here is "developed".

Even if the team drafted a player, did he had the chance to play whilst a 10 million bust was the starter?

So, you can't offer any names of players that were cut because the spot was taken by an over the hill FA, yet caught on and "were developed" into a contributing player by another team (surely someone would have recognized their potential).

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:34 pm

Here are our draft pick since 1997 who are no longer on our roster. Who on this list do you think should have had more playing time here to develop?

08
6. Durant Brooks, P, Georgia Tech

07
5. Dallas Sartz, LB, USC
6. Jordan Palmer, QB, UTEP
7. Tyler Ecker, TE, Michigan

06
7. Kili Lefotu, OL, Arizona
7. Kevin Simon, LB, Tennessee

05
4. Manuel White, Jr., RB, UCLA
5. Robert McCune, LB, Louisville
6. Jared Newberry, LB, Stanford
7. Nehemiah Broughton, RB, The Citadel

04
5. Mark Wilson, OL, California
6. Jim Molinaro, OL, Notre Dame

03
2. Taylor Jacobs, WR, Florida
7. Gibran Hamdan, QB, Indiana

02
1. Patrick Ramsey, QB, Tulane
3. Rashad Bauman, CB, Oregon
3. Cliff Russell, WR, Utah
5. Andre Lott, S, Tennessee
5. Robert Royal, TE, LSU
6. Reggie Coleman, T, Tennessee
7. Jeff Grau, LS, UCLA
7. Greg Scott, DE, Hampton

01
1. Rod Gardner, WR, Clemson
4. Sage Rosenfels, QB, Iowa St.
5. Darnerien McCants, WR, Delaware St.
6. Mario Monds, DT, Cincinnati

00
1. LaVar Arrington, LB, Penn St.
3. Lloyd Harrison, CB, N.C. State
4. Michael Moore, G, Troy St.
5. Quincy Sanders, S, UNLV
6. Todd Husak, QB, Stanford
7. Del Cowsette, DT, Maryland
7. Ethan Howell, WR, Oklahoma St.

99
1. Champ Bailey, CB, Georgia
2. Jon Jansen, T, Michigan
4. Nate Stimson, LB, Georgia Tech
5. Derek Smith, OL, Virginia Tech
6. Jeff Hall, K, Tennessee
7. Tim Alexander, WR, Oregon St.

98
2. Stephen Alexander, TE, Oklahoma
3. Skip Hicks, RB, UCLA
4. Shawn Barber, LB, Richmond
5. Mark Fischer, C, Purdue
6. Pat Palmer, WR, Northwestern St.
7. David Terrell, CB, UTEP
7. Antwaune Ponds, LB, Syracuse

97
1. Andre Johnson, T, Penn State
4. Stephen Davis, RB, Auburn
5. Leomont Evans, S, Clemson
6. Kelvin Kinney, DE, Virginia St.
7. Jeremy Asher, LB, Oregon
7. Deandre Maxwell, WR, San Diego St.

El Mexican · Post by **El Mexican** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:17 am

That list only demonstrates that it's very difficult to land a solid starter after the 5th round, whether you are willing to develop him or not.

I'll try to be clearer this time in sharing with you guys my argument: If your FO strategy for building a team is going every year for high- priced free agents who can inmediately come in and contribiute, then you stunt drafted player growth or ignore quality depth for that position. Why draft a top rated RB in the draft when you have already a great FA RB on your roster? That's the kind of mentality that doomed this team in the past, and poor judgement of draftees only made it worse. Problem numer one being no chemistry at all on the field.

To a degree, you can still see this problem with the 2008 Offense. Number of starters on Offense drafted by the Redskins: 4 (Campbell, Cool

ey, Samuels, Heyer and/or Jansen). I don't need to reiterate the team had serious problems in scoring and moving the ball. Now look at last year's Defense, no doubt a unit that played better. Number of starters on Defense drafted by the Redskins: 6 (Landry, Horton, Rogers, Smoot, McIntosh, Goldston and/or Montgomery).

Take a look at the NE 2008 Offense, the darling of "building a team through the draft" mentallity: 7 starters on Offense where drafted by the team, and 8 of their starters on Defense were drafted, not acquiered via free agency.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:46 am

PulpExposure wrote:
SkinsJock wrote:It would be a stupid decision by somebody if they brought in a player that could only play for 12 games a year

You do know that's just about what he averages in games played per year, for his career, right?

Yes, but I think that the teams that were going after him were not thinking that they would have a player that could only play 12 games a year. I am sure that we are hoping that he can be available for a full year.

We all know that injuries are a part of the game but I do not believe we would have invested the 40+ million if we thought he could only play for 12 games a year - that would really be stupid .... :shock:

but then again :lol:

yupchagee · Post by **yupchagee** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 1:50 pm

El Mexican wrote:That list only demonstrates that it's very difficult to land a solid starter after the 5th round, whether you are willing to develop him or not.

I'll try to be clearer this time in sharing with you guys my argument: If your FO strategy for building a team is going every year for high- priced free agents who can inmediately come in and contribiute, then you stunt drafted player growth or ignore quality depth for that position. Why draft a top rated RB in the draft when you have already a great FA RB on your roster? That's the kind of mentality that doomed this team in the past, and poor judgement of draftees only made it worse. Problem numer one being no chemistry at all on the field.

To a degree, you can still see this problem with the 2008 Offense. Number of starters on Offense drafted by the Redskins: 4 (Campbell, ey, Samuels, Heyer and/or Jansen). I don't need to reiterate the team had serious problems in scoring and moving the ball. Now look at last year's Defense, no doubt a unit that played better. Number of starters on Defense drafted by the Redskins: 6 (Landry, Horton, Rogers, Smoot, McIntosh, Goldston and/or Montgomery).

Take a look at the NE 2008 Offense, the darling of "building a team through the draft" mentallity: 7 starters on Offense where drafted by the team, and 8 of their starters on Defense were drafted, not acquiered via free agency.

Since you can't point out a player to support your argument, maybe you will agree that the problem has been the lack of draft picks, especially high picks, for many years; coupled with some rather questionable selections.

SkinsFreak · Post by **SkinsFreak** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 6:28 pm

El Mexican wrote:I'll try to be clearer this time in sharing with you guys my argument: If your FO strategy for building a team is going every year for high- priced free agents who can inmediately come in and contribiute, then you stunt drafted player growth or ignore quality depth for that position.

Completely disagree. It's about upgrading a position. Who's growth is being stunted by the addition of Haynesworth? Golston? Montgomery? Are you suggesting that in a year or two, Golston and Montgomery will become the player AH is? No. AH is a far better player... ten fold. As yupchagee previously said, the past problems have been the trading away of draft picks, not the signing of free agents, regardless of price. Dockery and AH didn't cost us any draft picks and they aren't stunting anyone's growth. But you could argue that their arrival gives us better depth behind them. For example, Golston and Montgomery now become pretty decent players for the purpose of depth.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:33 am

I must admit that the Cassel contract after only 1 year should be a bit of a concern but the salaries are getting a little ridiculous across the board.

As far as the situation with our team is concerned, I'm still thinking that these bozos did about as well as they could and I am hoping that we can continue to see this team using as many draft picks as possible each year. I think that we have to wait and hope that last years' draft is not as bad as some here claim - patience please, give them another year before blasting the 'team' for taking the 'wrong' players.

I can tell you that I am sure they would have loved to start addressing the offensive line, but that will happen (it has to be a priority very soon) and I for one was always a little peeved at how other teams could regularly complete 3rd and long against our pass rush the past few years - I do believe we will not see that happen on a regular basis with this defensive front 7 and our secondary :wink:

we are getting better - maybe not a very good team again this year, which is a bit of a bummer, but we are getting there and we might be a contender in the NFC East soon, even with these bozos trying to run this team :lol:

El Mexican · Post by **El Mexican** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 1:48 pm

Yep, agreed, dudes.

Here's hoping that the FO has learned that building through the draft rewards your team in the long run.

I totally support bringing in a standout FA from time to time, but the base of the pyramid should be built through the draft.