And so the "Matt Cassel to KC" Rumors Begin...

[FloridaMan88]

As if they hadn't started already...

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/f...&position=also


Matt Cassel draws interest


TAMPA - They might not have been one of the two Super Bowl participants last night, but the Patriots [team stats] still generated a lot of talk on Radio Row during the week.

With Matt Cassel making the rounds, there was plenty of speculation on how much interest he would draw should the Pats apply the franchise tag and then trade him.

The pundits’ top pick to land Cassel in that scenario is Kansas City. Obviously, the Scott Pioli factor weighs heavily in that choice, with the Pats former vice president of player personnel now calling the shots for the Chiefs.

“I’d really look at Pioli down there in Kansas City. Why wouldn’t he want him?” Sirius NFL radio analyst Jim Miller said. “He knows what the kid is capable of doing. So I think he’d be on their radar.”

Miller, like most analysts, doesn’t see the crop of quarterbacks in this year’s NFL Draft as particularly appealing. That boosts the draw for Cassel, especially if Pioli decides he’s not satisfied with the collection of QBs he inherited after taking over the job.

“I don’t think this is a strong quarterback draft. Everybody is saying Matthew Stafford of Georgia and Mark Sanchez of USC are going to go in the Top 10. I don’t believe that,” Miller said. “I don’t think those guys are ready. And I don’t think you’ll see the type of success guys like Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco had. They just haven’t played enough. So I can’t see teams wanting them.

“But if Kansas (City) were to make that deal, that’s their Matt Ryan. That’s their Joe Flacco. Unlike a Sanchez, for instance, they know he’s playing at a starter’s level. So to them, I think it’d be worth it to do. They’d get their starting quarterback, they know what he’s capable of doing, and they’ve seen him win games at the NFL level.”

Other experts, meanwhile, aren’t sure Pioli would want to deal with his former boss right out of the gate.

Some other teams figuring to make a pitch for Cassel include the New York Jets, Detroit, Minnesota, San Francisco, Carolina, Tampa Bay and Chicago.

As for what Cassel would land in a trade, there were differing opinions. Miller, for one, thought he would cost a second-round draft choice.

The decision to trade or keep Cassel will ultimately depend on Tom Brady [stats]’s health. While reports have him on target to play in the season opener, he still has a few hurdles to clear before that point following reconstructive surgery on his left knee and a subsequent staph infection.

“I think a lot is going to depend on where Kevin O’Connell is in his development. If they feel they can move Matt to benefit their team, they’ll do it,” said Miller, a one-time Pats backup quarterback. “It’s rolling the dice on Tom and whether he’s healthy, and two, can they do it with Kevin O’Connell? The question they have to ask is if O’Connell is as capable of what they have in Matt Cassel?”

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by splatbass

You are using hyperbole here, Mecca, and it is dishonest. Who doesn't want a QB under any circumstances? Who wants to go back to the 90s? NO ONE, with the possible exception of KCJohnny.

Not wanting to draft the current available QBs with the 3# pick doesn't mean we don't want to draft a QB, just that we don't think either of them are worth the #3.

Stop the hyperbole, and try to have an honest discussion for once in your life.

THIS!!!

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by Frankie

THIS!!!

Using boldface and increased text size just makes you wrong in boldface and a larger text size.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by Simply Red

Really, Cassel is not good, weak arm, no experience, he's proven nothing. Hell, Brady (who starts in front of this guy.) isn't that great either. / Mecca

Cassel = If Pioli drags that POS here then he sucks too.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by whoman69

IMO Cassel got a lot of boost out of all the talent on that offense. He doesn't have the deep ball. He has only one year of experience as a starter since high school. He's as risky as a rookie. There's always this big push to crown the backup who did a decent job as an NFL calibre starter. Scott Mitchell, Frank Reich memories should be enough to scare anyone. Longtime backups who get promoted seldom pan out.

Why is Cassell considered a longtime backup? Does that mean that any QB that doesn't start in his first 2 or 3 seasons is a longtime backup? Where does that leave Philip RIvers, Aaron Rodgers, and Chad Pennington, among many?

You're generalizing. Do all first-time starters pan out? No. Do all longtime starter pan out? No. But to make your case, you bring up guys like Eli and Big Ben and conveniently leave out the long list of "blah" like Vince Young and Joey Harrington and David Carr. And you bring up failures like Frank Reich and Scott Mitchell but you don't bring up successes like Steve Young and Kurt Warner.

First round draft picks are better bets, but if you ask me, one of the reasons they succeed at a higher rate is that teams give them every last opportunity to succeed, whereas later round picks are given every last opportunity to fail. So when Eli Manning has a bum year, they give him another year to work it out. But when a 6th round pick has the audacity to have a good year, a team gives them a very short hook. QBs typically take 3 years to develop, and you rarely ever see a non-first or second round pick get more than 1 year.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Frankie

THIS!!!

You know when you every single year talk about how the QB's aren't worth the pick, that means you don't want to draft a QB ever, you may not out right say that but that is what it implies.

[RustShack]

I have a question... would you be comfortable drafting Bradford of Tebow had they declared?

[kstater]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Why is Cassell considered a longtime backup? Does that mean that any QB that doesn't start in his first 2 or 3 seasons is a longtime backup? Where does that leave Philip RIvers, Aaron Rodgers, and Chad Pennington, among many?

Because he was a backup in College and the NFL. Prior to last year, Cassell hadn't started a game since HIGH SCHOOL. That's why he's considered a longtime backup. That's why so many don't want him. That's why there's more questions about him than not.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by kstater

Because he was a backup in College and the NFL. Prior to last year, Cassell hadn't started a game since HIGH SCHOOL. That's why he's considered a longtime backup. That's why so many don't want him. That's why there's more questions about him than not.

But who cares what their background was. Big Ben wasn't good enough to be recruited to a major school, so he went to Miami (OH). Their college background is completely irrelevant. Once you start playing games in the pros, it needs to be about what you contribute in the pros.

I can handle that some don't want him for his arm strength. That's something that concerns me too. But I'm sick of this mentality that fans have to entirely discredit any accomplishment a guy has because he's a guy they don't want. He was a solid QB last year, and he's inexperienced enough to still have upside. How high that upside is debatable, but based on the consensus here, people seem to think he's peaked in one season and that nothing he accomplished last yera means anything because of his supporting cast, and that's being a little unrealistic.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by Mecca

You know when you every single year talk about how the QB's aren't worth the pick, that means you don't want to draft a QB ever, you may not out right say that but that is what it implies.

Every single year?!

We've had this argument last year and this year. In these TWO years, IMO, pre-draft evidence has not shown a top 5 QB available. I don't care much for Stafford, but I would like Sanchez if somehow we could trade down to the 8-12 range.

[milkman]

When I think of Matt Cassel, I think of Steve Bono.

Bono, like Cassel, wasn't the starter in college, was drafted in the sixth round, who, when he got a chance to start for a team laden with talent looked like a viable NFL QB.

Sure, when he came to the Chiefs, he went to a pro bowl, but he was a mediocre QB.

I see Cassel being essentially the same guy.

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by RustShack

I have a question... would you be comfortable drafting Bradford of Tebow had they declared?

Not at 3. Tebow, not at all.

[splatbass]

Originally Posted by Mecca

You know when you every single year talk about how the QB's aren't worth the pick, that means you don't want to draft a QB ever, you may not out right say that but that is what it implies.

That isn't true, and and your hyperbole is getting tiring.

I would take either Stafford or Sanchez, but not at #3.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Every single year?!

We've had this argument last year and this year. In these TWO years, IMO, pre-draft evidence has not shown a top 5 QB available. I don't care much for Stafford, but I would like Sanchez if somehow we could trade down to the 8-12 range.

Why don't you show us a reasonable trade package that would allow us to move down to 8?

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Not at 3. Tebow, not at all.

So, Bradford would have done it for you?

[Frankie]

Originally Posted by Frankie

Not at 3. Tebow, not at all.

BTW, fwiw I HAVE accepted your side's argument that Bradford being a spread O QB may be risky. So there.