Thinking About the Royals & Chiefs And Trusting the Process
by Will McDonald on Jan 24, 2010 5:00 PM EST
in News
70 comments
A few days ago a reader named Drew emailed me suggesting that a post discussing the Royals & Chiefs would be pretty interesting. Here's part of what he wrote:
I think it would be great to have someone write an article comparing the directions of the two KC franchises. If you look at the Chiefs putting the right guys in place and looking for guys who fit their system and compare it to the Royals getting the "right" guys in place, who aren't looking for guys who fit the system that was supposed to be... maybe predict which franchise will be back to the "glory days" faster?
The ex-Patriots to KC thing has definitely reached a more mainstream level as a joke than the former Braves thing has (because only hardcore seamheads follow transactions involving minor league guys) but in both cases you can see a basic reality behind it.
Now, I'm going to have to lean on you guys on this one, because I know as much about the Chiefs as I do about, say, the Orioles. Mainly, I'm interested to see what people post in the comments.
To help get things going, I asked Joel from Arrowhead Pride to weigh in:
How do you feel about the rebuilding effort taking place with the Chiefs overall?
Joel: Overall, I feel content with it. There are definitely a lot of moving parts here - quarterback, offensive line, etc - but I believe in the vision of our front office.
The thing that makes me feel the best is that they're bringing in the right guys at the top. They hired Scott Pioli, the biggest fish out there (and probably in the last few years as well). Pioli stayed in the family and brought in another Parcells guy in Todd Haley. They went out and hired arguably the two best coordinators available.
You can't get all the talent in the world at the same time (salary cap) but you can go out and hire the best front office/coaching staff people and that's what they've done.
I think the current regime gets the big picture aspect of it all and understands the importance of hiring the right people to run the show. I think the Patriots showed over the last few years that it's not necessarily the most talented team, but the team that is prepared the best and fits the best.
Is there anything the Royals could learn from what the Chiefs are doing, or vice-versa?
Joel: Yes, hire Scott Pioli as your GM and add Matt Cassel to the rotation and I imagine you're a contender in no time.
.....
The Chiefs are still in the early stages of this thing so it's unclear if their rebuilding plan is going to work. But, operating under the assumption that it will, I'd say it's important that you get someone in charge that has come from a successful organization and understands how important it is to hire the right people for the right positions.
(On a side note, I am a little confused as to why the Royals aren't becoming more successful. I thought Dayton Moore was from Atlanta? I'm of very limited baseball knowledge but I do know Atlanta is, or was, a good organization that had found some formula to build a consistent winner. How did he not pick up on the things that were happening in Atlanta?)
Talent is definitely important but I think it's just as (if not more) important to spend your money on the people who will be making those personnel decisions.
Here's where I'm at:
- I was a little surprised that basically everyone who responded to me on Twitter about the topic, as well as Drew & Joel, essentially were happy with what the Chiefs were doing. Then again, they are early in the process (that was actually unintended, but yes, "the process") and three years ago, it seemed like most Royals fans were pro-Moore.
- I think Moore got a huge grace period with the fans because the perception was that he was taking over a AAA organization essentially. From the outside, I don't view the Chiefs nearly the same. I see them as a generally above average organization that has not been able to get over the hump. The Royals don't even know where the hump is.
- Cassel= Meche. Discuss.
- I've heard that the Royals admire the way the Chiefs limit their media exposure and keep things icy/under control and that the new regime wants to move in that direction. How nice of the Royals to pick up on the lamest thing about their Sports Complex neighbors and emulating it.
- The thing that would worry me if I was a diehard Chiefs fan is the same thing that worries me about Moore. First, even if we assume that Pioli/Moore was part of what made New England/Atlanta win, how can we assume that the same method will work again. The dynamic is always changing, strategy changes, financial aspects change, the league adjusts, etc. There has to be a reason why the 1962 Packers approach to team building, offense, & defense isn't still dominant. (Or even still dominant in 1970.) Secondly, how much do we actually know that Piolo/Moore were actually part of the success? And by what percentage? You just can't be sure.
- Lastly, how much of any great run of success repeatable? That's why they are great in the first place. "Well, here's what we need to do in K.C. Sign the best pitcher in basebal and a future Hall of Famerl as a Free Agent when he's 27. Trade for a future Hall of Famer for a rent-a-pitcher. We get those two parts, then all we need to do is draft another future Hall of Famer. You gotta win with pitching, so this is how we'll do it!" I mean, it's ludicrous. In KC/2010 circumstances, two out of those three options are utterly impossible, unless I missed out on Dayton being part of the CC Derby. Look at the way trades have gone the last decade: teams just aren't trading their top guys for Doyle Alexander anymore. You can have three nickels, but you aren't getting a quarter. Then again, after network TV collapses, maybe we go back to only have 10-15 channels, and Raycom somehow emerges as a national network, and in 20 years the Royals are a big budget team. It could happen!
I guess I come out of the Royals experience pretty jaded, but football's so different that you really shouldn't care about that if you care about the Chiefs. Personally, I'd rather hire a guy who established himself as excellent in a mediocre or poor environment than a guy who ran up a great reputation in a great one.
So what do you guys think?
1 recs |
70 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
hiring the right people
Only gives you a chance to succeed; it doesn’t guarantee success. No one has ever arrived for their first day of work with a resume as stellar as Carmen Policy had when he arrived in Cleveland. That didn’t work out so well. Dayton Moore was one of the game’s most promising GM candidates; you can’t fault David Glass for hiring Moore. Unfortunately, it’s starting to look like that move isn’t going to work out, either.
I don’t think the Cassel move was a good one; they overpaid for a guy who is, at best, a league-average QB. For a variety of reasons, however, one wrongheaded acquisition doesn’t hamstring an NFL franchise for years the way it does in baseball. The only way the Cassel move will really, really haunt the Chiefs is if they have an opportunity to draft a franchise QB and pass, figuring “hey, we’ve got Matt Cassel.”
Well
they overpaid for a guy who is, at best, a league-average QB.
Cassel’s contract is about average in the NFL…top 12. $10 million/year for a QB is about normal.
by Joel Thorman on Jan 24, 2010 6:03 PM EST up reply actions
Overpaid
The key to that sentence is “at best”. He is NOT a league average QB yet, and it’s hard to expect much more out of him than league average. Plus we gave up a 2nd rounder for him, so yea, I’d say overpaid.
The Royals and Chiefs are both following the “if it worked somewhere else it will work here” theory. It hasn’t worked out too well so far for the Royals, hopefully better results for the Chiefs.
Not exactly
The Royals and Chiefs are both following the "if it worked somewhere else it will work here" theory.
Dayton seems to be following the “it may not have worked out somewhere else (namely Atlanta or Seattle), but my incredible scouting ability, coupled with the magical coaching staff I’ve hired will make it work here” theory.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 25, 2010 5:44 PM EST up reply actions
"They think it will work, but it never does...
… but it might just work for us!"
I'm not a sabermetrician, but I do play one at FanGraphs.
Can't get enough of me? Check out my Twitter feed.
by Matt Klaassen on Jan 25, 2010 5:56 PM EST up reply actions
I need that shirt
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 25, 2010 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
And the mustache. What the hell.
That whole look just really works.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 25, 2010 10:32 PM EST up reply actions
hiring the right people
also seems to matter much, much more in an intensely complex and strategic game like football. Great offensive and defensive coaches can implement innovative and complex schemes that can radically affect performance — Bo Pelini, for instance, has molded every defense he’s coached into an elite level. A given group of linebackers and defensive linemen might look pathetic and porous when coached under one scheme, but those same players, in another scheme directed by a better coach who has dissected the film and better prepared those same players for what the opposing offense is likely to do, will look very different.
The same is not really true in baseball. Whether we had Joe Torre or Trey Hillman or Manager-X in the dugout (or whoever in the GM spot), Yuni/Jacobs/etc are basically terrible hitters who are simply unable to get on-base at even an average clip. No amount of “scheming” or “coaching” will affect that, really.
More Sac Bunts?
Pitchers and Catchers report February 17th... And so begins my masochistic addiction.
by averagegatsby on Jan 24, 2010 5:22 PM EST up reply actions
haha
And it is true, I suppose, that maybe some really persistent and inspiring batting coaching might drum into the heads of some of these guys the importance of plate discipline and drawing walks. But most of these clowns have hundreds of PAs and I rather doubt that at this point any amount of coaching, however persistent and persuasive, is going to significantly affect their approach at the plate (indeed, there are probably stats on this — astonishingly small # of players have ever enjoyed a sustained bump to their OBP by x-amount at x-stage of their career).
definitely agree here
coaches are different in the two sports in what they do for the organization. In baseball, the scouts and front office people evaluating talent are the ones that really matter in my book.
by I need more Esteban on Jan 25, 2010 12:40 AM EST up reply actions
I think the analog to "right people" in baseball is good development staff
when to bunt, when to steal, etc. is only marginally important. but having a good player development is how you get the most out of your players in baseball (or maybe just not standing in the way — maybe “good player development” is just identifying who’s good and who’s bad).
Conversation b/t Special baseball operations consultant Zapp Brannigan and GM Dayton Moore: "...but paper covers rock and rock crushes scissors...we have a conundrum. Get me some paper, a rock, and some scissors."
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 25, 2010 1:53 PM EST up reply actions
Royals'Chiefs
I think only a collapse of all of the AL Central reams will get the royals in the playoffs…on par with the Nationals…I take my boys up to KC a couple of times a season from Wichita to the team…they have told me they would like to go see the Rockies in Denver this summer…they still want to go to the Chiefs play…
by wichita danman 2010 Edition on Jan 24, 2010 5:28 PM EST reply actions
the key is "doing what they ain't"
The 2 sports can be seen in a similar light if your looking for ways to exploit inefficiencies. I think that’s the entire key to sabermetric thought. In football people have moved toward dual RB systems and away from 1 RB getting 350 carries. The key for any sport (or business or anything you might do) is to find what other people are doing, and do what they aren’t. The point being that you lead the charge around the curve, as opposed to following the rest of the folks around it. The Royals/Chiefs, I think, are both guilty of following the others around the curve.
I think it’s amazing that football teams have yet to figure out to draft a good rb, abuse the hell out of him for 3-4 years and then repeat. No need to resign a guy to an expensive contract so that he breaks down after 28 years of age. Hell, even when I play Madden/MLB The Show I think like this. Why can’t these old geezers get it through their heads?
To anybody interested in looking at some crazy football stuff, check out www.A11offense.com. Its an offense where literally all 11 players could potentially run with the ball/catch the ball. Amazingly different than anything mainstream.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
Agree on the RB strategy
Usually, I have 2 RBs in Madden and have the 2nd one waiting in the wings so I can trade the “star” in his walk year for draft picks.
A11 is interesting, but it would fundamentally change the game of football and make it into something else entirely.
A11 isn't allowed by NFL rules, and I can't remember why...
And most high school districts are changing their rules to eliminate it as well
Pitchers and Catchers report February 17th... And so begins my masochistic addiction.
by averagegatsby on Jan 24, 2010 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
Pretty sure the NFHS took care of that before this last football season.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
It is too allowed.
Just certain aspects aren’t. The Wildcat is an implementation of A-11.
This space for rent.
yeah
the A-11 as it was first implemented used kick/punt rules to skirt normal play. They’ve since evolved it a bit and even with rule changes it’s possible. I think its pretty interesting to see the field spread out so wide. The coaches say they’ve also drastically reduced injuries.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
I know they outlawed it in college
But I remember the wording of the ban being very subjective. Like its up to the ref to determine whether its a legit punt formation or not. Which brings the question of what do you do for legit fake punts? I think it has to be on 4th down.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 25, 2010 10:03 AM EST up reply actions
In the NFL, they could only do it every other play
The tackle eligibles can only report every other play.
Jeff Zimmerman - Protecting the world from RBI's and Wins from my mom's guest house.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Jan 24, 2010 11:32 PM EST up reply actions
One issue with aging star RBs
is that you have to remember this is a business — a popular skill player like an RB who is beloved by the fanbase and whose jersey sales are huge is difficult to discard, even if it may be a statistically good move. There’s the chance it doesn’t work out, and the traded player defies the odds for a rival and your fanbase forever hates you/theGM/etc for trading away their hero. Sure, you could argue that fans really just love winners, and the stats say the smart thing to do is dump an aging RB. I get that, but I just wouldn’t underestimate the business aspect to it all. After all, every year there are 31 teams that don’t win the super bowl. You might just want to play it safe with your customers, keep their hero around for another year or two even if doing so makes it a little less likely that you’ll be the only team headed to Disneyland after your last game.
for example
Say the Colts lose this super bowl. And say you have some stat that shows a decent likelihood that Peyton Manning has reached/surpassed his peak and his decline is likely to accelerate. Do you seek to get rid of him now? Do you not think that would demoralize the Colts’ fan base? It’s not indefensible to say that you, as the Colts owner, might just want to enjoy a couple more reasonably solid, maybe-playoffs-but-not-Championship/Super-Bowl-level seasons with a declining Manning.
Similar deal with the Pats & Brady, given his knee injury history. Do you look to the future at QB now, or give the fanbase a few more reasonably successful seasons with Super Tom, who gets to retire in a Patriots jersey?
first off
QB’s are entirely another beast.
2ndly, teams have shown in the past this is the right move. The colts traded away Marshall Faulk (who still had a lot left) but then drafted Edgerrin James and saved money. He was just as productive. Instead of resigning him when it was time, they let him walk and drafted Addai. Amazing that teams don’t connect rb carries to abuse. It’d be like throwing Greinke 350 innings and then signing him to a 6 year deal. Just beyond logic.
2ndly, anything done “in the spirit of business” etc and not for the purpose of making the team better, HURTS that business directly.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
ok, fair point
on the QBs are different than RBs. But look, the business issue is not black & white. I acknowledged that one might *argue * the only thing that matters to business/fans is “winning,” but color me unconvinced by your bare, all-caps assertion that my theory is wrong. It’s not like the Colts had a secret formula and positively knew their draftees would be great or that their cast-offs were truly “finished.” All I am saying is that it’s not an indefensible decision for a team to err on the side of keeping around a beloved star, when the stats show it’s “probably” better to your route.
Referring to your Madden strategy is simply not a valid piece of evidence when considering how real-world owners of teams, which are businesses with customers and not a bunch of pixels and megabytes like your Madden teams, should act.
lol all caps assertion
one word was all caps. c’mon now…
Please refer me to some players that were signed to big contracts after age 28 at RB and were even occasionally what they were before. For everyone you mention, I’ll name 2 that were the exact opposite.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
the point
isn’t necessarily that re-signing the aging RB would turn out to be the absolute best football move, but whether it was or might be helpful to the franchise as a business. I have not particularly cared for or closely followed professional tackle football for a decade or so now, and I certainly have not followed the teams’ financial results. But that is crux of my argument.
Anyhow, I will say that I like your avatar — The Big Lebowski is a fantastic movie. Let’s just agree to disagree, and simply abide.
Seems to me that the proper strategy
is to draft a hot RB in the draft preceding what you statistically expect to be your star RB’s final productive season. You get the rookie some reps while slightly decreasing the star’s workload; if the star continues to hold up well and finishes the season healthy, then you either let him go anyway, try and trade him off for something of value, or keep them both while shifting even more of the load to the new guy. Your decision is influenced by whether the rookie’s got the goods.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
This space for rent.
Or
Getting a kick ass offensive line and plugging any running back in there. Remember when even Derrick Blaylock rushed for 100 yards behind Willie Roaf/Will Shields/Casey Wiegmann/Brian Waters?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 25, 2010 10:05 AM EST up reply actions
I remember that
And I’m not even a Chiefs fan
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
Whomever Sabean signs this off-season will make a good platoon partner with Ryan Gark-ohh... nevermind...
The key for any sport is to find what other people are doing, and do what they aren’t.
Both the Chiefs and Royals have mastered this. They’ve found out that other teams are winning…
by marbotty on Jan 25, 2010 6:44 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
One of the biggest things to me
Is that the Chiefs seem to be signing/trading for players that fit their system. However, they haven’t had but only one off season… this off season will show a lot.
The Royals and Dayton Moore talked about the value of OBP and pitching. We started finding pitchers early and quick. A quick trade with the Rockies got us RamRam. We got Soria. And drafted HS pitchers well. Added Dotel and traded him for Davies. We added Hochevar. Not all have panned out, but we started putting guys into place. And allowed them to work.
Then we started trading decent pitchers for gambles. Jacobs being the biggest. We got outside of what we were doing and signed Farnsi and Cruz.
We acquired some guys…. and all the sudden we are back where we started… JoGui… Yuni… Jacobs… Gathright very early…
The point is the Chiefs are getting guys they’ve identified as what they want for their “system” where as GMDM is just randomly picking people. If GMDM decides what he wants, and sticks to it, I think we’ll do a much better job in the future. Unfortunately, he may never know what he wants and then we’re stuck where we are for a long time…
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
no one feels the same?
Or disagrees?
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
I think the most important part of the comparison is the first point
the Chiefs just started their Process. Both teams preach “just trust what we’re doing, even though the team’s record is going to be bad for a little while”. We’ve had enough exposure to see that the Royals’ Process is not working. We haven’t had time yet to see if the Chiefs’ will.
Conversation b/t Special baseball operations consultant Zapp Brannigan and GM Dayton Moore: "...but paper covers rock and rock crushes scissors...we have a conundrum. Get me some paper, a rock, and some scissors."
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 26, 2010 12:45 PM EST up reply actions
I think part of the reason that Chiefs fans are more positive about the Chiefs' "Process"
is because of the blowout win against Denver in week 17. It sure looks like the Chiefs are going the right direction when something like that happens. I’ll admit that I have high hopes for the future based off of those monster performances. It also helps that with the emergence of Jamaal Charles, Matt Cassell has some time to throw. I think, IIRC, Cassell wasn’t sacked in the last 4 games of the season! It wasn’t that the offensive line was as bad as people thought, it was that Larry Johnson was worse than everyone thought. Have Branden Albert gain some weight back, or move him to guard, Waters to center, draft an LT, and some defensive studs, and I think the Chiefs compete as early as next season for a wildcard, especially if Derrick Johnson steps up. There were a lot of things to be positive about at the end of the year.
I still wish we had Bernard Pollard over Mike Brown, but I’ll be happy if we draft Berry. Unfortunately, the Chiefs may have screwed that pooch by winning their final game.
You want to draft both a starting LT and Eric Berry?
Did I miss the part where the Chiefs had two top ten picks?
You think it's impossible to draft a starting LT
Outside of the top 10 draft picks? Isn’t drafting quality offensive linemen outside of the 1st round supposed to be one of Pioli’s strong suits? Light, Koppen, Kaczur, Mankins…although he was right at the end of the first round.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 24, 2010 7:46 PM EST up reply actions
Comparing the Chiefs to the Royals is interesting
But it’s ultimately apples and oranges. The entire NFL system is DESIGNED to encourage parity. The salary cap, draft, NFL free agency (i.e. no mandated years of team control), etc. A team that goes 3-13 one year can honestly expect to get back to at least .500 ball, if not perhaps making the playoffs, in the next year or so if the team’s management has a great draft or two, and signs enough quality free agents.
Conversely, the MLB system is tilted so far in favor of big market teams being able to just outspend smaller market teams, it makes it a very difficult and very long road for teams that are devoid of talent. And if those big market teams are not only using their huge payrolls, but also being smart about the draft, international prospects, and developing their farm systems, then smaller market teams have even less of a chance.
As long as the two leagues have such wildly different systems for player acquisition, it will always be a much tougher job for a MLB front office to rebuild than an NFL one.
"Now…put that in your [BLEEP]ing pipe and smoke it." -Hal McRae
"I was doing this when BJ was in his father's nutsack." -Renzo Gracie
by Sweep_the_Leg on Jan 24, 2010 7:42 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
This is also a very key point
management means a lot more when the system is designed to achieve rough parity in the allocation of talent.
not sure I'm on the same page here
You’re saying it means more when the field is more or less level? I’d say proper management means more to the small market baseball team…
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
I'd say that
good management means the most to a small market baseball team, less to an NFL team, and even less than that to the YankeesMetsBosox.
This space for rent.
sure
but what does good management get you in baseball, without money? Basically, the Rays got to the Series with some good management and drafting. But basically every other team that has played in the series this decade has been from a major market and spent a ton — Yanks, Mets, BoSox, Phils, Angels, Giants, STL, Detroit, etc.
Great management but moderate resources in baseball will probably lead to a reasonably decent team, but it seems very unlikely to lead to any major contending/successes. In the NFL, great management can pretty quickly catapult a team into major contention.
I think I'm missing something here...
If a league is designed to encourage parity, then the only way to consistently get the better of other teams is to have better management, including coaches. By definition, all things being equal except for management, makes management probably the most important NFL variable.
Small market management doesn’t mean crap in baseball. Sure the GM needs to acquire the right talent at the right price, but in the end, the individual player performances are subject to luck. Even the manager’s decisions are subject to probabilities that may work this time, and not the next. A manager could send out the worst lineup possible, and they could still score 10 runs for him. If the system is designed to spit out big market winners, the small market teams are more likely to overcome that gap with lucky years from the players. The only small market teams to win the WS since 1991 are St. Louis (are they considered small market?), Florida 2x, and Minnesota in ’91 when baseball was quite a different game.
If a league is designed to encourage parity, then the only way to consistently get the better of other teams is to have better management
I think the point is the NFL encourages “regression to the mean” and even poorly managed teams can manage a 8-8 season now and then. What is tough is staying bad for a long time, or staying good for a long time.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 25, 2010 10:07 AM EST up reply actions
well
I guess what I’m saying is similar to my first comment above — stellar management cannot make a big and quick turn-around when the deck is stacked against it acquiring talent, as it is in baseball. In a parity system, where the acquiring talent is equalized more, good management can exert a big and quick boost.
Even over the long term, having an owner with a ton of money is probably more important for baseball than having great management. I mean, the Mets have had some pretty crappy management, but they have also made several serious play-off runs and a Series appearance in the last decade or so.
I see your point
the flip side would be saying that since a small team has more limited resources, the management of those resources is more important. Basically saying you can’t make as many mistakes and get away with it.
Obviously, you are not a golfer.
Right, but at the same time
management of the resources may actually be less important, because you probably don’t have enough resources to win anyways.
I've noticed several similarites, many you've mentioned
Both were highly respected personnel from highly respected organizations.
Both were taking jobs they had no experience for.
Both hired HC/Manager with no NFL/MLB experience as players nor as HC/Manager
Thus far both have relied heavily on players/personnel from their former systems.
Both are very secretive.
Both took over organizations coming off of historically bad performance relative to their franchise’s proud history.
Quibble
Although this is the worst three-year span in team history, if they manage to finish 8-8 or better next year, you’d have to agree that the mid-70s stretch of futility (six seasons below .500, five seasons no better than 5-9) will remain the historical low point for the Chiefs.
This space for rent.
and for the Royals?
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
1986 to ..... infinity
jeez, this sucks.
Air Cassel - approved for takeoff
Always in motion is the future.
-- Yoda
lol. That is exactly right...
Coffee. The NEW Performance Enhancing drug for Sport's Writers. Just ask Ken Rosenthal.
I don't think that Meche and Cassel is a good comparison
While both were big acquisitions, Meche so far has been relatively successful and I don’t feel like Cassel has. I didn’t really like the move to acquire Cassel at all actually, considering that he put up average numbers while throwing to Moss and Welker in New England and I thought that getting Mike Vrabel was the real positive. I really like Thigpen and honestly think that he’ll get a starting job at some point, I would definately prefer to have him over Cassel.
I was hoping Thigpen would rally Miami in week 17
and then he went and threw that dumb INT and the comeback was over.
I'd like to see anyone sit the bench for 16.5 weeks and then try to rally their mediocre team
He just tried to force it.
I still think he would have put up numbers similar to, or better than Cassell’s had he played with the Chiefs in ’09. Would the Chiefs sign Cassell to that same contract after the season he just had?
Yeah
but his entire stint with the Chiefs went exactly the same way…1 great drive where he looks like a superstar followed by inconsistent drives where he makes panicky and often poor decisions.
He has the arm, but I am just not sure he has everything else it takes to be a good QB in this league.
offensive lineman?
Conversation b/t Special baseball operations consultant Zapp Brannigan and GM Dayton Moore: "...but paper covers rock and rock crushes scissors...we have a conundrum. Get me some paper, a rock, and some scissors."
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 26, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
linemen, actually
Conversation b/t Special baseball operations consultant Zapp Brannigan and GM Dayton Moore: "...but paper covers rock and rock crushes scissors...we have a conundrum. Get me some paper, a rock, and some scissors."
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 26, 2010 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
Both were similar in that they had had moderate success, but were minor gambles
On the season, Cassel’s numbers were pretty average, but he really flourished in the second half of 2008, including two back to back games over 400 yards and a 15-4 TD/INT ratio. That was reason enough for optimism, considering he hadn’t started an NFL game prior to that season.
I don’t know that he’ll ever be consistently good without Randy Moss to throw to, but it’s hard not to like getting a starting QB and pro-bowl LB for a second round pick.
I was also a big fan of Thigpen’s, but this seemed like a good trade at the time, and I still think it will be a good trade even if Matt Cassel doesn’t improve on his 2009 numbers. The main thing I like about it was that it was trading a relative unknown (the draft pick) for two areas of need. That in itself is a departure from Moore’s M.O., which seems to be trading relatively established young players to shore up a position where there already are several incumbents as good or better than the person being brought in.
Maybe Thigpen could become a better player than Cassel in time, but it appeared as though
Cassel was an investment in upside
Meche was an investment in maintaining the status quo
Conversation b/t Special baseball operations consultant Zapp Brannigan and GM Dayton Moore: "...but paper covers rock and rock crushes scissors...we have a conundrum. Get me some paper, a rock, and some scissors."
by SagehenMacGyver47 on Jan 25, 2010 2:44 PM EST up reply actions
The Royals are just a couple of linemen away from beating the Chiefs in football.
It’s not really that fair, the Cheifs get to have 53 instead of 40 players on thier roster, and the Royals have to be able to play baseball in the offseason.
Go Royals!
When healthy, Meche is a lot better relative to his peers than Cassell
A couple of 4-5 WAR seasons (depending on whose WAR you use) is well above average, and Cassell really has had only one good season to his name (though I will concede the Chiefs offense last season was a disaster).
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
GET THAT VORP AND WHIP SH!T OUTTA HERE!!!
Whomever Sabean signs this off-season will make a good platoon partner with Ryan Gark-ohh... nevermind...
in that really good season he turned a 16-0 team into a 11-5 team....
so was it really ‘good’?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Jan 25, 2010 4:02 PM EST up reply actions
So many factors go into that...
Because for one Brady wasn’t a Really Good QB, he was an Exceptional QB. And by the end of the season last year they weren’t the same team that they were in the begining. Their scoring average went down quite a bit towards the end of the season, I dont think its that far of a stretch that even with Brady that team would have been a 13-3 team… So 13-3 to 11-5 seems like a reasonable difference between an exceptional QB and a really Good QB.
Pitchers and Catchers report February 17th... And so begins my masochistic addiction.
by averagegatsby on Jan 25, 2010 5:50 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanShots on Royals Review
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
