For those who know Matt Cassel off the field, the last thing

[Webbfann]

Webbfan, please stop. I mean this in the most caring and helpful way: if you continue this conversation with the position you started with, you're going to embarrass yourself.

I shall do nothing of the sort, thank you. I'm not worried one bit about embarrassing myself-even if 9 out of 10 people disagree with me that doesn't mean I'm mistaken and if I'm wrong so what? However I'm also not going to reply yet again to arguments I've already replied to ad nauseum, if that's what worries you. I just wanted to counter some of the negativity toward Cassel that was introduced to what was supposed to be a positive, uplifting thread about Cassel by people who never miss a chance to try o bring him down to their level.

[Funkytown]

I just wanted to counter some of the negativity toward Cassel that was introduced to what was supposed to be a positive, uplifting thread about Cassel by people who never miss a chance to try to bring him down to their level.

Exactly. Cassel seems like a good guy and a real professional. He's had some poor games, but so what? Show me an NFL quarterback who hasn't.

I really like Cassel, and I hope he does well.

I couldn't care less about what he did or didn't do last year. This year is entirely different, and, really, it's time to move forward. It's all we can do.

[mondry]

Cassel has always been a guy that could produce in the right system. In NE with Belichick, in that system, he was great and his first year with KC when charlie Weiss was the offensive coordinator he was great again. Once the revolving door at OC started of course he struggled, he's not so talented that that won't have any factor on him but he's decent enough in the right situation.

I don't think Bill Musgrave's offense was the "right situation" for him either, although he did alright. To many single WR, condensed formations allows the defense to disguise their coverages and blitzs where when you spread the field more, it's much easier to see where a blitz will be coming from and if you have man or zone coverage. I think Norv Turner's system and coaching style is a much better match for a guy like Cassel and hopefully we see him return to NE levels of success.

Always liked his attitude and the way he handled himself last year and all those years in KC. Really hoping he does well for his sake, for vikings fans, and so on.

[soflavike]

I booed Warren Moon really loudly at the Metrodome one time... after he got two delays of game, one near pick and then a boneheaded interception... on the same drive.

I got so many dirty looks from the Vikings fans around me that it cured me of the boo-birds for a long time. Although, I have to admit that McNabb reawakened them in me.

That being said, anyone who would cheer for a player getting hurt needs to seriously talk to someone about their mental health.

[Mothman]

Exactly. Cassel seems like a good guy and a real professional. He's had some poor games, but so what? Show me an NFL quarterback who hasn't.

You won't find one but the comments by Webbfann that you've highlighted above, and your agreement with them, somewhat misrepresent what actually happened in this thread. I don't think anyone was trying to bring Cassel down to their level at all, whatever that's supposed to mean.

The discussion turned toward the quality of Cassel's performances when Laserman posted that the Carolina game was the only game in which he played poorly last year. No offense intended toward Laserman, who may have simply forgotten about some other performances, but that's obviously not an accurate statement so, understandably, Maembe and Purple Bruise pointed out the Bengals game as another example of a poor performance by Cassel. That discussion might have ended there if Webbfann hadn't posted some comments regarding Cassel's (and the Vikings') performance against Cincy which are simply not supported by the empirical evidence. That led to counterpoints and here we are.

Put simply, I don't think anybody was trying to run Cassel down, just trying to discuss what actually happened.

I really like Cassel, and I hope he does well.

I couldn't care less about what he did or didn't do last year. This year is entirely different, and, really, it's time to move forward. It's all we can do.

Past performances are inevitably going to come up on a board like this and those discussions tend to get contentious when posts run contrary to the evidence. That kind of posting will inevitably lead to debate because there will always be people who want to deal in facts or more logical explanations. I've been enjoying Cassel's preseason performances and I want to see him do well this year too. I suspect even Vikings fans who are eager to see Bridgewater play would like to see Cassel do well. Good QB performance is good for the team.

[Funkytown]

You won't find one but the comments by Webbfann that you've highlighted above, and your agreement with them, somewhat misrepresent what actually happened in this thread. I don't think anyone was trying to bring Cassel down to their level at all, whatever that's supposed to mean.

The discussion turned toward the quality of Cassel's performances when Laserman posted that the Carolina game was the only game in which he played poorly last year. No offense intended toward Laserman, who may have simply forgotten about some other performances, but that's obviously not an accurate statement so, understandably, Maembe and Purple Bruise pointed out the Bengals game as another example of a poor performance by Cassel. That discussion might have ended there if Webbfann hadn't posted some comments regarding Cassel's (and the Vikings') performance against Cincy which are simply not supported by the empirical evidence. That led to counterpoints and here we are.

Put simply, I don't think anybody was trying to run Cassel down, just trying to discuss what actually happened.
Past performances are inevitably going to come up on a board like this and those discussions tend to get contentious when posts run contrary to the evidence. That kind of posting will inevitably lead to debate because there will always be people who want to deal in facts or more logical explanations. I've been enjoying Cassel's preseason performances and I want to see him do well this year too. I suspect even Vikings fans who are eager to see Bridgewater play would like to see Cassel do well. Good QB performance is good for the team.

*sigh*

Thanks for that lengthy explanation on how message boards operate, but you missed the point.

[DK Sweets]

You won't find one but the comments by Webbfann that you've highlighted above, and your agreement with them, somewhat misrepresent what actually happened in this thread. I don't think anyone was trying to bring Cassel down to their level at all, whatever that's supposed to mean.

The discussion turned toward the quality of Cassel's performances when Laserman posted that the Carolina game was the only game in which he played poorly last year. No offense intended toward Laserman, who may have simply forgotten about some other performances, but that's obviously not an accurate statement so, understandably, Maembe and Purple Bruise pointed out the Bengals game as another example of a poor performance by Cassel. That discussion might have ended there if Webbfann hadn't posted some comments regarding Cassel's (and the Vikings') performance against Cincy which are simply not supported by the empirical evidence. That led to counterpoints and here we are.

Put simply, I don't think anybody was trying to run Cassel down, just trying to discuss what actually happened.

Absolutely. Some of us disagree with the assessment that he only had one poor game, and some of us believe that the Cincy game was not completely fueled by poor coaching. It doesn't mean that we are down on Cassel, though. I want Cassel to start and do well, probably just as much as anybody in here. I just can't in good conscious nod my head when somebody says something (even if it is supporting a player that I want to succeed) that I don't believe is true.

I also might be a bit jaded when it comes to this subject. I watched a lot of the Patriots when Moss was there, and I live in the Kansas City market and have watched many Chiefs games (my Dad's favorite team). Cassel has never looked like a franchise-type guy. I'm tentatively excited based on the fact that our team typically performed better when he was at the helm last year, and his preseason play has been promising. But while I support Cassel, I know that when he doesn't live up to some fans' unrealistic expectations, he will begin getting the Tarvaris Jackson/Donovan McNabb/Christian Ponder treatment. (CANCER! TURD! BRING IN THE NEW GUY!) I just want us to appreciate Matt Cassel for what he is before we hate him for what he never was.

[Mothman]

*sigh*

Thanks for that lengthy explanation on how message boards operate, but you missed the point.

I don't think I missed it at all. The point was that you want everybody to move on, forget about the past, and focus on what's ahead, correct? If that wasn't the point, I'd sincerely appreciate it if you'd explain what I missed.

On the other hand, my point was not to provide "lengthy explanation on how message boards operate" but to (hopefully) set the record straight regarding what actually happened in the thread.

[DK Sweets]

We've suffered some pretty horrible seasons recently and we're at the end of another long offseason. We'll get to the real games soon enough, and then we wont have time to discuss the past. We're so close, let's not turn on each other now!

[Mothman]

We've suffered some pretty horrible seasons recently and we're at the end of another long offseason. We'll get to the real games soon enough, and then we wont have time to discuss the past. We're so close, let's not turn on each other now!

So we should wait a few weeks to turn on each other?

Just kidding... I don't think there was any malice intended by anyone in this thread. I hope not.

[DK Sweets]

I disagree. I think it's the other way around. Cassel plays well when his team plays well. If the other parts of the offense are doing their job, Cassel will perform well. If he has time to throw, Cassel will make the right read and find the open man.

Some of Cassel's past games against top tier defenses when he had a good team surrounding him:

2010 vs AZ (#4 defense) Cassel 15/24yds193 2TD 115.5 passer rating
2010 vs DEN (#1 defense) Cassel 33/53 469yds 4TD 116 passer rating
2010 vs SEA (#6 defense) Cassel 22/32 233yds 4TD 129 rating
2010 vs TEN (#7 defense) Cassel 24/34 314yds 3TD 128 rating
2013 vs PIT (#13 defense) Cassel 16/25 248yds 2TD 123 rating
2013 vs BAL (#12 defense) Cassel 17/38 265yds 2TD 86 rating

I think this shows that he has performed well against top ranked defenses. But he's no playmaker. He won't be able to scramble around and extend plays. If he gets no time, if the receivers get no separation, we'll likely see another Bengals game.

Excellent post, I have happily been proven wrong.

[Reignman]

I can't even defend Cassel in the Cincinnati game lol. For whatever reason, he absolutely stunk. Our longest drive by number of plays was 5. We lost because of Cassel, but we got blown out because of the defense. Dalton had a career game at 71% completion (27/38), 363 yards, 4 TD's, 0 INT's, and a career high rating of 136.2. Mostly thanks to Fraziers cover nobody scheme. I mean what QB didn't put up big numbers against us last year, Scott Tolzien? And I don't think he was that bad vs Carolina. He completed 74% and had 241 yards (granted some of that was in garbage time), he just had those 2 bad interceptions. I thought he looked worse in mop up duty in the Seattle game. Holy moly that was awful, but Ponder wasn't much better in that one. All those teams have top tier defenses.

Lets just hope Cassel has more games like he did against the Eagles 26/35, 382 yds, and 2 TD's, all without AD. The guy has 3 career 400 yard games, so he's more than capable, he just needs to be more consistent. I don't think anyone will boo him if he's playing decent and has us in wildcard contention. He has lots of weapons though, so there are no excuses.