Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 I'd say the "booted out" comment is fairly accurate. Bridgewater stayed and anointed the starter and Cassel was moved. "Booted" might be a harsh way of phrasing it. The only thing that was wrong with the statement was "for a rookie." Cassel was moved out in favor of a 2nd year signal caller. Of course, I don't think that necessarily reflects poorly on Cassel as I think most teams in need of a long term solution at QB would let the young kid who has shown some promise get his work in. "Booted out for a rookie" is wrong on both accounts. He beat out the rookie and would have been there the rookies entire rookie season. Getting traded when you are one of two veteran backups and you make 4m plus a year to be considered a starter on the new team is not getting booted out either.
MDH Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 "Booted out for a rookie" is wrong on both accounts. He beat out the rookie and would have been there the rookies entire rookie season. Getting traded when you are one of two veteran backups and you make 4m plus a year to be considered a starter on the new team is not getting booted out either. Why was he a veteran backup? If he "beat out" the rookie, he's the starter, no?
Kelly the Dog Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 Why was he a veteran backup? If he "beat out" the rookie, he's the starter, no? Because the rookie finished the season with five straight very good games and a team is always going to go with a number one draft pick who plays well over a veteran 11 year average starter. It's somewhat of a semantic argument but "booted out" is more severe than run out of town, and that is not what happened. I imagine they probably would have kept Cassel over Ponder but they were able to get a draft pick for him as well as shed 4+m in salary.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 so the then rookie played good enough for the Vikes to dump a proven backup? Sorry I have to stop arguing with people over this stuff Because the rookie finished the season with five straight very good games and a team is always going to go with a number one draft pick who plays well over a veteran 11 year average starter. It's somewhat of a semantic argument but "booted out" is more severe than run out of town, and that is not what happened. I imagine they probably would have kept Cassel over Ponder but they were able to get a draft pick for him as well as shed 4+m in salary. Why was he a veteran backup? If he "beat out" the rookie, he's the starter, no?
Dennis in NC Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) You mean Cornelius Bennett I think you are correct, sir. Oh wait, I was half right... Edited August 23, 2015 by Dennis in NC
BuffaninATL Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 oh lol. I've heard of the show but never seen it. You need to. It's a time warp to when things weren't so uber-PC
YoloinOhio Posted August 23, 2015 Posted August 23, 2015 You need to. It's a time warp to when things weren't so uber-PClike "all in the family"? It's amazing what you could say on tv back then!
BigBuff423 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Incorrect. Cassel's only playoff season was in 2010 with the Chiefs. You are correct sir. Their record was 11-5, but did in fact miss the playoffs - my mistake. Thank you for setting the record straight. However, doesn't change the fact of a better resume of competence than the other two.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 You are correct sir. Their record was 11-5, but did in fact miss the playoffs - my mistake. Thank you for setting the record straight. However, doesn't change the fact of a better resume of competence than the other two. If you consider two good seasons out of ten a good resume..... then okay. To me it says his good seasons are the outliers and he pretty much sucks.
FireChan Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Because the rookie finished the season with five straight very good games and a team is always going to go with a number one draft pick who plays well over a veteran 11 year average starter. It's somewhat of a semantic argument but "booted out" is more severe than run out of town, and that is not what happened. I imagine they probably would have kept Cassel over Ponder but they were able to get a draft pick for him as well as shed 4+m in salary. I thought they lost Ponder?
BigBuff423 Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 If you consider two good seasons out of ten a good resume..... then okay. To me it says his good seasons are the outliers and he pretty much sucks. I realize it's semantics, but I believe what I said was a "better resume of competence", meaning given the lack of a track record for Taylor and we all know EJ's thus far, to me it is that Cassel is more of a known commodity and that given what this team is asking of him, it may suit his traits more so than the others. Taylor is intriguing to say the least, but how will his type of game hold up under 16 (and hopefully more) games of pressure, hits, etc. and EJ is well - EJ - moments of brilliance followed and preceded by moments of utter dysfunction.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 I realize it's semantics, but I believe what I said was a "better resume of competence", meaning given the lack of a track record for Taylor and we all know EJ's thus far, to me it is that Cassel is more of a known commodity and that given what this team is asking of him, it may suit his traits more so than the others. Taylor is intriguing to say the least, but how will his type of game hold up under 16 (and hopefully more) games of pressure, hits, etc. and EJ is well - EJ - moments of brilliance followed and preceded by moments of utter dysfunction. Like I said before, he's had many more bad seasons than good. From my view, that's a worse resume of incompetence.
GG Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Was both of them, take it to the bank. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1917&dat=19881101&id=cXQhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4IgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5573,132362&hl=en Biscuit started it and a few times Bruce joined in, but the "Elizabeth, I'm coming for you" move was Bennett's. It's like saying that other Bengals players did the Ickey shuffle when they joined along.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Biscuit started it and a few times Bruce joined in, but the "Elizabeth, I'm coming for you" move was Bennett's. It's like saying that other Bengals players did the Ickey shuffle when they joined along. Yep. Bruce had three signature sack dances, one with just his arms crossed on his chest and the first two shown in this highlight video. The Fred Sanford was Biscuit for the most part.
TSOL Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Biscuit started it and a few times Bruce joined in, but the "Elizabeth, I'm coming for you" move was Bennett's. It's like saying that other Bengals players did the Ickey shuffle when they joined along. http://articles.philly.com/1988-11-04/sports/26247434_1_smith-and-bennett-coach-marv-levy-sacks Could you find something that proves it? Last month, defensive end Bruce Smith's dance after he had sacked the Jets' Ken O'Brien drew a shove from Jets offensive lineman Ted Banker. Last season, Smith and Bennett unveiled a dance patterned after the mock heart attacks suffered by Red Foxx's character in the '70s sitcom, "Sanford and Son." The ''Fred Sanford Sack Attack" consisted of stumbling while placing one hand over the chest and extending the other arm out to the side. And dont even bring up the icky shuffle! I started that! He stole it from me and thats why i hate the bengals to this day! Edited August 24, 2015 by mastershake
starrymessenger Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Was both of them, take it to the bank.https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1917&dat=19881101&id=cXQhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4IgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5573,132362&hl=en Greatest fake heart attack of all time: Earl Weaver in an argument with third base umpire. Fooled the entire stadium and a national TV audience.
Recommended Posts