Thread: Steelers post game thread
09-30-2013, 11:39 AM #41
09-30-2013, 12:59 PM #42
Didnt anybody notice cassel was 10 for 10 in the second half? Outstanding game cassel.
I get the most pissed off looks from people with my VKG 4 LFE Wisconsin license plate, and I LOVE IT!!
09-30-2013, 01:39 PM #43
I personally think the team just has more faith in Cassel. The team looked good at times in all 4 games, but I felt this over all sense of doom for the first 3 games. As such, the DEF was trying too hard and giving up big plays, the OL wasn't sacrificing ANYTHING for Ponder, and when they lost at the last moment, the guys didn't looked surprised.
When Cassel started the whole thing off with a quick pass that looked like something one of the elite QBs would throw, I started seeing a strut in the offense as a whole I have not seen since the beginning of last season, or when AP was off on one of his 200 yard benders.
Perhaps Ponder IS a good QB... but if that is the case, he is NOT a good leader. Alex Smith and even Tim Tebow has absolutely shown an average QB that is a great leader is worth more than a great QB with a 10 cent head.
P.S. I will again point out KC last year had more problems than any of us first thought. I'm not sure that even Manning could have done well in that environment last year. What does that say about Cassel? Nothing at all, and that's the point... we have no idea if he is the answer or not. I don't think his KC experience tells us anything.
Last edited by drewlovs; 09-30-2013 at 01:43 PM.
09-30-2013, 03:01 PM #44
PFF's quick take on the game. They give Robinson and henderson the worse grades. No surprise there. What may be a surprise is what they say about Cassell's performance.
09.30 Ė Steelers at Vikings Game Notes
- The three highest graded players were David Johnson (+4.2), Phil Loadholt (+3.9) and Brandon Fusco (+2.9)
- The three lowest graded players were Josh Robinson (-5.7), Vince Williams (-4.3) and Erin Henderson (-4.0)
- So is Cassel a better option than Christian Ponder? Is he more aggressive? Well on a small sample size 16% of his throws went over 20 yards in the air, with Ponder himself at 15%. But itís also worth noting that on his 24 aimed passes only six of them went 10 yards in the air or more and 153 of the teams yards came after the catch. The jury needs to remain out.
My eye saw it differently.
The defense continues to underwhelm me however. I enjoyed the 5 sacks, but our LB's and secondary play is a major weakness right now.
I know it's not going to happen, but I would really like to see Bishop moved to the middle and Erin moved back to his old position. I would also like to see Cook stay healthy and move Rhodes to the #2 DB position behind Cook. Nickel is a problem.
09-30-2013, 03:10 PM #45
Also, YAC are NOT solely based on WRs, the QB has a lot to do with them based on where the ball gets to the WR. Raw numbers and statistics can tell you nothing in regards to these facets of the game.
09-30-2013, 03:18 PM #46
09-30-2013, 03:24 PM #47
The longer version for your reading pleasure. Cassell graded out at -3.7. The worse grade this year for a Vikings QB. The most telling difference is likely the quicker "average to attempt" that Cassell had over Ponder. Here's their spiel if interested:
On paper, completing two-thirds of his passes for two touchdowns and a 128.5 QB rating, while leading his team to its first win on the season, seems like a good day for Matt Cassel. However, as his -3.7 grade suggests, he was far from perfect and, in fact, wasnít terribly different than what weíve seen from Christian Ponder Ė for instance, both players have an average depth of target of roughly 9.0 yards. Cassel did make a few really impressive throws, such as on his third quarter touchdown pass to Greg Jennings on a post. At other times, though, the Steelers let him get away with some poor decisions, including a pair of balls that could have (and perhaps should have) been picked by Ike Taylor. One of these came on the first drive of the game, when he missed long on a 9-route in the end zone, and was saved only by Cordarrelle Pattersonís last-second pass defense. On the other (0:39, Q1) he made a dangerous (and probably predetermined) throw that allowed Taylor to break on an in-route deep in Viking territory and could have resulted in a pick-six. Losing the ball late in the first half didnít help either in a grading system that isnít too kind to fumbles.
It will be interesting whether the Vikings stick with Cassel going forward; he didnít make an overwhelming claim for the starting job based on his performance in London, though leading the team to its first win canít be understated. He also avoided the costly turnovers (luckily) that have plagued Ponder early on. One striking difference between the two was how quickly Cassel got rid of the ball, with an average time to attempt of 2.18 seconds. This helped minimize pressure as the Steeler rush got to him on just three of 27 drop backs. Conversely, Ponderís average time to attempt of 2.59 has led to him seeing pressure on 38.5% of drop backs.
09-30-2013, 03:36 PM #48
09-30-2013, 06:06 PM #49Coordinator
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
Seems a bit of a contradiction.
The eyeball test said Cassel was rusty and had some early throws that should have been picks. He also had the fumble the Vikings recovered as well.
As the game progressed he seemed to hit his stride and his passing became more consistent.
His quicker release was a major reason why we saw the improved O-line play.
So their method of statistical analysis, though interesting, appears to be questionable in this case.
The eyeball test appeared to show a night and day difference between Cassel and Ponder.
Cassel is a game manager type of QB who throws short to intermediate passes and only throws long occasionally to stretch the field and keep the defense honest. He has a quick release and fits Musgraves small ball scheme better than Ponder.
Is he the answer ? I don't think so, but I'm totally convinced, Ponder isn't.