Buzzing on Yahoo Sports:

Crennel offers tepid support of Cassel

The SportsXchange

When the head coach walks into his post-game press conference and brings the subject up, then it's obviously a story line coming out of the Chiefs 37-20 loss to San Diego.

"I know that there will be some questions about the quarterback," Romeo Crennel said a few minutes into his comments to the media afterwards. "I am staying with (Matt Cassel) and I stayed with him during the course of the game (despite three interceptions.) I stayed with Jamaal Charles (despite two fumbles lost) during the course of the game and we are going to stay with both of them going forward, at the moment."

Oh, those last three words have left the door open for everyone to discuss the future of Cassel as the Chiefs' starting quarterback. "At the moment," is not exactly a vote of confidence for Cassel.

Not that he should be due one at this point. Cassel's production and numbers rank among the worst quarterbacks in the league after four games. That's not what the Chiefs expected or need from their four-year starter. He's completing 58.4 percent of his passes (94 of 161), gaining 6.6 yards per attempt (1,058 yards), with five touchdown passes and seven interceptions. His passer rating is an ugly 70.3.

The worst number overall is 10, the number of turnovers by Cassel with those seven interceptions and three lost fumbles.

Sunday, Cassel had three interceptions and the Chiefs offense spent most of the first three quarters going nowhere. Did Crennel consider yanking his starter?

"Well, whether I was considering it or not doesn't make a difference," Crennel said. "It's hypothetical. I didn't make the change and I'm staying with that."

But why stick with Cassel when he's not playing well?

"Because I think he still can do some good things," Crennel said. "The second half we tried to rally a little bit and we were able to move the ball down the field. We had a spark of life and he was the one that helped that spark."
Sign up for Yahoo Fantasy Football
View Comments (2)