PDA

View Full Version : I believe all you Huard haters have some crow to eat


Pages : [1] 2

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 05:17 PM
Told you he was a gamer!

Reaper16
09-17-2006, 05:19 PM
Who ****ing cares? We pissed away a game that we had little business wnning.

JBucc
09-17-2006, 05:21 PM
If we had won maybe, but since we lost, **** Huard.

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2006, 05:22 PM
Yeah. Dumping it off to LJ and watching him run more than makes up for doing the one thing we couldn't afford in a situation that gave us a strong chance of going up 9-0.

His game management was ace, as well.

Mosbonian
09-17-2006, 05:23 PM
Interesting....and in what way was he a gamer?

He didn't do anything great....he couldn't really move the ballclub. He handed off to LJ and Bennett....threw mostly dump-off passes.

That wasn't a QB leading his team to victory...he was a QB whos coach built a phantom game plan "NOT TO LOSE"...

Sorry, but you'll need to explain to me how he was a "gamer".

mmaddog
*******

Rausch
09-17-2006, 05:25 PM
He played better than I thought he could.

He played poorly.

And he was the lone reason for two turnovers.

Great I tell ya'...

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 05:25 PM
Whatever.

I would have been laughed at this week if I had said Huard would complete 73 percent of his passes with no interceptions.

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2006, 05:25 PM
Sorry, but you'll need to explain to me how he was a "gamer".Did you SEE the way he caught that batted ball? THE BALLS ON THIS GUY!!!!!

MichaelH
09-17-2006, 05:27 PM
I guess I'll be in the minority and be satisfied with his performance. No, he wasn't spectacular like Trent is. But he didn't lose the game for us either. This game was chaulked up as a loser anyways so I don't know why so many panties are in a wad. And except for the shitass soft coverage played by the D, they played better than they have in many, many years.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 05:28 PM
And he was the lone reason for two turnovers.


What a joke! The first one was all on LJ! Huard fumbled the other one after catching it. Honestly, if you were expecting a backup QB starting his first game in ages to not fumble, you were expecting too much.

Huard played well enough for us to win. Maybe if Solari hadn't called a ****ing run with 50 seconds left, we'd be celebrating right now.

farmerchief
09-17-2006, 05:28 PM
That's why he is a career backup! Doing most things adequately, but if you need him to make a play, scramble a little to get a good pass off, it is not in his arsenal!

Mecca
09-17-2006, 05:28 PM
About any QB could have done what he was asked to do........if they had run a normal gameplan he would have thrown INT's and looked bad, Herm knew that.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 05:29 PM
Samie Parker also had a solid game. EAT MORE CROW YOU BITCHES!

milkman
09-17-2006, 05:30 PM
Huard was exactly what I've always said he is.

He's a guy that you can get some production out of, as long as you don't ask too much, and don't expect consistent accuracy on mid range and deep passes.

How many time did he attempt a pass beyond 10 yards?

You can manage games with him, but you won't get any more than what you saw today, and quite frankly, that ain't enough.

Iowanian
09-17-2006, 05:31 PM
Huard is supposed to be a pro. The Chiefs had zero offense beyond 15 yards of the LoS....A legit backup can throw a deep ball, or an out pass......can hand off without dropping the ball, doesn't fumble every game, and doesn't have so many passes batted down.

He did a good job of "not losing" the game, but he did anything but make anyone "eat crow".

gblowfish
09-17-2006, 05:33 PM
We scored six points and lost.That's about what I figured.
Huard played OK for a backup, but it'll be a long year if we have to play him half the season. Defense holding Denver to 6 in regulation is about all you can ask of a defense. They did their job today. You gotta score more than six points. LJ needs to learn how to hang on to the football. We go up 10-0 in the first half, we win this game. That fumble was a killer.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 05:33 PM
What a joke! The first one was all on LJ! Huard fumbled the other one after catching it. Honestly, if you were expecting a backup QB starting his first game in ages to not fumble, you were expecting too much.

Huard played well enough for us to win. Maybe if Solari hadn't called a ****ing run with 50 seconds left, we'd be celebrating right now.

Oh yeah, Huard is much more likely to make a big play than Larry Johnson.

Let's throw deep against Lynch and Champ Bailey.

And every keeps forgetting the offensive turnovers. Coordinators don't call plays to give the other team turnovers, that's just $3itty play by the players.

But let's just forget all the offensive turnovers that gave pts to the other team the last two weeks. Yeah, THAT can't be why we lost...

Ari Chi3fs
09-17-2006, 05:35 PM
Why does crow taste like a loss?

KChiefs1
09-17-2006, 05:35 PM
Huard didn't do anything I couldn't have went out there & done!

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 05:36 PM
Huard's passes were on target all game. The only one that looked off target to me was the one down the middle to Gonzalez.

The throw to Kennison was right on the money and it was over 15 yards.

Bottom line: He played very well for his start since 2000. I don't know how anyone can sit here and be disappointed with his performance.

Bwana
09-17-2006, 05:38 PM
He reminded me of Steve Bono without the long pass. They had him on about a 2 inch leash.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 05:39 PM
At the end of day, no one call him "Huard-ible" anymore.

He does not suck.

SAY IT! SAY DAMON HUARD DOES NOT SUCK!

arrowheadnation
09-17-2006, 05:39 PM
Matt Schaub, Aaron Rodgers, Trent Dilfer, Joey Harrington, Albert Pujols, Tiger Woods, Michelle Wie, both members of ZZ top.....Just a few of the other people who could throw 5 yard passes all friggin day with 70% accuracy. Sign me somebody who will go downfield, or this season will be a wash.

KChiefs1
09-17-2006, 05:42 PM
Brodie Croyle could have easily handled today's game plan & he has an arm that might have actually put fear in the Donko's secondary.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 05:44 PM
How can you blame Huard for the play calling? He threw the ball well under the conditions that were given to him. You want to question Huard because he didn't complete anything beyond 15 yards, that's on Solari.

Mecca
09-17-2006, 05:46 PM
They called those plays on purpose.....if they ran their normal offense Huard would have looked horrific. I commend them for putting Huard in a spot where he wouldn't lose the game, the game was much better played and much closer than it should have been.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 05:50 PM
Uh, if the Chiefs had tried to run their normal offense, Huard would have gotten killed.

RedThat
09-17-2006, 05:52 PM
We scored six points and lost.That's about what I figured.
Huard played OK for a backup, but it'll be a long year if we have to play him half the season. Defense holding Denver to 6 in regulation is about all you can ask of a defense. They did their job today. You gotta score more than six points. LJ needs to learn how to hang on to the football. We go up 10-0 in the first half, we win this game. That fumble was a killer.

Oh I agree. Bigtime. That fumble inside the 10 yard line in the 1st quarter made a difference in the game. Also, I want to comment on another play, the play inside the Broncos thirty. Can't remember which play it was exactly, but it was right after Kennisons nice catch and run. Then Huard MESSED UP, he threw a pass that was batted down, caught his own pass, and then fumbled.

Mosbonian
09-17-2006, 05:53 PM
How can you blame Huard for the play calling? He threw the ball well under the conditions that were given to him. You want to question Huard because he didn't complete anything beyond 15 yards, that's on Solari.

Who says I blame Huard...I said on another thread that I put the blame for this game directly on Solari and Edwards....

But to call Huard a "gamer" is a stretch.....by any definition.

mmaddog
*******

whoman69
09-17-2006, 06:04 PM
What a joke! The first one was all on LJ! Huard fumbled the other one after catching it. Honestly, if you were expecting a backup QB starting his first game in ages to not fumble, you were expecting too much.

Huard played well enough for us to win. Maybe if Solari hadn't called a ****ing run with 50 seconds left, we'd be celebrating right now.
If you think that Solari is calling the game he wants, you are delusional. Herm took care of that and made it clear this team is going to run even if it means three and out. We are not playing to put the ball in the end zone.

Skip Towne
09-17-2006, 06:22 PM
Did you SEE the way he caught that batted ball? THE BALLS ON THIS GUY!!!!!
Yeah, he should have batted it down. But it shows he can throw it and catch it too.

burt
09-17-2006, 06:25 PM
I'll step up and eat some crow! After watching Huard in the preseason, I stated that he wasn't good enough to start for a college team. I stand corrected. He could start for a college team! Just kidding GoChiefs. I thought, given the fact that he hasn't started since, what, 2000, he did an exceptional job. Sure, the plays called were all "safe", but that can't be put on Huard. The Coaches played to NOT LOSE...unfortanately, that only sent it to overtime. Herm-ball,or the fact that Herm put no confidence in Huard, is not Huards fault.

Look, Herm kept Huard as our back up. He was the one that showed confidence by keeping him, then showed a lack of confidence by having only "safe" plays called. Herm's decision making is just like a virginal school girl at home comming. He showed that he would do it, then crossed his legs, by having an anemic game called on offence. If the coaches had called a 70% 'safe" game we might have won, instead, we called a 98% "safe" game.

The players, including Huard, played well. Sure some mistakes were made, but they played well. Give a big ole rasberry to the coaching staff.

GoChiefs you were right in your analysis that the Chiefs should keep Huard as our back up. I was wrong. Crow eaten? Because I really want to go back to thinking that your and idiot! ;)

Phobia
09-17-2006, 06:26 PM
Some of you guys would whine and bitch if the point guard on your favorite college team shot 17/20 from the field but missed all three three point efforts. Huard was just fine. He was better than fine. Maybe not a gamer, but he did better than everybody thought.

We'd all be singing his praises if that was our #1 kicking the figgie. Now, I'm not calling all you guys flaky but it sure is tempting.

burt
09-17-2006, 06:29 PM
Some of you guys would whine and bitch if the point guard on your favorite college team shot 17/20 from the field but missed all three three point efforts. Huard was just fine. He was better than fine. Maybe not a gamer, but he did better than everybody thought.

We'd all be singing his praises if that was our #1 kicking the figgie. Now, I'm not calling all you guys flaky but it sure is tempting.

Well, Phobs, I AM flakey, I just happen to agree with you.

Skip Towne
09-17-2006, 06:33 PM
Some of you guys would whine and bitch if the point guard on your favorite college team shot 17/20 from the field but missed all three three point efforts. Huard was just fine. He was better than fine. Maybe not a gamer, but he did better than everybody thought.

We'd all be singing his praises if that was our #1 kicking the figgie. Now, I'm not calling all you guys flaky but it sure is tempting.
Yep. Everybody is out of step but you.

Mosbonian
09-17-2006, 06:37 PM
Some of you guys would whine and bitch if the point guard on your favorite college team shot 17/20 from the field but missed all three three point efforts. Huard was just fine. He was better than fine. Maybe not a gamer, but he did better than everybody thought.

We'd all be singing his praises if that was our #1 kicking the figgie. Now, I'm not calling all you guys flaky but it sure is tempting.

Better than fine...not hardly. Adequate would be better. He didn't cost us the game, but he didn't do anything that the QB is supposed to do.

Here's the thing I can't seem to understand....his job is to come out onto the field as a replacement for Green and lead the team. I've watched as back-up QB's for other teams come into the game and lead the team...not just play to avoid losing.

Sure a great deal of this lays at the feet of Herm and Solari...but you guys act like he did something special today. I'm not calling all of you guys homers, but you sure are acting like it.

mmaddog
*******

grandllama
09-17-2006, 06:37 PM
I'll admit that I am much more comfortable the next time Herm's master plan sends Trent on a permanent vacation.

I just hope in three weeks when Trent is retired, and Huard is drinking cheeseburgers through a straw at St. Lukes, I can say the same thing about Croyle and / or Printers.

grandllama
09-17-2006, 06:40 PM
...I've watched as back-up QB's for other teams come into the game and lead the team...not just play to avoid losing...

and this rests on Huards shoulders how? sounds more like a POS head coach to me.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 06:40 PM
I'm not a homer nor am I a QB apologist. Huard did everything asked of him and then some. That's beyond adequate. He was on the money all afternoon. Any of you who think you could "manage" a game are clearly delusional.

grandllama
09-17-2006, 06:42 PM
Who ****ing cares? We pissed away a game that we had little business wnning.

You mean like the next 15 weeks?

Bwana
09-17-2006, 06:44 PM
I'm not a homer nor am I a QB apologist. Huard did everything asked of him and then some. That's beyond adequate. He was on the money all afternoon. Any of you who think you could "manage" a game are clearly delusional.

On that note, how about that clock management?

Mosbonian
09-17-2006, 06:48 PM
Phobia:

Are you happy with "adequate"? You get to the Playoffs with a QB who is more than adequate....

You know as well as I do that Green isn't coming back anytime soon, so we are stuck with Huard, and playing "adequate" isn't going to accomplish anything.

And you wouldn't be the first person to call me delusional. :)

mmaddog
*******

Straight, No Chaser
09-17-2006, 06:48 PM
I'm not a homer nor am I a QB apologist. Huard did everything asked of him and then some. That's beyond adequate. He was on the money all afternoon. Any of you who think you could "manage" a game are clearly delusional.

The then some was catching his own pass --and then fumbling it.


--->

OldTownChief
09-17-2006, 06:49 PM
Our D kept us in this game, It had absolutely nothing to do with Huard being a "gamer", that's absurd. Huard led the team to 6 ****ing points. How many games will we win by scoring 6 points with Huard in? ZERO A "gamer" will put points up on the board.

burt
09-17-2006, 06:51 PM
Better than fine...not hardly. Adequate would be better. He didn't cost us the game, but he didn't do anything that the QB is supposed to do.

Um, he did exactly what he was asked to, with the exception of catching his own pass and fumbling. Otherwise, he performed well(in my book)

Here's the thing I can't seem to understand....his job is to come out onto the field as a replacement for Green and lead the team..

Which is what he did.

I've watched as back-up QB's for other teams come into the game and lead the team...not just play to avoid losing..

Huard ran the plays that were sent in from his coaches. He didn not call the plays. Seems to me that your beef os with Edwards and Solari.

Sure a great deal of this lays at the feet of Herm and Solari...but you guys act like he did something special today. I'm not calling all of you guys homers, but you sure are acting like it.

mmaddog
*******

No, the Homers are all saying that this was pencilled in as a loss, so it doesn't matter. The Homers are all saying that we will come back and get in the hunt. We are just saying Huard isn't so very bad...and it is the coaches fault. Oh, yeah, BTW a real homer would NEVER say that.

OldTownChief
09-17-2006, 06:53 PM
In essence, all the Huard backers are saying that he did what was ask of him. Pretty sad state of affairs when your just ask to hold onto the ball without driving your team downfield whatsoever. Sad state of affairs indeed.

burt
09-17-2006, 06:56 PM
In essence, all the Huard backers are saying that he did what was ask of him. Pretty sad state of affairs when your just ask to hold onto the ball without driving your team downfield whatsoever. Sad state of affairs indeed.

So what would you have Huard do.......a Peyton Manning audible? He did what was asked of him....no one asked the right things.

Mosbonian
09-17-2006, 07:00 PM
Um, he did exactly what he was asked to, with the exception of catching his own pass and fumbling. Otherwise, he performed well(in my book)



Which is what he did..

Let's agree to disagree here...



Huard ran the plays that were sent in from his coaches. He didn not call the plays. Seems to me that your beef os with Edwards and Solari..

Which is exactly what I have said in other threads.



No, the Homers are all saying that this was pencilled in as a loss, so it doesn't matter. The Homers are all saying that we will come back and get in the hunt. We are just saying Huard isn't so very bad...and it is the coaches fault. Oh, yeah, BTW a real homer would NEVER say that.

Some of the Homers I have seen and heard said we could win this game...just hand the ball to LJ and wear out their Defense....

mmaddog
*******

Phobia
09-17-2006, 07:01 PM
For months we've heard Huard haters say he needs to be cut and that he has no business in the NFL. Then he turns in a 9/10 first half and 17/23 overall performance and you guys are still trying to push that agenda. The Chiefs lost this game but they didn't lose because of anything Damon Huard did.

4th and Long
09-17-2006, 07:03 PM
For months we've heard Huard haters say he needs to be cut and that he has no business in the NFL. Then he turns in a 9/10 first half and 17/23 overall performance and you guys are still trying to push that agenda. The Chiefs lost this game but they didn't lose because of anything Damon Huard did.
Man, ... I hate it when I have to agree with fat head.

Huard - Rating: 87.77
Plummer - Rating: 56.67

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 07:03 PM
Exactly.

The Huard Haters were wrong. He does not suck. A year ago no one thought he was even capable of completing 50 percent of his passes.

burt
09-17-2006, 07:07 PM
For months we've heard Huard haters say he needs to be cut and that he has no business in the NFL. Then he turns in a 9/10 first half and 17/23 overall performance and you guys are still trying to push that agenda. The Chiefs lost this game but they didn't lose because of anything Damon Huard did.

Which I politely ate crow. "You guys" is awful general.

Mosbonian
09-17-2006, 07:08 PM
Being good vs. does not suck...hmmmm

I want a QB that is more than adequate.....

If he comes back 2 weeks from now and leads the team to victory with real stats, then come talk to me.

Yes...he played adequate....yes, he isn't the total reason we lost today. But to be satisfied that we scored 6 points on a team that was ripe for the plucking can't make you completely happy.

mmaddog
*******

Rausch
09-17-2006, 07:13 PM
I'm not a homer nor am I a QB apologist. Huard did everything asked of him and then some. That's beyond adequate. He was on the money all afternoon. Any of you who think you could "manage" a game are clearly delusional.

I can't balance my checkbook, but his first duty is to avoid turnovers and not make stupid decisions.

He made a stupid decision that lead to a turnover, but he's not alone. LJ has fumbled in both our games.

You can't do $#it like that fighting upstream. I don't blame Huard for the game(It's the first action he's started since people wanted to **** Cleopatra) but I'm not going to say he played great either...

jspchief
09-17-2006, 07:16 PM
Using his completion percentage as an argument for a game well played is the textbook example of stats not telling the entire story.

So Huard is clutch running an offense so scaled back that we can't win a game when we hold the opponent to 6 points. Great. That and a quarter will get you 25 cents.

A well-oiled machine that goes nowhere is still worthless, no matter how well-oiled it is.

If the Chiefs ever need someone to captain an ineffective offense, Damon Huard is their man. In the meantime, if they stil lwant to win games it's time to see if someone else is more capable of moving the ball.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 07:17 PM
Which I politely ate crow. "You guys" is awful general.

Huard haters is pretty specific. Clearly, you aren't in that classification.

ChiefsLV
09-17-2006, 07:19 PM
Exactly.

The Huard Haters were wrong. He does not suck. A year ago no one thought he was even capable of completing 50 percent of his passes.


Huard's fumbles are killing us. The coaching staff has no confidence in him or we would have at least taken a couple shots downfield. All he did was manage the game and he still turned it over for a second straight game. He sucks, period. How you continue to post these rediculous opinions and not get neg. rep for them baffles me.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 07:20 PM
Being good vs. does not suck...hmmmm

I want a QB that is more than adequate.....

If he comes back 2 weeks from now and leads the team to victory with real stats, then come talk to me.

Yes...he played adequate....yes, he isn't the total reason we lost today. But to be satisfied that we scored 6 points on a team that was ripe for the plucking can't make you completely happy.

mmaddog
*******

Those are "real stats". They're all real stats. Certainly, I'm not happy with the loss. I'm even less pleased with the way in which they lost. But they exceeded my expectations. I'm thrilled that they showed some defensive life. I'd rather focus on the positive.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 07:21 PM
Huard's fumbles are killing us. The coaching staff has no confidence in him or we would have at least taken a couple shots downfield. All he did was manage the game and he still turned it over for a second straight game. He sucks, period. How you continue to post these rediculous opinions and not get neg. rep for them baffles me.

Neg rep for you.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 07:22 PM
Huard's fumbles are killing us. The coaching staff has no confidence in him or we would have at least taken a couple shots downfield.

It's a catch 22, and it's not all about Huard.

If we do take shots downfield our tackles curl up in the fetal position and Huard get's his $3it rocked.

If we don't Herm is the antichrist...

ChiefsLV
09-17-2006, 07:22 PM
Neg rep for you.


Thanks... Red Rules! We all know how much rep means anyway with GoChiefs having full green.

NewChief
09-17-2006, 07:23 PM
Good lord. I can't believe the negativity directed at Huard. I was impressed, personally. He did a good job, with a few mistakes. The major concern I have about him is that he appears to have a low release. He had several balls batted down or tipped including the one that he caught and fumbled.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 07:23 PM
Ironic that for years gochiefs has been excusing Plummer's "success" with the claim that he's been kept on a leash. But when the Chiefs run out a backup QB on a leash that makes Plummer's look like free reign, he not only defends it but proclaims it a smashing success.

The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous.

milkman
09-17-2006, 07:23 PM
Exactly.

The Huard Haters were wrong. He does not suck. A year ago no one thought he was even capable of completing 50 percent of his passes.

A year ago, when we still had Roaf and Tait, if he were asked to come in a run the offense that we've run under Green for the last 5 years, he would have failed to complete 50% of his passes.

The offense in '01-05 requires downfield passing, throwing accurately, and timing.

Huard is not capable of running that offense.

What he ran today was a scaled down maulball offense.

The offense he ran today was one that you might see in high school football.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 07:24 PM
Those are "real stats". They're all real stats. Certainly, I'm not happy with the loss. I'm even less pleased with the way in which they lost. But they exceeded my expectations.

Completely agree.

Huard did a much better job than I ever thought he could. That doesn't mean I think he played great.

Averaging a fumble a game is not great, but again, I don't think that's all his fault.

His main emphasis should be not turning the ball over. First, last, and every snap...

Phobia
09-17-2006, 07:26 PM
A year ago, when we still had Roaf and Tait, if he were asked to come in a run the offense that we've run ubder Green for the last 5 years, he would have failed to complete 50% of his passes.

The offense in '01-05 requires downfield passing, throwing accurately, and timing.

Huard is not capable of running that offense.

What he ran today was a scaled down maulball offense.

The offense he ran today was one that you might see in high school football.

Previously I thought you were wrong. Now you're so far off it's not even worthy of debate.

Logical
09-17-2006, 07:27 PM
Oh yes he led us to a glorious 9 to 6 loss

milkman
09-17-2006, 07:29 PM
Previously I thought you were wrong. Now you're so far off it's not even worthy of debate.

In other words, you got nuthin'.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 07:32 PM
The Chiefs lost this game but they didn't lose because of anything Damon Huard did.

No they lost because of what Huard can't do.

I am not blaming him he played a solid game but he just can't do alot of the things this offense requires.

NewChief
09-17-2006, 07:34 PM
No they lost because of what Huard can't do.

I am not blaming him he played a solid game but he just can't do alot of the things this offense requires.

I'm not convinced he can't do them. I am convinced he was told to not do them this game.

alanm
09-17-2006, 07:35 PM
Ironic that for years gochiefs has been excusing Plummer's "success" with the claim that he's been kept on a leash. But when the Chiefs run out a backup QB on a leash that makes Plummer's look like free reign, he not only defends it but proclaims it a smashing success.

The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous.
Yep.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 07:37 PM
I'm not convinced he can't do them. I am convinced he was told to not do them this game.There's something to this. Maybe he can do more. But the coaches don't think he can.

All I know is that late in the game, when we needed to get in FG range, I knew that Huard wasn't going to play a part in it happening. If this is all our offense is capable of under Huard, I'm ready for the Croyle experiment to begin.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 07:37 PM
In other words, you got nuthin'.

In other words, I'm cowardly because I won't continue a debate in which you'll not surrender an inch to logic? Logical.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 07:38 PM
No they lost because of what Huard can't do.

I am not blaming him he played a solid game but he just can't do alot of the things this offense requires.

He pushed the ball up the field with plenty of accuracy last week. What changed in 7 days?

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2006, 07:39 PM
There's a difference between being disappointed in his performance and thinking he blows in general.

I wasn't disappointed, but I sure as hell wasn't impressed.

I'm not a homer nor am I a QB apologist. Huard did everything asked of him and then some. And then some?

Such as... ?

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 07:39 PM
I was only saying that Huard enjoys playing Halo on the XBox. Jeez.

Logical
09-17-2006, 07:39 PM
In other words, I'm cowardly because I won't continue a debate in which you'll not surrender an inch to logic? Logical.

You rang.:D

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 07:41 PM
There's a difference between being disappointed in his performance and thinking he blows.

And then some?

Such as... ?

Not take sacks, not throw INT's, not force anything, not lose the game, stay within the gameplan, manage the game...

anything else?

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 07:41 PM
There's something to this. Maybe he can do more. But the coaches don't think he can.

All I know is that late in the game, when we needed to get in FG range, I knew that Huard wasn't going to play a part in it happening. If this is all our offense is capable of under Huard, I'm ready for the Croyle experiment to begin.

Do you really want Croyle to get in the game? We'll have four turnovers a game. We might score a couple touchdowns, but we'll lose every game.

JBucc
09-17-2006, 07:41 PM
And then some?

Such as... ?he played reciever. duh.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 07:42 PM
He pushed the ball up the field with plenty of accuracy last week. What changed in 7 days?Huard wasn't facing a defense that already knew the game was over this week.

You think Huard was pushing the ball upfield today?

Rausch
09-17-2006, 07:42 PM
Ironic that for years gochiefs has been excusing Plummer's "success" with the claim that he's been kept on a leash. But when the Chiefs run out a backup QB on a leash that makes Plummer's look like free reign, he not only defends it but proclaims it a smashing success.

The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous.

His entire life is ridiculous.

He's a living contradiction with enough pent up sexual energy to fuel a Mars mission...

milkman
09-17-2006, 07:42 PM
In other words, I'm cowardly because I won't continue a debate in which you'll not surrender an inch to logic? Logical.

What are you talking about.

I described what Huard is incapable of.

I've talked before about his ability, or lack thereof, in the downfield passing game, based on what I remember of the couple of games I saw him play as a Dolphin.

I also saw an offense today that was pretty simple.

I didn't say he wasn't capable of more than what he did today.

I know he is capable of more than that.
But he isn't capable of running the Chiefs offense of the last 5 years.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 07:42 PM
There's something to this. Maybe he can do more. But the coaches don't think he can.

All I know is that late in the game, when we needed to get in FG range, I knew that Huard wasn't going to play a part in it happening. If this is all our offense is capable of under Huard, I'm ready for the Croyle experiment to begin.

Yep. He just doesn't give me much confidence that he can lead this team.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 07:43 PM
lmao @ jsp calling for Croyle, or anyone for that matter...

WE WENT TO DENVER AND LOST IN OVERTIME, OVERTIME, TO THE TEAM WHO WAS RUNNER UP IN THE AFC LAST YEAR. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE OUR GOD DAMN PRO BOWL QB...

God some of you are just...dumb.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 07:43 PM
Also, Greg Wesley had an EXCELLENT game. All you Wesley Haters can STFU!

jspchief
09-17-2006, 07:44 PM
Do you really want Croyle to get in the game? We'll have four turnovers a game. We might score a couple touchdowns, but we'll lose every game.We held the opponent to 6 points in regulation and lost. Clearly the offense i nthe form that we saw in Denver doesn't work.

Yes, I'd rather see Croyle in the game. He's no more likely to fumble than Huard, and is a hell of a lot more likely to actually make a play?

Can it get any worse than what Huard did for us? Are you worried that we'll only be held to 3 or 0 points?

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 07:44 PM
Huard has no pocket awareness, we know this. Because of that, his downfield passing game is below average...already knew this too.

However, he gives us a hell of a lot better chance to win a game than Brodie friggin' Croyle.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 07:45 PM
He pushed the ball up the field with plenty of accuracy last week. What changed in 7 days?

Denver's D is alot better than the Bengals?

Plus they aren't playing prevent.

:hmmm:

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 07:45 PM
We held the opponent to 6 points in regulation and lost. Clearly the offense i nthe form that we saw in Denver doesn't work.

Yes, I'd rather see Croyle in the game. He's no more likely to fumble than Huard, and is a hell of a lot more likely to actually make a play?

Can it get any worse than what Huard did for us? Are you worried that we'll only be held to 3 or 0 points?

We scored 10 points @ Denver last year...

...

Get it yet?

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 07:45 PM
We held the opponent to 6 points in regulation and lost. Clearly the offense i nthe form that we saw in Denver doesn't work.

Yes, I'd rather see Croyle in the game. He's no more likely to fumble than Huard, and is a hell of a lot more likely to actually make a play?

Can it get any worse than what Huard did for us? Are you worried that we'll only be held to 3 or 0 points?

I'm worried that Croyle will turn it over 4 times a game. He's a rookie.

I think Denver would have eaten Croyle alive today. Huard was poised.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 07:45 PM
lmao @ jsp calling for Croyle, or anyone for that matter...

WE WENT TO DENVER AND LOST IN OVERTIME, OVERTIME, TO THE TEAM WHO WAS RUNNER UP IN THE AFC LAST YEAR. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE OUR GOD DAMN PRO BOWL QB...

God some of you are just...dumb.We held our opponent to 6 points in regulation and lost the game.

The defense sure as f*ck didn't lose it for us.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 07:46 PM
I'm worried that Croyle will turn it over 4 times a game. He's a rookie.

I think Denver would have eaten Croyle alive today. Huard was poised.So what do we have to lose? 6 points per game?

runnercyclist
09-17-2006, 07:47 PM
What a joke! The first one was all on LJ! Huard fumbled the other one after catching it. Honestly, if you were expecting a backup QB starting his first game in ages to not fumble, you were expecting too much.

Huard played well enough for us to win. Maybe if Solari hadn't called a ****ing run with 50 seconds left, we'd be celebrating right now.

Rookie OC, 2nd year starter at RB, ML, WR, back up QB, 1st year HC...lots of reasons to begin the season sputtering a bit. We need a couple of soft teams to gain some confidence and what the heck here they come!

Let's worry if we lay a turd in those two games.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 07:47 PM
Also, Greg Wesley had an EXCELLENT game. All you Wesley Haters can STFU!

Great point.

You should have started a thread about that...

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2006, 07:47 PM
not throw INT's, not force anythingOn the, what, five passes he threw downfield all game? He sure as hell "forced" that glorious catch and fumble of his that sapped all of the momentum we'd been building and took it from a potential two-score game to what was eventually a 3-point game.

not lose the gameWay to do something a high school quarterback should have the sense to avoid doing and giving the ball to the opponent one play after your biggest passing play of the game, Damon!

manage the game...Boy howdy, I sure do love those delay of game penalties and wasted timeouts!

Again, I don't think it was a bad performance, by his standards, today. I don't think it's time to throw Croyle to the wolves just yet, either. But anyone suggesting Huard put forth some sort of valiant effort out there needs to lay off the crack.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 07:48 PM
Huard gives us a chance to win.

Croyle doesn't.

People are forgetting that Denver has one of the best defenses in this league. Just because we only produced 6 points today doesn't mean we can't score 30 next week with Huard at the helm.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 07:48 PM
We held the opponent to 6 points in regulation and lost. Clearly the offense i nthe form that we saw in Denver doesn't work.

Yes, I'd rather see Croyle in the game. He's no more likely to fumble than Huard, and is a hell of a lot more likely to actually make a play?

Can it get any worse than what Huard did for us? Are you worried that we'll only be held to 3 or 0 points?

The only problem with Croyle is that I don't know if he could hold up physically. He needs 1 good year of weight lifting and training to build up his body.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 07:48 PM
We held our opponent to 6 points in regulation and lost the game.

The defense sure as f*ck didn't lose it for us.
Of course the defense didn't lose it for us. Neither did Huard. In fact, there really in no one to blame. We had the perfect gameplan, but we were simply overmatched without Green. It's that simple.

Take this gameplan, insert Green week 5...

Here it is:

Run, run, run, short pass, run, run, run, short pass, run, short pass, PLAY-ACTION...

When Green gets back, we use Marty-ball and suddenly Green becomes the best PA QB in the league.

We get down, we go back to our Saunders offense.

But for now, our best chance is Marty-ball, even when Green returns. We have the better team than Denver.

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2006, 07:49 PM
People are forgetting that Denver has one of the best defenses in this league. Just because we only produced 6 points today doesn't mean we can't score 30 next week with Huard at the helm.I guarantee you we won't score 30 next week.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 07:50 PM
I meant against the 49ers. I predict we'll score AT LEAST 21 points.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 07:51 PM
On the, what, five passes he threw downfield all game? He sure as hell "forced" that glorious catch and fumble of his that sapped all of the momentum we'd been building and took it from a potential two-score game to what was eventually a 3-point game.

Way to do something a high school quarterback should have the sense to avoid doing and giving the ball to the opponent one play after your biggest passing play of the game, Damon!

Boy howdy, I sure do love those delay of game penalties and wasted timeouts!

Again, I don't think it was a bad performance, by his standards, today. I don't think it's time to throw Croyle to the wolves just yet, either. But anyone suggesting Huard put forth some sort of valiant effort out there needs to lay off the crack.

What the **** were you expecting? I'll tell you what I was expecting...a sack fest (Mmmm), full of INT's and stupid decisions.

Instead we had an INTELLIGENT backup with less than average skills put us in position to win the game.

He made ONE mistake, albeit a big one, but still, I feel a WHOLE lot better about our backup QB situation now.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 07:51 PM
I guarantee you we won't score 30 next week.
I'll bet you a hundred dollars we don't score any!

Phobia
09-17-2006, 07:52 PM
What the **** were you expecting? I'll tell you what I was expecting...a sack fest (Mmmm), full of INT's and stupid decisions.

Instead we had an INTELLIGENT backup with less than average skills put us in position to win the game.

He made ONE mistake, albeit a big one, but still, I feel a WHOLE lot better about our backup QB situation now.

Hootie gets it.

I never expected to make that post.

Logical
09-17-2006, 07:52 PM
Not take sacks, not throw INT's, not force anything, not lose the game, stay within the gameplan, manage the game...

anything else?

Don't do anything that might remotely win the game all better be in your list of his accomplishments.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 07:54 PM
Huard gives us a chance to win.

Croyle doesn't.


Based on what?

You have no sample size for reference.

Nothing to back that up...

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2006, 07:55 PM
What the **** were you expecting? I'll tell you what I was expecting...a sack fest (Mmmm), full of INT's and stupid decisions.

Instead we had an INTELLIGENT backup with less than average skills put us in position to win the game.

He made ONE mistake, albeit a big one, but still, I feel a WHOLE lot better about our backup QB situation now.I was expecting a semi-competent QB that relied heavily on LJ to move the ball down the field.

I got a semi-competent QB that relied heavily on LJ to move the ball down the field.

Just because he didn't single-handedly lose the game doesn't mean "Huard haters" have any crow to eat. He still sucks, as "good" (or rather, "not horrific") as his performance may have been today.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 07:56 PM
Don't do anything that might remotely win the game all better be in your list of his accomplishments.
dude goes 11-12 in the first half (12-12 if Tony G doesn't drop the ball) and you know, Denver has a good defense, they made some adjustments, but, it's not like Solari really opened up that playbook for him. It was quite evident we were running the ball first down, second down, and sometimes even third down. That was our gameplan. Our gameplan was the RIGHT gameplan for this week against that team. We'd win this game 6 times out of 10 using the same personnel and the same gameplan...we just got a few bad breaks.

Our backup QB is a whole lot better than I gave him credit for, and he'll get a raise from SOMEONE to be a backup next year if he keeps this up.

Rausch
09-17-2006, 07:57 PM
I was expecting a semi-competent QB that relied heavily on LJ to move the ball down the field.

I got a semi-competent QB that relied heavily on LJ to move the ball down the field.

Just because he didn't single-handedly lose the game doesn't mean "Huard haters" have any crow to eat. He still sucks, as "good" (or rather, "not horrific") as his performance may have been today.

Perfectly stated...

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 07:59 PM
I was expecting a semi-competent QB that relied heavily on LJ to move the ball down the field.

I got a semi-competent QB that relied heavily on LJ to move the ball down the field.

Just because he didn't single-handedly lose the game doesn't mean "Huard haters" have any crow to eat. He still sucks, as "good" (or rather, "not horrific") as his performance may have been today.
We all know Huard isn't Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, even Cooper Manning...at the end of the day he is what he is, a backup QB...but he's a hell of a backup QB. Some backup QB's are starting QB's, if that makes sense. Take Schaub. Huard isn't a starting QB, he'll never be a starting QB, but he plays within himself...if you're counting on Huard to win us games than that's your problem. Defense aside, Huard was the brightest spot about this week. Now Solari knows what he's working with, maybe we can open the playbook up a little bit against SF week 4. Play-action passes would be nice, Denver had 18 guys in the box.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 07:59 PM
Also, for all his haters, Kendrell Bell played OK today. Six tackles and made some plays in the running game.

But PLEASE don't let him cover anyone.

JBucc
09-17-2006, 07:59 PM
I wonder what Bill Nye thinks about all this:hmmm:

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7374/billnyepl8.jpg

Oh well that settles this.

ROYC75
09-17-2006, 08:00 PM
Told you he was a gamer!


Really, Rich Gannon made a career out of dink and dunk offense and some runs thrown in there.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:00 PM
you know what!? I was wrong...wrong all along. We should've went out and acquired Joey Harrington this offseason. THAT WAY, when Trent goes down, we could've had a big armed QB that throws 4 picks a game...but at least he "throws the ball downfield!" HELL YES!

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:01 PM
Also, for all his haters, Kendrell Bell played OK today. Six tackles and made some plays in the running game.

But PLEASE don't let him cover anyone.
I saw him on the ground an awful lot. Doesn't shed blockers very well, that's for sure.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:04 PM
you know what!? I was wrong...wrong all along. We should've went out and acquired Joey Harrington this offseason. THAT WAY, when Trent goes down, we could've had a big armed QB that throws 4 picks a game...but at least he "throws the ball downfield!" HELL YES!Much better to complete 80% of your 4 yard passes, score 6 points, and lose.

Chiefnj
09-17-2006, 08:04 PM
**** Huard and the ultraconservative playcalling. He's god-damned veteran QB who has been with the team a few years. He's supposed to be able to throw the ball downfield to receivers. He's not a damn rookie. He wasn't brought onto the team last week. People excuse him because he's a backup, but it's just an excuse. Decent backup QB's with a weeks preparation can throw the ball better than Huard and not restrict the playbook as much as with him.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 08:07 PM
The debacle right before halftime was 100% Huard's fault.

Inexcusable, especially for a 10-year vet.

milkman
09-17-2006, 08:09 PM
Also, for all his haters, Kendrell Bell played OK today. Six tackles and made some plays in the running game.

But PLEASE don't let him cover anyone.

Kendrell Bell needs to find a spot on the bench and make it his own, so that we can get a guy with some speed who might actually make a real play on the field.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 08:09 PM
The debacle right before halftime was 100% Huard's fault.

Inexcusable, especially for a 10-year vet.

I agree. The problems with the time outs for this game is inexcusable but with Trent in as QB I think that will resolve itself. Trent is the leader when he is on the field and he is pretty good at taking care of that stuff.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:12 PM
**** Huard and the ultraconservative playcalling. He's god-damned veteran QB who has been with the team a few years. He's supposed to be able to throw the ball downfield to receivers. He's not a damn rookie. He wasn't brought onto the team last week. People excuse him because he's a backup, but it's just an excuse. Decent backup QB's with a weeks preparation can throw the ball better than Huard and not restrict the playbook as much as with him.Exactly. Huard's only selling point is his alledged knowledge of the playbook. Lot of good that does us if he's only competent enough to run run 30% of it.

We took a 10 year vet that was supposed to know the offense and coddled him like a rookie in his first pre-season game.

At this point, I can't find a single argument for starting him over Croyle.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:12 PM
The debacle right before halftime was 100% Huard's fault.

Inexcusable, especially for a 10-year vet.
Agreed but, the 10-year vet was making his 7th career start. Green wasn't too super his first year here in KC...

(Not that this is Huard's first year, but, he hasn't exactly seen much playing time in the last decade...)

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 08:13 PM
We didn't coddle Huard.

We coddled our offensive tackles.

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2006, 08:13 PM
We all know Huard isn't Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, even Cooper Manning...at the end of the day he is what he is, a backup QB...but he's a hell of a backup QB.Um, no. He is a SHITTY backup QB. He's maybe in the 30th percentile of NFL backups.

I wonder what Bill Nye thinks about all this:hmmm:

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/7374/billnyepl8.jpg

Oh well that settles this.Science rules.

Agreed but, the 10-year vet was making his 7th career start.If he's a helluva QB, why was he a third-stringer until he became the #2 by default? Why hasn't someone given him more looks?

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:13 PM
and besides, this is Todd Collins' backup we're talking about...I still can't believe he had these expectations from you dumbasses.

DID YOU REALLY EXPECT TO WIN AT DENVER TODAY?

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:13 PM
Agreed but, the 10-year vet was making his 7th career start. Green wasn't too super his first year here in KC...

(Not that this is Huard's first year, but, he hasn't exactly seen much playing time in the last decade...)So do you think Huard has the potential to be the same caliber QB as Green?

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:15 PM
We didn't coddle Huard.

We coddled our offensive tackles.Bullshit. Houston has had the worst O-line in the league for several years and they still find a way to throw the ball downfield.

Ultra Peanut
09-17-2006, 08:15 PM
and besides, this is Todd Collins' backup we're talking about...I still can't believe he had these expectations from you dumbasses.

DID YOU REALLY EXPECT TO WIN AT DENVER TODAY?I EXPECTED HIM TO SUCK. HE SUCKED.

Let's throw a parade in his honor!!!!!!!!!!!

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 08:15 PM
DID YOU REALLY EXPECT TO WIN AT DENVER TODAY?

No but they are like the girl that teases you with sex and leaves you with blueballs.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:16 PM
So do you think Huard has the potential to be the same caliber QB as Green?
Absolutely not.

Huard is one of the least talented QB's in the league. However, he's smart, humble and proved that he can manage a game.

As gochiefs just said, did you really want to watch Huard drop back and get sacked because our OT's are terrible all day long? Shit, he would've had 15 fumbles...

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:16 PM
Bullshit. Houston has had the worst O-line in the league for several years and they still find a way to throw the ball downfield.
and that got them, what, the #1 draft pick this year?!

Way to make these strong points...

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:18 PM
Absolutely not.

Huard is one of the least talented QB's in the league. However, he's smart, humble and proved that he can manage a game.

As gochiefs just said, did you really want to watch Huard drop back and get sacked because our OT's are terrible all day long? Shit, he would've had 15 fumbles...So would you rather play someone who can "manage" a game but can't win it, or someone who might lose the game, but might win it for you?

It does us no good to manage games thay we lose 6-9.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:18 PM
I EXPECTED HIM TO SUCK. HE SUCKED.

Let's throw a parade in his honor!!!!!!!!!!!
HE DIDN'T SUCK. HE WASN'T GIVEN THE CHANCE TO SUCK.

You can't complete 70% of your passes, throw 0 INT's, and suck. It's just not possible. If they had opened the playbook up would he have sucked? Most likely. But truth be told, he didn't do anything but do exactly what Herm wanted him to do. Hand the ball off, throw quick slants, not turn the ball over...

It was obvious what we were doing...and it almost worked. Run, run, run, Colquitt.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:19 PM
So would you rather play someone who can "manage" a game but can't win it, or someone who might lose the game, but might win it for you?

It does us no good to manage games thay we lose 6-9.
Ok.

Let's say Croyle starts this game. Let's say Solari calls the game as if it were Green in there rather than Croyle.

What do we lose by?

I'd say...

52-9

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:19 PM
and that got them, what, the #1 draft pick this year?!

Way to make these strong points...Yea, because overall team execution, and the ability to run a particular play are pretty much the same thing. Nice straw man.

Hey, as long as we can "manage" those 6-9 losses, we're fine.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:21 PM
Ok.

Let's say Croyle starts this game. Let's say Solari calls the game as if it were Green in there rather than Croyle.

What do we lose by?

I'd say...

52-9You may be right. But you may also be wrong.

At this point, what is the risk? We already know that we have Huard if we want to lose a game by a baseball score. Maybe we should actually take a chance and try and win one next. It's not like we drafted Croyle in the 3rd round to be a career 3rd string QB.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:23 PM
Yea, because overall team execution, and the ability to run a particular play are pretty much the same thing. Nice straw man.

Hey, as long as we can "manage" those 6-9 losses, we're fine.
You are ****ing insane.

Herm draws up his gameplan. We execute it to perfection, minus the turnovers. If one of those doesn't happen, we win the game. If they both happen and we play 10 times with the same gameplan @ Denver, we win 6 times out of 10. We were the better team, even with Huard at the helm. What more can you ask for out of Herm? That's all I'm saying. Sure, it didn't work out TODAY, but a few different bounces and we win the game, and Huard, the defense and LJ put us in that position, along with a very nice gameplan from Herm & Co.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 08:23 PM
I still think you're expecting way too much out of Croyle.

Denver's defense is really good.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 08:24 PM
You may be right. But you may also be wrong.

At this point, what is the risk? We already know that we have Huard if we want to lose a game by a baseball score. Maybe we should actually take a chance and try and win one next. It's not like we drafted Croyle in the 3rd round to be a career 3rd string QB.

I understand your point but like I said earlier I don't think Croyle is physically ready to play at this level and even though I would like him to get a chance I am afraid he can't handle getting hit right now.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:24 PM
dude, we scored TEN ****ING POINTS LAST YEAR WITH OUR "POTENT" OFFENSE @ DENVER...

What did you ****ing expect?

Caps lock necessary.

SERIAL

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 08:24 PM
Bullshit. Houston has had the worst O-line in the league for several years and they still find a way to throw the ball downfield.

They have a mobile quarterback. Besides, they're a perennial suckfest. Not surprising considering they throw their QB to the dogs.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:26 PM
I still think you're expecting way too much out of Croyle.

Denver's defense is really good.You're completely missing the point.

I don't have to expect anything out of Croyle. I just know that the Damon Huard offense isn't going to win us games. We went on the road, held our opponent to 6 points, and lost. That tells me the offense in it's current form doesn't work. It's time to try something else.

Huard may be the perfect candidate to come into the middle of a game when a QB goes down. But he's not going to get us wins in the absence of Green. Time to start prepping our future and maybe win a few games in the process.

whoman69
09-17-2006, 08:26 PM
For months we've heard Huard haters say he needs to be cut and that he has no business in the NFL. Then he turns in a 9/10 first half and 17/23 overall performance and you guys are still trying to push that agenda. The Chiefs lost this game but they didn't lose because of anything Damon Huard did.
Let's keep it in perspective here. He was 17/23 for 133 yards and we scored 6 points. That's less than 8 yards a completion. Kyle Orton would be proud of those numbers.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 08:26 PM
dude, we scored TEN ****ING POINTS LAST YEAR WITH OUR "POTENT" OFFENSE @ DENVER...

What did you ****ing expect?

Caps lock necessary.

SERIAL

Last year is irrelevant

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 08:28 PM
That tells me the offense in it's current form doesn't work. .

Again. We scored TEN POINTS at Denver last year. They have a good defense.

If we score 14 points against the 49ers, then you can come out and say it doesn't work.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:28 PM
Let's keep it in perspective here. He was 17/23 for 133 yards and we scored 6 points. That's less than 8 yards a completion. Kyle Orton would be proud of those numbers.
Kyle Orton would've been 10/23 with 80 yards and 4 picks..

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:28 PM
I understand your point but like I said earlier I don't think Croyle is physically ready to play at this level and even though I would like him to get a chance I am afraid he can't handle getting hit right now.Yea, I've said already that I think that's BS.

The guy played all season for Alabama last year and took a pounding. If he's made of glass, there's no sense in him being on the roster. Get him out there and find out.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:28 PM
Last year is irrelevant
For comparison sake, no it isn't...

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 08:29 PM
Yea, I've said already that I think that's BS.

The guy played all season for Alabama last year and took a pounding. If he's made of glass, there's no sense in him being on the roster. Get him out there and find out.
AND RUIN HIS CAREER!!!!

Phobia
09-17-2006, 08:33 PM
Um, no. He is a SHITTY backup QB. He's maybe in the 30th percentile of NFL backups.


That makes a lot of sense considering he's in the TOP 30th percentile of NFL STARTERS. You should consider a vacation from this thread because you're talking through your hat.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:33 PM
Again. We scored TEN POINTS at Denver last year. They have a good defense.

If we score 14 points against the 49ers, then you can come out and say it doesn't work.That's completely missing the point. Denver didn't shut us down this game. They didn't have to. We shut ourselves down.

I might agre that the Huard experiment worked except for the fact that even when we had to move the ball downfield, we chose to dink and dunk.

It's one thing to play a game close to the vest. But there will come a time when you have to open it up. That time came in this game and we were helpless.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 08:35 PM
I just know that the Damon Huard offense isn't going to win us games. We went on the road, held our opponent to 6 points, and lost. That tells me the offense in it's current form doesn't work. It's time to try something else.
Except for if the coin flip went the other way and Huard led the team down the field for a FG (which he's PROVEN he is capable of) the Chiefs would have won the game and then all the pessimists would have been forced to find something else to whine about.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:35 PM
AND RUIN HIS CAREER!!!!What career? His career as a third string QB who's too fragile to put on the field? If he can't handle the NFL, he doesn't have a career to begin with.

The notion that he's suddenly going to become more durable in a few years is absurd. He can either handle an NFL pounding or he can't. I don't see the point in saving that verdict for 2 years down the road. We need a QB now.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:38 PM
Except for if the coin flip went the other way and Huard led the team down the field for a FG (which he's PROVEN he is capable of) the Chiefs would have won the game and then all the pessimists would have been forced to find something else to whine about.Give me a break. The only thing he proved is that once the Denver defense figured out that he wasn't going to throw beyond eight yards, he was ineffective.

To claim that he would be capable of getting us in FG range in overtime completely ignores that he was incapable of doing it for 90% of the second half.

htismaqe
09-17-2006, 08:39 PM
Exactly. Huard's only selling point is his alledged knowledge of the playbook. Lot of good that does us if he's only competent enough to run run 30% of it.

We took a 10 year vet that was supposed to know the offense and coddled him like a rookie in his first pre-season game.

At this point, I can't find a single argument for starting him over Croyle.

Huard wasn't the reason we only ran 30% of the playbook.

The offensive line is.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 08:40 PM
Except for if the coin flip went the other way and Huard led the team down the field for a FG (which he's PROVEN he is capable of) the Chiefs would have won the game and then all the pessimists would have been forced to find something else to whine about.

We will always find something to whine about don't you know that already? :)

petegz28
09-17-2006, 08:41 PM
Huard wasn't the reason we only ran 30% of the playbook.

The offensive line is.


I agree. That may play into our hands though. If we dumb downt he O a little and jsut focus on being a power running and play action team that might beenfit us.


Remember when Marty used to say "we don't scheme we jsut line up and smach them in the mouth"?

Similar but still with a flair of the DV offense. Green is better than Grbac or Bono so I can see a potentialy good year.

IF the O line can learn to do a few things well.

jspchief
09-17-2006, 08:41 PM
Huard wasn't the reason we only ran 30% of the playbook.

The offensive line is.So when do we actually try to win a game? Because we didn't today.

At some point we have to do more than sit back with our fingers crossed.

And besides, Huard's ability to run an ineffective offense is hardly something to start patting him on the back about.

dirk digler
09-17-2006, 08:42 PM
Huard wasn't the reason we only ran 30% of the playbook.

The offensive line is.

That is part of it but then why didn't they max protect and play action pass like back in the Steve Deberg days?

DenverDanChiefsFan
09-17-2006, 08:43 PM
How many time did he attempt a pass beyond 10 yards?

Did we watch the same game? I was there, drinkiing of course, but I remember several passes more than 10 yards. I didn't expect the 2nd string to run the same offense as Trent and I think that is a unrealistic. I took the train home from InDonco field and there weren't too many people talking smak - overtime by 3 in a game there were supposed to win by double digits. It would have been nice riding home with my face painted and my headress on with a W, but no one could give me shi# on the ride home because they knew that it was only by chance that the walked out with the W

Sure-Oz
09-17-2006, 08:43 PM
Huard sucks, i could've gone in there and thrown 5 yard routes as well. He made no mistakes ill give him credit for that....oh wait he fumbled.

Guru
09-17-2006, 08:45 PM
So when do we actually try to win a game? Because we didn't today.

At some point we have to do more than sit back with our fingers crossed.

And besides, Huard's ability to run an ineffective offense is hardly something to start patting him on the back about.

Huard was OK for his first time out. If they don't open this offense up a little during the next 2-3 games then they might as well get Croyle in there.

milkman
09-17-2006, 08:50 PM
Did we watch the same game? I was there, drinkiing of course, but I remember several passes more than 10 yards. I didn't expect the 2nd string to run the same offense as Trent and I think that is a unrealistic. I took the train home from InDonco field and there weren't too many people talking smak - overtime by 3 in a game there were supposed to win by double digits. It would have been nice riding home with my face painted and my headress on with a W, but no one could give me shi# on the ride home because they knew that it was only by chance that the walked out with the W

I don't remeber more than 2 or 3 pass attempts of more than 10 yards.

Everything else was short slants and underneath stuff.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 08:50 PM
Huard sucks, i could've gone in there and thrown 5 yard routes as well. He made no mistakes ill give him credit for that....oh wait he fumbled.

Dude, we have to sign you immediately then. I'll ask Herm what he's waiting for when he has a perfectly capable starter who won't fumble posting on ChiefsPlanet.

PastorMikH
09-17-2006, 08:53 PM
I was fine with Huard's play today. In fact, he did better than I expected. Granted we won't be having a QB controversy, but I think he did better than Collins would have. In all honesty, I was surprised at his quick throws and accuracy. He made some mental errors with game management, but I think with more game time, those would go away.

morphius
09-17-2006, 08:56 PM
He played okay, but I don't feel the need to eat any crow as he also didn't do much of anything that I remember either.

Sure-Oz
09-17-2006, 08:58 PM
Dude, we have to sign you immediately then. I'll ask Herm what he's waiting for when he has a perfectly capable starter who won't fumble posting on ChiefsPlanet.
I'm fast too!!!!!!!1111one111

Easy 6
09-17-2006, 09:02 PM
What PastorMikH said.

Logical
09-17-2006, 09:18 PM
That makes a lot of sense considering he's in the TOP 30th percentile of NFL STARTERS. You should consider a vacation from this thread because you're talking through your hat.

Does GoChiefs have pictures of you with someone other than Pink, I for the life of me cannot figure your over enthusiastic defense fo this journeyman on a leash.

Phobia
09-17-2006, 09:26 PM
Does GoChiefs have pictures of you with someone other than Pink, I for the life of me cannot figure your over enthusiastic defense fo this journeyman on a leash.

My defense of Huard doesn't have anything to do with Clayton. I'm on record as saying he's vastly underrated weeks ago.

Short Leash Hootie
09-17-2006, 09:27 PM
I'm fast too!!!!!!!1111one111
you're ****ing gay!

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 09:29 PM
For the record, Phobia is now my bitch. There's been a shift in power at WPI. Thanks for your support, Phil.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 10:21 PM
Kris Wilson is bad karma.

Huard was throwing to him on the fumble. ROFL!

Phobia
09-17-2006, 10:23 PM
It was revealed in the press conference that Gonzo was lined up wrong at the :09 mark in the first half, that's why the TO was taken.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 10:25 PM
See how smart Huard is?

SPchief
09-17-2006, 10:51 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why people are bitching about a game we lost IN OVERTIME where we were EXPECTED TO LOSE in Denver by only 3 points.


Did anybody really expect Huard to go out and throw for 350 and 3 tds? Shit almost everybody expected to lose by at least two tds and yet we came away with a close loss. Mark it up for confidence for the defense.



Am I dissapointed we lost, hell yeah. But should I be excited about the way we played, yes.

luv
09-17-2006, 11:05 PM
I'm still trying to figure out why people are bitching about a game we lost IN OVERTIME where we were EXPECTED TO LOSE in Denver by only 3 points.


Did anybody really expect Huard to go out and throw for 350 and 3 tds? Shit almost everybody expected to lose by at least two tds and yet we came away with a close loss. Mark it up for confidence for the defense.



Am I dissapointed we lost, hell yeah. But should I be excited about the way we played, yes.
I just wish our offense could have been on the field more.

PastorMikH
09-17-2006, 11:10 PM
Am I dissapointed we lost, yeah. But should I be excited about the way we played, yes.



That pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I was devestated last week. This week, even though we lost, I'm hopeful from what I saw out there. This D made 2 goal-line stands with Denver and forced them to kick FGs. They kept Denver out of the endzone and had four 3-and-outs. They didn't get burned on the Bootleg. They were a top 5 D after the first week, and should still be in the top 10. Shoot, Denver didn't even start moving the ball until the 4th quarter.

Add in, the O-Line did give better protection today with Sampson in there and even without Green playing, we were in the game.


The next 2 games will not be as hard as the last 2. Granted they won't be easy Ws, but they will be easier than the last 2. Hopefully Green will be back after the Bye, but if he isn't ready yet, this group has a decent shot of winning the next two games without him.

We've GOT to have Green back by Pittsburg.

SPchief
09-17-2006, 11:12 PM
That pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I was devestated last week. This week, even though we lost, I'm hopeful from what I saw out there. This D made 2 goal-line stands with Denver and forced them to kick FGs. They kept Denver out of the endzone and had four 3-and-outs. They didn't get burned on the Bootleg. They were a top 5 D after the first week, and should still be in the top 10. Shoot, Denver didn't even start moving the ball until the 4th quarter.

Add in, the O-Line did give better protection today with Sampson in there and even without Green playing, we were in the game.


The next 2 games will not be as hard as the last 2. Granted they won't be easy Ws, but they will be easier than the last 2. Hopefully Green will be back after the Bye, but if he isn't ready yet, this group has a decent shot of winning the next two games without him.

We've GOT to have Green back by Pittsburg.


Thank you pastor. I'm still trying to figure out why people are running around like a chicken with their head cut off after losing a close game that we were supposed to be blown out in.


Shit what was the line, like 12 or something.

Count Zarth
09-17-2006, 11:14 PM
I don't know if Pittsburgh would be the best game for Trent's first game back. Can we forfeit that one?

Cochise
09-17-2006, 11:16 PM
Huard did what he was asked to do, which was Trent Dilfer his way through the game and be unspectacular but careful with the football.

Except for the one freak play where he ended up making a reception he did an okay job. Some throws were missed, a few dropped. The timeout wasted before the half hurt us. Overall he looked... average.

greg63
09-17-2006, 11:17 PM
That pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I was devestated last week. This week, even though we lost, I'm hopeful from what I saw out there. This D made 2 goal-line stands with Denver and forced them to kick FGs. They kept Denver out of the endzone and had four 3-and-outs. They didn't get burned on the Bootleg. They were a top 5 D after the first week, and should still be in the top 10. Shoot, Denver didn't even start moving the ball until the 4th quarter.

Add in, the O-Line did give better protection today with Sampson in there and even without Green playing, we were in the game.


The next 2 games will not be as hard as the last 2. Granted they won't be easy Ws, but they will be easier than the last 2. Hopefully Green will be back after the Bye, but if he isn't ready yet, this group has a decent shot of winning the next two games without him.

We've GOT to have Green back by Pittsburg.

I haven't seen the game...yet; so I'll trust that everything you've said here is pretty much the way it went. What is frustrating to me is that in all this time since Peterson took over at GM we have yet to be able to get it together on both sides of the ball.

greg63
09-17-2006, 11:19 PM
Huard did what he was asked to do, which was Trent Dilfer his way through the game and be unspectacular but careful with the football.

Except for the one freak play where he ended up making a reception he did an okay job. Some throws were missed, a few dropped. The timeout wasted before the half hurt us. Overall he looked... average.

You mean kinda like a back-up.

Guru
09-17-2006, 11:20 PM
I haven't seen the game...yet; so I'll trust that everything you've said here is pretty much the way it went. What is frustrating to me is that in all this time since Peterson took over at GM we have yet to be able to get it together on both sides of the ball.


That is exactly why it irritates me when anyone defends Carl because he brought winning football to KC. We may have had winning football but we were ALWAYS lopsided. If we could just find some balance, we would be deadly.

Inspector
09-18-2006, 05:52 AM
Haven't read all of this and this may have been said, but I'm thinking we win, even with Huards performance, if LJ doesn't puke up the ball.

And, maybe the same thing last week.....

burt
09-18-2006, 07:42 AM
Does GoChiefs have pictures of you with someone other than Pink, I for the life of me cannot figure your over enthusiastic defense fo this journeyman on a leash.

Hey, I don't like GoChiefs, and I believe he is right about Huard. Huard did NOT lose this game..way too conservative game calling did.

Gaz
09-18-2006, 07:46 AM
Huard wasn't the reason we only ran 30% of the playbook.

The offensive line is.

Although it has already been quoted, this bears repeating.

xoxo~
Gaz
Not sure why folks are busing on Huard.

Frankie
09-18-2006, 01:49 PM
Can anyone post the QB rankings for yesterday's KC/Denver game?

jspchief
09-18-2006, 02:26 PM
Can anyone post the QB rankings for yesterday's KC/Denver game?Sure.

Plummer: W
Huard: L

Dave Lane
09-18-2006, 02:27 PM
I was never a DH hater but yes he did put up 6 on the Broncos. Impressive.

Dave

jspchief
09-18-2006, 02:27 PM
I was never a DH hater but yes he did put up 6 on the Broncos. Impressive.

DaveCorrection. He put up 3 on the Broncos.

Halfcan
09-18-2006, 02:56 PM
4 fumbles in 2 games-the guy can't even hand off

Lzen
09-18-2006, 03:28 PM
Sure.

Plummer: W
Huard: L

:LOL:

Mr. Laz
09-18-2006, 03:32 PM
with a game plan designed for a rookie QB he still managed to have 2 fumbles and do nothing particularly good during the game.

he doesn't scramble AT ALL ..... doesn't seem to have any pocket presents at all ... gets very nervous when any pressure comes.

Huard did a solid job with a rookie game plan.



we should of just started Croyle if our tackles suck so bad that we can't run anything beyond a rookie offense.

Mr. Laz
09-18-2006, 03:35 PM
Huard wasn't the reason we only ran 30% of the playbook.

The offensive line is.
bu,buh,but our offensive tackles are just fine with Sampson and Turley. :harumph:

Phobia
09-18-2006, 06:59 PM
4 fumbles in 2 games-the guy can't even hand off

About the same amount of turnovers per game Green AVERAGED his first season.

ChiefsLV
09-18-2006, 07:09 PM
About the same amount of turnovers per game Green AVERAGED his first season.

Yeah Green sucked his first season with the Chiefs. So what's your point? I seriously hope you're not implying that Huard could rise to the level of Green.

Phobia
09-18-2006, 07:13 PM
I guess I don't have a point. I'm simply throwing out random facts. Seriously, you can't connect the dots there? It's not like that's an obscure stat.

Deberg_1990
09-18-2006, 07:14 PM
Huard is the next Mark Vlasic!

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 07:18 PM
Solari was more to blame than Huard. He has no sense of what play to call when it is needed. The third-and-2 where we ran right into Denver's stacked box and Bennett got stuffed was a prime example.

OldTownChief
09-18-2006, 07:24 PM
Solari was more to blame than Huard. He has no sense of what play to call when it is needed. The third-and-2 where we ran right into Denver's stacked box and Bennett got stuffed was a prime example.

Can the "gamer" call an audible? He saw the stacked box after Solari called the play. As a pro QB getting paid to play, you'd expect him to possess the intelligence to audible.

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 07:25 PM
The guy was starting for the first time in a billion years.T here's no way they gave him license to audible. We're lucky he called that timeout before the half. He had the presence of mind, and we avoided possible disaster.

OldTownChief
09-18-2006, 07:28 PM
You talk like the guy's a rookie. How long has he been in the league as a professional QB?

OldTownChief
09-18-2006, 07:32 PM
There are backup QB's all over the league that don't have to be treated like a baby when called upon to do the job they're being paid to do. Especially the veterans.

If he was unable to preform without having his hand held throughout the game, he shouldnt have made the squad.

Deberg_1990
09-18-2006, 07:39 PM
There are backup QB's all over the league that don't have to be treated like a baby when called upon to do the job they're being paid to do. Especially the veterans.

If he was unable to preform without having his hand held throughout the game, he shouldnt have made the squad.

Agreed. Look how the Steelers preformed last week with Charlie Batch. (another journyman).

Huard didnt impress me much either. He made throws most high schoolers should have been able to make. The best thing i can say about him is that he wasnt awful. If we are going to baby a QB, we should just throw Croyle in there.

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 07:44 PM
Croyle = guaranteed loss.

Deberg_1990
09-18-2006, 07:47 PM
Croyle = guaranteed loss.

Ummm......we didnt win with Huard did we??

OldTownChief
09-18-2006, 07:53 PM
I'll say it again. The only reason this game was close was because of defence and defence alone. Huard had ZERO to do with keeping the game close, he led the team to 6 points while the D held them to 9. I don't blame Solari for calling a game that he knew this QB could handle. If our coaching staff doesn't have confidence in Huard, Huard should not be on this team.

jspchief
09-18-2006, 08:30 PM
Croyle = guaranteed loss.Yea, because the 3 points per game Huard provides is a sure win.

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 08:34 PM
Again, just because we scored 6 points against the Broncos does NOT MEAN we're going to average 6 points a game with Huard.

the Talking Can
09-18-2006, 08:49 PM
Again, just because we scored 6 points against the Broncos does NOT MEAN we're going to average 6 points a game with Huard.

no, Herm guarantees that....

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 08:52 PM
no, Herm guarantees that....

Like hell he does. This is getting ****ing ridiculous.

Mosbonian
09-18-2006, 09:12 PM
Like hell he does. This is getting ****ing ridiculous.

Not half as ridiculous as the below statement...

Croyle = guaranteed loss.

mmaddog
*******

Short Leash Hootie
09-18-2006, 09:15 PM
Solari was more to blame than Huard. He has no sense of what play to call when it is needed. The third-and-2 where we ran right into Denver's stacked box and Bennett got stuffed was a prime example.
I think I mentioned how much that playcall pissed me off...

Short Leash Hootie
09-18-2006, 09:15 PM
Oh and, maddogg has no idea what he's talking about. Typical "casual" fan who's mind lies in a "fantasy" world.

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 09:18 PM
So, is Huard comparable to Big Ben? After all, he couldn't even get 3 points!

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 09:20 PM
Oh and, maddogg has no idea what he's talking about. Typical "casual" fan who's mind lies in a "fantasy" world.
Maddog has played the game at the collegiate level. Have you?

jspchief
09-18-2006, 09:21 PM
So, is Huard comparable to Big Ben? After all, he couldn't even get 3 points!Don't be such a dumbass.

Short Leash Hootie
09-18-2006, 09:22 PM
Maddog has played the game at the collegiate level. Have you?
That means a whole lot of NOTHING to me.

Are you kidding me here? How does him playing "collegiately" mean he knows what he's talking about from a pro standpoint? Shit, unless he was a QB for a division 1 team his input on how Croyle starting would equate to Chiefs victories means jack shit to me. Croyle couldn't even win games at Alabama...

Short Leash Hootie
09-18-2006, 09:22 PM
Don't be such a dumbass.
The only 'dumbasses' in this thread are the ones calling for Croyle...

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 09:25 PM
That means a whole lot of NOTHING to me.

Are you kidding me here? How does him playing "collegiately" mean he knows what he's talking about from a pro standpoint? Shit, unless he was a QB for a division 1 team his input on how Croyle starting would equate to Chiefs victories means jack shit to me. Croyle couldn't even win games at Alabama...
So you, the guy who has never played football feels the right to call a college player a "casual fan"? You sound like a whole lot of nothing to me.

Short Leash Hootie
09-18-2006, 09:28 PM
So you, the guy who has never played football feels the right to call a college player a "casual fan"? You sound like a whole lot of nothing to me.
I don't give a **** about a guy who played division 3 football (which is what he probably did)...

Whoopdee****ingdoo! I live with a guy who played division 2 football and I know a hell of a lot more about football than he does, by his admission.

Anybody who thinks an unproven third round pick who was 1-9 in his only preseason game deserves to be starting over a guy who has been in the league for a long time and has been in our system for 3 years has no idea what he's talking about, division 3 or no division 3.

Mosbonian
09-18-2006, 09:30 PM
That means a whole lot of NOTHING to me.

Are you kidding me here? How does him playing "collegiately" mean he knows what he's talking about from a pro standpoint? Shit, unless he was a QB for a division 1 team his input on how Croyle starting would equate to Chiefs victories means jack shit to me. Croyle couldn't even win games at Alabama...

Man.....you are absolutely hilarious...

You seem to be the omnipotent, all-knowing, all-seeing Carnak The Magnificent....so tell the rest of us how we know "jack-shit" and you are the next Hank Stram, Bill Parcells, Tom Landry....

Fact is opinions are like assholes...everyone has one. The difference with yours is you act like an asshole too.

And BTW, please show me where I quoted that I wanted Croyle to start....all I have said to this point is that Huard isn't a "gamer" and I owe no apology to anyone....and don't have any crow to eat.

mmaddog
*******

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 09:30 PM
I don't give a **** about a guy who played division 3 football (which is what he probably did)...

Whoopdee****ingdoo! I live with a guy who played division 2 football and I know a hell of a lot more about football than he does, by his admission.

Anybody who thinks an unproven third round pick who was 1-9 in his only preseason game deserves to be starting over a guy who has been in the league for a long time and has been in our system for 3 years has no idea what he's talking about, division 3 or no division 3.
What qualifies you to judge anybody's football knowledge? You were still pissing your pants 10 years ago.

Mosbonian
09-18-2006, 09:32 PM
Oh and, maddogg has no idea what he's talking about. Typical "casual" fan who's mind lies in a "fantasy" world.

Getting under your skin because I don't drink your Kool-Aid? Sounds to me like your getting pretty pissed....

The only one living in the fantasy world is you....please stay there.

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian
09-18-2006, 09:36 PM
Although it has already been quoted, this bears repeating.

xoxo~
Gaz
Not sure why folks are busing on Huard.


Gaz:

I'm not "busting" on Huard....I'm just not buying that he is a "gamer". I am not happy with the game that was called to mask his inefficiencies. I don't hate him...I don't like him.

I'm just not happy with "adequate".

mmaddog
*******

Mosbonian
09-18-2006, 09:41 PM
Anybody who thinks an unproven third round pick who was 1-9 in his only preseason game deserves to be starting over a guy who has been in the league for a long time and has been in our system for 3 years has no idea what he's talking about, division 3 or no division 3.

And any guy who believes that a guy who hasn't started a game in 3 years and done nothing but hold a clipboard for all that time is better than getting a more seasoned QB to start for this team has absolutely no f*cking idea what he is talking about....football experience or not.

mmaddog
*******

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 09:45 PM
I think Hootie is a very good candidate to replace our current Planet dumbass of the week. Where is Mecca anyhow? I haven't seen him for a couple of days.

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 09:45 PM
I think Hootie is a very good candidate to replace our current Planet dumbass of the week. Where is Mecca anyhow? I haven't seen him for a couple of days.

Shut up you old fart. You didn't even know how to look up simple rushing statistics until I showed you how.

Mosbonian
09-18-2006, 09:50 PM
Shut up you old fart. You didn't even know how to look up simple rushing statistics until I showed you how.

And you have room to talk...had Phil not taken you under his wing you'd still be getting your head handed to you on a more regular basis.

Glass house.....stones....

mmaddog
*******

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 09:55 PM
Shut up you old fart. You didn't even know how to look up simple rushing statistics until I showed you how.
You're full of shit , as usual, you fat, ignorant piece of shit. By the way, how do your folks explain you to their friends? Folks must wonder how they allow a total loser such as yourself to still sponge off his parents. Just curious.

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 09:59 PM
And you have room to talk...had Phil not taken you under his wing you'd still be getting your head handed to your on a more regular basis.

Glass house.....stones....

mmaddog
*******
It takes but a run through this thread to see how many posters agree with that dipshit. And the funny part is that he thinks he's popular despite numerous indications otherwise.

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 10:22 PM
It takes but a run through this thread to see how many posters agree with that dipshit. And the funny part is that he thinks he's popular despite numerous indications otherwise.

I'm pretty popular. I do alot for this place. More than your old worthless ass. I'd tell you to post a poll, but you have no clue how to do it. Moron.

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 10:33 PM
I'm pretty popular. I do alot for this place. More than your old worthless ass. I'd tell you to post a poll, but you have no clue how to do it. Moron.
You have a big mouth and a big ass but that's about it. If the subject isn't the Chiefs or Star Wars you are totally lost. You are a complete and total loser. Even III can get a date. You fail at everything.

Mosbonian
09-18-2006, 10:36 PM
I'm pretty popular. I do alot for this place. More than your old worthless ass. I'd tell you to post a poll, but you have no clue how to do it. Moron.

Popular in what sense? Kicktoy....foible...Star Wars aficionado....

We are all popular in some way for something....

Busting on someone else when you have your own deficiencies isn't very smart.

mmaddog
*******

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 10:39 PM
Oh, yeah, you impotent f*ck, you haven't answered my question. How do your parents explain your worthless ass to their friends? Do they just tell them you're retarded or what? You pretty much are retarded save the Chiefs and Star Wars. Otherwise you wouldn't f*ck with a guy that has you by 40 IQ points. I think you do it for the exposure I provide you.

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 10:41 PM
Skip, I could totally kick your ass. With one hand tied behind my back. I bet you creak when you walk.

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 10:48 PM
Skip, I could totally kick your ass. With one hand tied behind my back. I bet you creak when you walk.
Let's find out fatso. What game are you going to attend?

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 10:54 PM
Just so you can charge me with assault? I don't think so. I take pity on the elderly, anyway. If you want, I'll bring you some meals on wheels.

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 10:57 PM
Just so you can charge me with assault? I don't think so. I take pity on the elderly, anyway. If you want, I'll bring you some meals on wheels.
Just what I thought, all mouth and no go. Typical of a pudgy momma's boy with no guts. I've lifted weights all my life. Even at 61, you wouldn't last 10 seconds with me.

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 10:59 PM
Do you ever wonder why your life is so full of anger, Skip?

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 11:04 PM
Do you ever wonder why your life is so full of anger, Skip?
Do you ever wonder why life has rejected you, dropout?

stumppy
09-18-2006, 11:04 PM
Skip, I could totally kick your ass. With one hand tied behind my back. I bet you creak when you walk.


You should practice falling down.........alot.

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 11:05 PM
Do you ever wonder why life has rejected you, dropout?

You're entertaining, at least.

Skip Towne
09-18-2006, 11:08 PM
You're entertaining, at least.
That's because I'm a lot smarter than you are. Not to mention my 40 year advantage in age and experience. You're childs play.

Count Zarth
09-18-2006, 11:12 PM
Do you have a bedpan or do you keep getting up in the night?

whoman69
09-18-2006, 11:12 PM
That pretty much sums up my feelings as well. I was devestated last week. This week, even though we lost, I'm hopeful from what I saw out there. This D made 2 goal-line stands with Denver and forced them to kick FGs. They kept Denver out of the endzone and had four 3-and-outs. They didn't get burned on the Bootleg. They were a top 5 D after the first week, and should still be in the top 10. Shoot, Denver didn't even start moving the ball until the 4th quarter.

Add in, the O-Line did give better protection today with Sampson in there and even without Green playing, we were in the game.


The next 2 games will not be as hard as the last 2. Granted they won't be easy Ws, but they will be easier than the last 2. Hopefully Green will be back after the Bye, but if he isn't ready yet, this group has a decent shot of winning the next two games without him.

We've GOT to have Green back by Pittsburg.
I agree with you on the defensive side of the ball.

On the offensive side of the ball I can't get excited about scoring 6 points with no TDs and only 133 yards on 23 passing attempts. From what I can see of the play by play, we threw the ball longer than 10 yard down the field twice, once to Kennison for a 37 yard completion and once to Gonzales incomplete when we needed a deep ball to score late in the game. We had no play action going despite a very effective run game. With our hands on the ball with 3 minutes left we did not throw the ball until after the two minute warning, blowing a minute on three runs that netted 11 yards. Our first play after the two minute warning is a screen for no gain that took 45 seconds off the clock and then we ran twice more taking another 30 seconds off. 2nd and 13 after a time out we try another dink to Kennison which fails. Finally we had a desperation long pass to Gonzales on 3rd and long with only 27 seconds left and needing 25 yards to get into FG range. What does all this tell me? That the coaching staff had zero notion that Huard could lead us to the winning score. We were more concerned with taking time off the clock so that Denver didn't have a chance to win in regulation. We played not to lose. Problem with that is we didn't give ourselves a chance to win. Again, that comes down to no confidence.

Short Leash Hootie
09-18-2006, 11:23 PM
man, skip is a huge douche. People don't actually like him around here, do they?

Phobia
09-18-2006, 11:24 PM
I'll bring you some meals on wheels.

Heh.

Short Leash Hootie
09-18-2006, 11:28 PM
What qualifies you to judge anybody's football knowledge? You were still pissing your pants 10 years ago.
Come on, skip. I still piss my pants! Don't give me too much credit.

And as the movie Grandma's Boy would say, 'YOUR SHIT'S WEAK!'