PDA

View Full Version : Damon Huard... The Rest of the Story


jspchief
09-18-2006, 09:43 AM
This thread is for those of you that came away from the Denver game excited about what Damon Huard did. I wanted to put some perspective on his performance.

Throws he made that were longer than 6 yards: 5
Completions made beyond 6 yards: 1


Huard threw the ball further than 6 yards downfield only 5 times, one was complete, one was a drop by an open man, and the other 3 were bad throws (either off target, into coverage, or both).

He had a high completion percentage. Any NFL QB who throws 80% of their passes within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage is going to accomplish that. Statistically, it was a good peformance. But the results were of little value. It's like saying a RB that averages 3.4 ypc carry is good because that means he'll get a first down after every three carries... Statistically it makes sense, but in real life execution it doesn't work that way.

It does us no good to have a high completion QB that leads an ineffective offense. We had two scoring drives all day, and zero scoring drives in the second half. This is not going to win us many games.

HemiEd
09-18-2006, 09:53 AM
This offense is the closest thing I have seen to training wheels since Marv Levy's "Winged T."

JBucc
09-18-2006, 09:55 AM
The leash he is on makes Plummer's leash look like Brett Favre's.

Archie F. Swin
09-18-2006, 09:57 AM
Upon further review, Huard did not fumble the ball on Denver's six.

HemiEd
09-18-2006, 09:59 AM
The leash he is on makes Plummer's leash look like Brett Favre's.

I am not sure I would call it a leash, just an admission that our Tackles can not hold a block long enough to be effective past 5 yards. No more seven step drops until this line improves. :(

jspchief
09-18-2006, 10:00 AM
Upon further review, Huard did not fumble the ball on Denver's six.Thanks for that completely irrelevant tidbit.

JBucc
09-18-2006, 10:02 AM
I am not sure I would call it a leash, just an admission that our Tackles can not hold a block long enough to be effective past 5 yards. No more seven step drops until this line improves. :(I would've at least liked to have given Sampson a chance to show he can pass block. Oh well at least we'll get a win vs. San Fran.(I hope)

htismaqe
09-18-2006, 10:05 AM
I am not sure I would call it a leash, just an admission that our Tackles can not hold a block long enough to be effective past 5 yards. No more seven step drops until this line improves. :(

Yep.

Archie F. Swin
09-18-2006, 10:06 AM
Thanks for that completely irrelevant tidbit.

Looks to me like you're associating Damon's lack of long balls to a loss in Denver. I'm just offering up another [probably more significant] reason why we lost

Shag
09-18-2006, 10:06 AM
Additionally, after halftime, Huard completed passes totaling 45 yards (37 of that on one play), and <strike>ZERO</strike> ONE first down.

JBucc
09-18-2006, 10:08 AM
Additionally, after halftime, Huard completed passes totaling 45 yards (37 of that on one play), and ZERO first downs.Since he had a 37 yard play he would have to have had at least one first down.

Shag
09-18-2006, 10:09 AM
Since he had a 37 yard play he would have to have had at least one first down.

Details, details. Oops... :)

the Talking Can
09-18-2006, 10:10 AM
Herm is responsible for us not trying - even once - to throw it in the end zone.

Phobia
09-18-2006, 10:11 AM
FWIW, I've never suggested Huard is a world beater nor am I going to run out and buy a Huard jersey. I think he's a capable QB in the NFL (which means he's pretty darn talented) and the Chiefs won't lose games because of him.

My defense of Huard is due to the people who have insisted that the Chiefs will lose every game until Green returns. As we saw yesterday, that stance is ludicrous. You can whine about Huard's leash all day long. The FACT is that he EXECUTED as well as he could in a hostile environment with 2 questionable tackles. That's pretty impressive.

ChiefsFanatic
09-18-2006, 10:13 AM
This thread is for those of you that came away from the Denver game excited about what Damon Huard did. I wanted to put some perspective on his performance.

Throws he made that were longer than 6 yards: 5
Completions made beyond 6 yards: 1


Huard threw the ball further than 6 yards downfield only 5 times, one was complete, one was a drop by an open man, and the other 3 were bad throws (either off target, into coverage, or both).

He had a high completion percentage. Any NFL QB who throws 80% of their passes within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage is going to accomplish that. Statistically, it was a good peformance. But the results were of little value. It's like saying a RB that averages 3.4 ypc carry is good because that means he'll get a first down after every three carries... Statistically it makes sense, but in real life execution it doesn't work that way.

It does us no good to have a high completion QB that leads an ineffective offense. We had two scoring drives all day, and zero scoring drives in the second half. This is not going to win us many games.


I thought he did well, especially in the fourth quarter when he hit every defensive linemen in the hands. If they could catch, his completion percentage would have been even better..........................oh, wait............

jspchief
09-18-2006, 10:13 AM
Looks to me like you're associating Damon's lack of long balls to a loss in Denver. I'm just offering up another [probably more significant] reason why we lostWell, I guess if you are unable to comprehend the very first sentence of this thread...

StcChief
09-18-2006, 10:36 AM
JSP is Right.
Stats say good day.

The TG drop kinda rare, 9/10 he makes that catch.

He is not the answer we need, I think we all Know this.

sedated
09-18-2006, 10:57 AM
The TG drop kinda rare, 9/10 he makes that catch.

apparently you haven't seen TG recently

Dark Horse
09-18-2006, 11:23 AM
I'll put some perspective on Huards performance. He didn't lose the game for us ,which is what a back up Q.B. is supposed to do especially on the road in a tough environment.

B_Ambuehl
09-18-2006, 11:32 AM
Yeah he did lose the game. He threw the ball into a crowd of arms, caught the ball instead of knocking it down, then fumbled the football. Get that back and it's a chiefs win.

Now I know people are gonna say, "well Larry Johnson fumbled too"......and that's a legit gripe....but would Green have put himself in that situation that Huard did ?? Probably not. Even with the coaching staff doing everything it could to protect him Huard still managed to f**k it up....and he'll continue to do so as long as he's playing.

Dark Horse
09-18-2006, 11:35 AM
Yeah he did lose the game. He threw the ball into a crowd of arms, caught the ball instead of knocking it down, then fumbled the football. Get that back and it's a chiefs win.

Now I know people are gonna say, "well Larry Johnson fumbled too"......and that's a legit gripe....but would Green have put himself in that situation that Huard did ?? Probably not. Even with the coaching staff doing everything it could to protect him Huard still managed to f**k it up....and he'll continue to do so as long as he's playing.

Name one game that Green has started for us where he never made a single mistake.

Phobia
09-18-2006, 11:43 AM
Ybut would Green have put himself in that situation that Huard did ?? Probably not.

What you're supposing here is that either:
1. Trent Green would never have a ball batted at the LOS.
Since we know that's not factual then:
2. Trent Green would not have caught the ball and then fumbled.
Since we know Trent Green has fumbled before, we cannot assume that he is incapable of fumbling so we're left speculating about him catching a batted pass. Would Green have caught that ball? I can't be certain. I think QB's make those decisions based upon competitiveness. I think they know it's probably smart to smack the ball to the ground but at the same time they want to make a play. Is Green competitive? Certainly.

In truth, I don't know if Green would have done that. But I also know that you can't for certain state that he wouldn't have.

Calcountry
09-18-2006, 11:53 AM
This offense is the closest thing I have seen to training wheels since Marv Levy's "Winged T."At times, I wish they would have went to that, at least the D wouldn't know what direction the ball was going.

hawkchief
09-18-2006, 11:53 AM
At least we don't have Aaron Brooks, or that other guy that played for the Riaders yesterday. Huard makes me feel pretty lucky, after watching those clowns.

HemiEd
09-18-2006, 11:55 AM
One of the announcers made a comment stating that, it is "QB training 101" to bat the ball down. For what thats worth, if anything.

B_Ambuehl
09-18-2006, 12:00 PM
The point is that is the EXACT type of situation the coaching staff tried and tried and TRIED to keep Huard out of. Since you know he's not gonna "make" any plays you at least try to keep him from costing you anything. So you don't let him drop back and set up in the pocket where he might get hit and fumble and you don't let him throw the ball down the field. He manages to put himself in volatile situation exactly ONE time...and what does he do??? Turns the football over!!

Backup QB turning football over = costing you the game

jspchief
09-18-2006, 12:04 PM
One of the announcers made a comment stating that it is QB training 101 to bat the ball down. For what thats worth, if anything.Huard said as much in a post game interview. He acknowledged that he knew he was supposed to knock it down and flat out said " I screwed up".

I don't really blame him for that though. It's a decision that's made in a fraction of a second in the heat of the moment.

At the same time, I can't help but wonder if the D-line wasn't starting to get their hands up more knowing that all he was doing was throwing short dumps. We ran the same type of plays all game. The linemen had to know that odds were low that they'd get to him before he got rid of it, but since everything was a short pass they'd could bat passes by getting their hands up. It wasn't the only batted ball late in the game.

Calcountry
09-18-2006, 12:57 PM
Huard said as much in a post game interview. He acknowledged that he knew he was supposed to knock it down and flat out said " I screwed up".

I don't really blame him for that though. It's a decision that's made in a fraction of a second in the heat of the moment.

At the same time, I can't help but wonder if the D-line wasn't starting to get their hands up more knowing that all he was doing was throwing short dumps. We ran the same type of plays all game. The linemen had to know that odds were low that they'd get to him before he got rid of it, but since everything was a short pass they'd could bat passes by getting their hands up. It wasn't the only batted ball late in the game.By the end of the game, they should have done the fake slant pass/quick draw to LJ at least once. Try to take advantage of them dudes jumping up to block the pass.

KC-TBB
09-18-2006, 01:00 PM
BRADY---BRADY---BRADY...CROWLE!!!!

HemiEd
09-18-2006, 01:06 PM
Huard said as much in a post game interview. He acknowledged that he knew he was supposed to knock it down and flat out said " I screwed up".

I don't really blame him for that though. It's a decision that's made in a fraction of a second in the heat of the moment.

At the same time, I can't help but wonder if the D-line wasn't starting to get their hands up more knowing that all he was doing was throwing short dumps. We ran the same type of plays all game. The linemen had to know that odds were low that they'd get to him before he got rid of it, but since everything was a short pass they'd could bat passes by getting their hands up. It wasn't the only batted ball late in the game.


I totally agree, and also understand why we could not throw deep. But why, why did we not run Dante Hall on a reverse? I was calling for that play often, when my Direct TV was not "searching for a signal."
Do you think it would have worked in a couple of those situations?

RedThat
09-18-2006, 01:21 PM
Herm is responsible for us not trying - even once - to throw it in the end zone.

Well, I don't know if I'd blame Herm in particular. I think he put together a good game plan, and coached a good game.

We got into their end what was it? 2, 3 times?

On the first drive, in the 1st qtr he made the right calls. Just pound the ball with LJ, and try to drive him into the endzone. Unfortunately he fumbled. Even if we got a FG on that drive, we woulda had 3 points. But we turned the ball over. Can't do that. Especialy on the road, against a good football team. Thats the difference in the ball game. And to be honest, I think Herm made the right decisions going with LJ. Im not sure if I'd want to pass in that situation? especially when your goal to goal, and knowing Denver is going to stack the line, also knowing you gave up 7 sacks last week to Cincy? I think Im running the ball, and throwing in as many blockers as possible.

I also want to comment on another drive, near the end of the 1st half, we got into Denvers end. HUARD screwed up because he didn't know what play to run. We had 3rd and goal with 9 seconds left to go with ZERO timeouts. Im sure we coulda just went pass, but, say Huard got sacked? Would you trust this pass protection in that type of situation? You have to look at those little things. Herm made the right call by going for the FG.

I don't blame Herm for not getting us ito the endzone. He called a good game.

patteeu
09-18-2006, 02:20 PM
I also want to comment on another drive, near the end of the 1st half, we got into Denvers end. HUARD screwed up because he didn't know what play to run. We had 3rd and goal with 9 seconds left to go with ZERO timeouts. Im sure we coulda just went pass, but, say Huard got sacked? Would you trust this pass protection in that type of situation? You have to look at those little things. Herm made the right call by going for the FG.

I don't blame Herm for not getting us ito the endzone. He called a good game.

Just a minor quibble, but unless one of them addressed this in their press conference, you don't really know whether it was Huard, Solari or Herm (or someone else) who was the problem here.