PDA

View Full Version : Peter King Supports Green As Starter (Kinda)


Direckshun
11-06-2006, 11:47 AM
He doesn't come out and say it, but yeah (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/peter_king/11/05/mmqb/3.html).
3. I think Herman Edwards has done a terrific job with the Chiefs. Just terrific. He hasn't always been the best game manager or had the most consistent philosophy. But in coming back from the 45-7 loss at Pittsburgh three weeks ago, Edwards read his team the riot act and changed the way his team approached football. "I was not the Good Humor fairy that week. We were going to be a physical team after Pittsburgh. We were going to have a different philosophy,'' he said over the phone from St. Louis after the Chiefs' third straight victory over a winning team. Watching the Chiefs now, they're the team they were a year ago: the mashers who unleash Larry Johnson ever week, with a quarterback playing a complementary role.

4. I think Herm's got a heck of a tough decision to make at quarterback. Trent Green will be ready to play in two weeks, from the sound of it, against Oakland at home Nov. 19. Damon Huard is 5-2 as Green's replacement. He's completed 65 percent of his passes, with 11 touchdowns and just one interception. Regardless of Herm not wanting Green to lose his job because of injury, I could understand the Chiefs not wanting to change the current chemistry, which is so good right now. As I said on NBC Sunday night, Edwards said Green will be his starter when he comes back, but he also left the door open a little bit and told me: "It'll be my decision, and it'll be a tough decision to make.''

Really hard call. Green's hallmark is playing mistake-free (he threw 10 interceptions and had 507 attempts last year), and I would make the argument that a healthy Green will make more big plays that a healthy Huard. Let's take it a step further than just one year with Green. Let's not forget that over the last four years, he's been one of the safest quarterbacks in football. I mean, he threw 52 picks and attempted 2,056 passes from 2002-05. I daresay those are numbers Huard would kill to have if he played four solid seasons.

ARRG. I keep going back and forth on this. Very frustrating.

Basileus777
11-06-2006, 11:53 AM
For once King gets it exactly right.

The Dude Abides
11-06-2006, 11:57 AM
I like Trent, but we must go with Huard.

JimNasium
11-06-2006, 12:01 PM
I like Trent, but we must go with Huard.
You'll be disappointed then when "they" not "we" give the reins back to Trent. Perhaps you should make a call to Herm. If you can convince him to go with Damon then I'll believe all this "we" stuff.

Wallcrawler
11-06-2006, 12:02 PM
I really dont get the uncertainty here people. Really.

Damon Huard has held a clipboard on the sideline for 11 years for a reason.

Yes. He has done a good a good job in relief of Trent Green. Better than most of us probably expected. But as soon as Trent Green is 100% healthy again, Trent Green is the leader of this offense.

How quickly you seem to forget that Green has been one of the top QBs in the league for the past 5 years. Topping 4,000 yards on a regular basis. He doesnt turn the football over.

Huard is not bringing ANYTHING to the table that Trent Green does not. Now, were Huard a mobile, running QB that was making plays with his feet in bad pass protection situations, then maybe I could see where people are going with this.

But Huard is the same type of QB that Green is. Pocket Passer who stands in and delivers the pass, with limited mobility.


I find it hilarious that people just all of a sudden want to kick Trent Green to the curb simply because Huard has done what a backup QB is paid to do, manage the team until the starter returns.

LARRY JOHNSON has been the key to Huard's success. Its not like Huard is going out there putting it up 35 times a game and racking up 300+ yard games week in and week out.

Trent Green knows the intricacies of this offense, knows the playbook in and out. When Green comes back into the lineup, the Chiefs offense becomes even more dangerous than it is now.

The offensive line has had some time to play together and provide some semblance of pass protection that simply was not there in game 1 where Green was obliterated when he was forced to run again for a first down.


Once again, I recognize Huard has done a good job in the absence of Trent Green. But Huard is not the quarterback that Trent Green is.

JimNasium
11-06-2006, 12:05 PM
I really dont get the uncertainty here people. Really.

Damon Huard has held a clipboard on the sideline for 11 years for a reason.

Yes. He has done a good a good job in relief of Trent Green. Better than most of us probably expected. But as soon as Trent Green is 100% healthy again, Trent Green is the leader of this offense.

How quickly you seem to forget that Green has been one of the top QBs in the league for the past 5 years. Topping 4,000 yards on a regular basis. He doesnt turn the football over.

Huard is not bringing ANYTHING to the table that Trent Green does not. Now, were Huard a mobile, running QB that was making plays with his feet in bad pass protection situations, then maybe I could see where people are going with this.

But Huard is the same type of QB that Green is. Pocket Passer who stands in and delivers the pass, with limited mobility.


I find it hilarious that people just all of a sudden want to kick Trent Green to the curb simply because Huard has done what a backup QB is paid to do, manage the team until the starter returns.

LARRY JOHNSON has been the key to Huard's success. Its not like Huard is going out there putting it up 35 times a game and racking up 300+ yard games week in and week out.

Trent Green knows the intricacies of this offense, knows the playbook in and out. When Green comes back into the lineup, the Chiefs offense becomes even more dangerous than it is now.

The offensive line has had some time to play together and provide some semblance of pass protection that simply was not there in game 1 where Green was obliterated when he was forced to run again for a first down.


Once again, I recognize Huard has done a good job in the absence of Trent Green. But Huard is not the quarterback that Trent Green is.
Well put. ChiefsPlanet should be renamed FicklePlanet.

Calcountry
11-06-2006, 12:07 PM
I really dont get the uncertainty here people. Really.

Damon Huard has held a clipboard on the sideline for 11 years for a reason.

Yes. He has done a good a good job in relief of Trent Green. Better than most of us probably expected. But as soon as Trent Green is 100% healthy again, Trent Green is the leader of this offense.

How quickly you seem to forget that Green has been one of the top QBs in the league for the past 5 years. Topping 4,000 yards on a regular basis. He doesnt turn the football over.

Huard is not bringing ANYTHING to the table that Trent Green does not. Now, were Huard a mobile, running QB that was making plays with his feet in bad pass protection situations, then maybe I could see where people are going with this.

But Huard is the same type of QB that Green is. Pocket Passer who stands in and delivers the pass, with limited mobility.


I find it hilarious that people just all of a sudden want to kick Trent Green to the curb simply because Huard has done what a backup QB is paid to do, manage the team until the starter returns.

LARRY JOHNSON has been the key to Huard's success. Its not like Huard is going out there putting it up 35 times a game and racking up 300+ yard games week in and week out.

Trent Green knows the intricacies of this offense, knows the playbook in and out. When Green comes back into the lineup, the Chiefs offense becomes even more dangerous than it is now.

The offensive line has had some time to play together and provide some semblance of pass protection that simply was not there in game 1 where Green was obliterated when he was forced to run again for a first down.


Once again, I recognize Huard has done a good job in the absence of Trent Green. But Huard is not the quarterback that Trent Green is.I agree with you, I just hope that when Trent comes down, if no one is open, he just throws the ball out of bounds instead of trying to make a play by running. He is not Michael Vick.

StcChief
11-06-2006, 12:10 PM
Green if sharp and healthy get's his job back.

You don't lose your job to injury if you truely back....

The comparison between Grbac/Gannon deal is NOT quite the same this year.
Marty made the wrong choice they were two starters competing.

the Talking Can
11-06-2006, 12:13 PM
I really dont get the uncertainty here people. Really.

Damon Huard has held a clipboard on the sideline for 11 years for a reason.

Yes. He has done a good a good job in relief of Trent Green. Better than most of us probably expected. But as soon as Trent Green is 100% healthy again, Trent Green is the leader of this offense.

How quickly you seem to forget that Green has been one of the top QBs in the league for the past 5 years. Topping 4,000 yards on a regular basis. He doesnt turn the football over.

Huard is not bringing ANYTHING to the table that Trent Green does not. Now, were Huard a mobile, running QB that was making plays with his feet in bad pass protection situations, then maybe I could see where people are going with this.

But Huard is the same type of QB that Green is. Pocket Passer who stands in and delivers the pass, with limited mobility.


I find it hilarious that people just all of a sudden want to kick Trent Green to the curb simply because Huard has done what a backup QB is paid to do, manage the team until the starter returns.

LARRY JOHNSON has been the key to Huard's success. Its not like Huard is going out there putting it up 35 times a game and racking up 300+ yard games week in and week out.

Trent Green knows the intricacies of this offense, knows the playbook in and out. When Green comes back into the lineup, the Chiefs offense becomes even more dangerous than it is now.

The offensive line has had some time to play together and provide some semblance of pass protection that simply was not there in game 1 where Green was obliterated when he was forced to run again for a first down.


Once again, I recognize Huard has done a good job in the absence of Trent Green. But Huard is not the quarterback that Trent Green is.

rep

milkman
11-06-2006, 09:25 PM
I agree with you, I just hope that when Trent comes down, if no one is open, he just throws the ball out of bounds instead of trying to make a play by running. He is not Michael Vick.

And we can all thank our lucky stars for that.


As for Peter King, I could really care less what this moron ever has to say.

Direckshun
11-06-2006, 09:44 PM
I really dont get the uncertainty here people. Really.

Damon Huard has held a clipboard on the sideline for 11 years for a reason.

Yes. He has done a good a good job in relief of Trent Green. Better than most of us probably expected. But as soon as Trent Green is 100% healthy again, Trent Green is the leader of this offense.

How quickly you seem to forget that Green has been one of the top QBs in the league for the past 5 years. Topping 4,000 yards on a regular basis. He doesnt turn the football over.

Huard is not bringing ANYTHING to the table that Trent Green does not. Now, were Huard a mobile, running QB that was making plays with his feet in bad pass protection situations, then maybe I could see where people are going with this.

But Huard is the same type of QB that Green is. Pocket Passer who stands in and delivers the pass, with limited mobility.


I find it hilarious that people just all of a sudden want to kick Trent Green to the curb simply because Huard has done what a backup QB is paid to do, manage the team until the starter returns.

LARRY JOHNSON has been the key to Huard's success. Its not like Huard is going out there putting it up 35 times a game and racking up 300+ yard games week in and week out.

Trent Green knows the intricacies of this offense, knows the playbook in and out. When Green comes back into the lineup, the Chiefs offense becomes even more dangerous than it is now.

The offensive line has had some time to play together and provide some semblance of pass protection that simply was not there in game 1 where Green was obliterated when he was forced to run again for a first down.


Once again, I recognize Huard has done a good job in the absence of Trent Green. But Huard is not the quarterback that Trent Green is.
Man oh man what a great post. (Rep.) But I believe there are two solid sides to this argument, and both have water. To prove it, I'll play devil's advocate as best as I can to your argument (although it'll pale in comparison to yours). I'm just trying to illustrate why I go back and forth.

It's not because I'm fickle, or weak. It's because I really, really want to win and I believe Huard is the safest bet to do that.

The past may matter when you evaluate Trent at this point, but it doesn't matter when you evaluate Huard. Huard could have been studying chemistry for the past 20 years of his life for all I care, but when somebody steps out on the field and plays his role as perfectly has Huard has (and he really has filled it perfectly), it shouldn't matter how long he's been inactive. He's 5-2 and performed wonderfully.

Trent has been the leader of the offense, but Huard has undoubtably won them over. The Chiefs are human, they doubted Huard but have come to fully trust in him. And when we're in a race with the Chargers and Broncos, one in which there is no room for error, bringing in a QB and having to earn the huddle over is a risk. Not a huge risk, but one that can be avoided by keeping Huard in.

Just like Huard brings nothing new to the table that Green doesn't, almost the exact same thing can be said in return. The one bonus Green brought that Huard can't is that Green's past performance demands respect from even the best defenses. But if Green falters in his opening start(s), that will be completely negated. Again, it's a risk, and with an effective quarterback at the helm right now, it's an unnecessary risk.

I don't want to kick Trent to the curb. But I feel that it's necessary to keep him as a 2nd stringer as long as there is absolutely no room for error. There are ways to ease him in that I'd be more comfortable with... playing him in garbage time to see how he fares, for example. But to start him outright is too dramatic a swing, and a misstep could cost us ground we can't afford to lose.

LJ is the key to this offense, and whoever quarterbacks at this point compliments him rather than the other way around. The QB is important in Solari's offense, but not necessarily the backbone. Huard is the perfect compliment to LJ's power running, and any improvement at this point, even from a top flight Green, would be marginal.

Direckshun
11-06-2006, 10:05 PM
It's not because I'm fickle, or weak. It's because I really, really want to win and I believe Huard is the safest bet to do that.

The past may matter when you evaluate Trent at this point, but it doesn't matter when you evaluate Huard. Huard could have been studying chemistry for the past 20 years of his life for all I care, but when somebody steps out on the field and plays his role as perfectly has Huard has (and he really has filled it perfectly), it shouldn't matter how long he's been inactive. He's 5-2 and performed wonderfully.

Trent has been the leader of the offense, but Huard has undoubtably won them over. The Chiefs are human, they doubted Huard but have come to fully trust in him. And when we're in a race with the Chargers and Broncos, one in which there is no room for error, bringing in a QB and having to earn the huddle over is a risk. Not a huge risk, but one that can be avoided by keeping Huard in.

Just like Huard brings nothing new to the table that Green doesn't, almost the exact same thing can be said in return. The one bonus Green brought that Huard can't is that Green's past performance demands respect from even the best defenses. But if Green falters in his opening start(s), that will be completely negated. Again, it's a risk, and with an effective quarterback at the helm right now, it's an unnecessary risk.

I don't want to kick Trent to the curb. But I feel that it's necessary to keep him as a 2nd stringer as long as there is absolutely no room for error. There are ways to ease him in that I'd be more comfortable with... playing him in garbage time to see how he fares, for example. But to start him outright is too dramatic a swing, and a misstep could cost us ground we can't afford to lose.

LJ is the key to this offense, and whoever quarterbacks at this point compliments him rather than the other way around. The QB is important in Solari's offense, but not necessarily the backbone. Huard is the perfect compliment to LJ's power running, and any improvement at this point, even from a top flight Green, would be marginal.
I understand your desire to win, Direckshun. You have my respect for it, and I can assure you I'm rooting for Trent to start not because I have some blind loyalty to a Chiefs icon, but because I truly believe Trent brings enough to the table to get us over a hump that Damon will struggle with.

Experience will matter. It always does. Trent has proven himself with a handful of 4,000 yard seasons, and while he's only started on playoff game in his life, he did lead his team to score 30+ points in it. Damon's track record matters -- he's playing fine now, but NFL history has taught us that QB experience is ultimately key to a successful offense in December and January.

The major issue is that a huddle needs a leader. Right now Huard is that leader, and the tricky part is getting Green into that leader role.

This is where Green's experience will rise him to the occasion. To defeat an opponent, he must earn the huddle back, and his natural leadership (which nobody questions he possesses) will ring in his teammates. Most of the guys in that huddle have played with him for years, every single one of them respect him, and all of them have seen him active in practice. They know what he is capable of, and they are talented enough and loyal enough to bring him around.

The risk is there, but the risk has been there all season for the Chiefs and they have scored 100% against it, continuing to win.

Just like you admitted, Green's past performance demands respect from even the best defenses. And once a talented offense and a brilliant coach properly situation him (shouldn't take a Pro Bowl veteran more than one game to get accustomed), he brings a dimension that Huard doesn't. Huard is the overachiever of the NFL, Green is the commando of the Chiefs. It's a risk worth taking, and that's why.

You argue that the tight AFC West race is reason to keep Huard in. I believe it's the reason Green needs to be brought in as soon as possible. Green has faced the San Diego rush. He's felt the pressure of the Denver secondary mugging his receivers. He knows how to get a win when the team needs a win. So does Damon, but I'll take a Pro Bowl veteran who knows his offense inside and out. Yeah, we need to get Green in now, and get him set as soon as possible.

I agree with you that LJ is the key to this offense. Green makes it a balanced offensive assault. Huard is 5-2 and Solari still barely trusts him with 15 pass attempts. Green will change every dynamic on the field, all of it favorably for the Chiefs.

Claynus
11-06-2006, 10:15 PM
Solari still barely trusts him with 15 pass attempts.

BULL BUTTER.

He trusted him enough to let him throw 27 times against San Diego and 25 times against Seattle. Heck 38 times ON THE ROAD against Arizona.

Direckshun
11-06-2006, 10:20 PM
I understand your desire to win, Direckshun. You have my respect for it, and I can assure you I'm rooting for Trent to start not because I have some blind loyalty to a Chiefs icon, but because I truly believe Trent brings enough to the table to get us over a hump that Damon will struggle with.

Experience will matter. It always does. Trent has proven himself with a handful of 1,000 yards, and while he's only started on playoff game in his life, he did lead his team to score 30+ points in it. Damon's track record matters -- he's playing fine now, but NFL history has taught us that QB experience is ultimately key to a successful offense in December and January.

The major issue is that a huddle needs a leader. Right now Huard is that leader, and the tricky part is getting Green into that leader role.

This is where Green's experience will rise him to the occasion. To defeat an opponent, he must earn the huddle back, and his natural leadership (which nobody questions he possesses) will ring in his teammates. Most of the guys in that huddle have played with him for years, every single one of them respect him, and all of them have seen him active in practice. They know what he is capable of, and they are talented enough and loyal enough to bring him around.

The risk is there, but the risk has been there all season for the Chiefs and they have scored 100% against it, continuing to win.

Just like you admitted, Green's past performance demands respect from even the best defenses. And once a talented offense and a brilliant coach properly situation him (shouldn't take a Pro Bowl veteran more than one game to get accustomed), he brings a dimension that Huard doesn't. Huard is the overachiever of the NFL, Green is the commando of the Chiefs. It's a risk worth taking, and that's why.

You argue that the tight AFC West race is reason to keep Huard in. I believe it's the reason Green needs to be brought in as soon as possible. Green has faced the San Diego rush. He's felt the pressure of the Denver secondary mugging his receivers. He knows how to get a win when the team needs a win. So does Damon, but I'll take a Pro Bowl veteran who knows his offense inside and out. Yeah, we need to get Green in now, and get him set as soon as possible.

I agree with you that LJ is the key to this offense. Green makes it a balanced offensive assault. Huard is 5-2 and Solari still barely trusts him with 15 pass attempts. Green will change every dynamic on the field, all of it favorably for the Chiefs.
Actually, Direckshun, if NFL history teaches us anything, it's that you stay with the hot hand. The Steelers embodied that last year when they plowed through ten straight wins and a little trophy you might have heard of called the Super Bowl. You get a rhythm and you ride that rhythm.

What you're suggesting doesn't make sense. That you take out a top performing QB, who has won us a couple games with his stellar play and hasn't lost us a single game in crucial situations since he's been hot, because of Trent's history? Because Trent's familiar with these teammates? Because Trent has proven leadership skills?

All three reasons are very good reasons to bring Trent in -- if they were sorely needed. Right now they aren't. They are slightly needed, if they are needed at all. Huard's established a rhythm with every single one of his receivers now. Huard has proven leadership skills that the entire team believes in -- which can't be said about Green when he returns. It'll be two, three crucial games before people believe in the guy. You just know Solari's going to ease him back in.

There is no hump that Green needs to push us over. We're elite. We're set. We've beaten three good-to-great teams in a row, and came closer to beating Denver in Denver than we've ever been since we've actually won there half a decade ago. We have no major hurdles left in our offense -- we're clicking and it's all functional. All that's left is to bring the opponents on the field and watch them fail to stop us.

I fully believe Green can improve us. I know he can. But we're playing so well offensively, Green can only improve us slightly, and the risk isn't worth that. There's a serious risk for a slight improvement. I don't like that trade and neither should you.

Especially in a division as heated as this. I love Trent Green to death but it's not worth it right now.

Direckshun
11-06-2006, 10:39 PM
Actually, Direckshun, if NFL history teaches us anything, it's that you stay with the hot hand. The Steelers embodied that last year when they plowed through ten straight wins and a little trophy you might have heard of called the Super Bowl. You get a rhythm and you ride that rhythm.

What you're suggesting doesn't make sense. That you take out a top performing QB, who has won us a couple games with his stellar play and hasn't lost us a single game in crucial situations since he's been hot, because of Trent's history? Because Trent's familiar with these teammates? Because Trent has proven leadership skills?

All three reasons are very good reasons to bring Trent in -- if they were sorely needed. Right now they aren't. They are slightly needed, if they are needed at all. Huard's established a rhythm with every single one of his receivers now. Huard has proven leadership skills that the entire team believes in -- which can't be said about Green when he returns. It'll be two, three crucial games before people believe in the guy. You just know Solari's going to ease him back in.

There is no hump that Green needs to push us over. We're elite. We're set. We've beaten three good-to-great teams in a row, and came closer to beating Denver in Denver than we've ever been since we've actually won there half a decade ago. We have no major hurdles left in our offense -- we're clicking and it's all functional. All that's left is to bring the opponents on the field and watch them fail to stop us.

I fully believe Green can improve us. I know he can. But we're playing so well offensively, Green can only improve us slightly, and the risk isn't worth that. There's a serious risk for a slight improvement. I don't like that trade and neither should you.

Especially in a division as heated as this. I love Trent Green to death but it's not worth it right now.
The Steelers were the first team to ever win the Super Bowl the way they did. You don't follow the exceptions to the proven formulas, you follow the proven formulas. That's what NFL history teaches us, Direckshun.

But we both seem to agree that Trent, in good form and properly incorporated into the Chiefs offense, could (at the very least) bring a slight improvement to the Chiefs offense. And you're right, slight improvements aren't worth big risks.

What if I could assure you that bringing Trent back is a slight risk?

1. We're likely bringing him back against Oakland at home, the most gimme game on our otherwise rock-hard schedule. Against a great defense that will hit him and test him several times. He can afford numerous mistakes against Oakland in Arrowhead; the rest of the team doubles Oakland in talent. It's not that big of a risk.

2. The first game Trent ever played for the Rams, he was impressive. The first game Trent ever played for the Chiefs, he was impressive. Trent doesn't ease into an offense, he rises to the occasion. Mark my words, if we're going to bring him back against a team as weak as Oakland where we can afford a learning curve, he will be 100% the very next game. He's too familiar with everything he's going to be doing, and it won't be long.

3. Our offense has proven that it can elevate the play of a newcomer. Solari expertly eased Huard into the role. Kennison and Gonzales have bailed him out numerous times. Even the patchiest of KC lines have consistently protected Huard. And Trent'll have the best running back in the NFL to lean on during what will likely be a very short recovery to top form.

A division as heated as this doesn't demand that we "play it safe" by keeping Huard in. A division as heated as this demands that we pull out every stop, improving ourselves in every slight way so that we can be at our uppermost potential when we're in the heat of the race.

Chris Meck
11-07-2006, 09:54 AM
I was wondering when someone was going to point out that Trent will likely come back against The Raiders in Arrowhead.

Perfect.


Chris

htismaqe
11-07-2006, 10:33 AM
Actually, Direckshun, if NFL history teaches us anything, it's that you stay with the hot hand. The Steelers embodied that last year when they plowed through ten straight wins and a little trophy you might have heard of called the Super Bowl. You get a rhythm and you ride that rhythm.

I must have missed where the Steelers QB was injured and they rode their backup all the way to the Super Bowl.

Wanna point out which week that happened?

Dartgod
11-07-2006, 11:19 AM
Why is Direckshun quoting himself and replying as if he is two separate identities?

Iowanian
11-07-2006, 11:33 AM
I still don't see why this is even a question.

Green is a proven starter, doesn't make alot of mistakes and can make throws Huard can't. When is the last time you saw Huard throw a 15 yard out? Huard has done a great job as a backup, and he may have done enough to earn a good contract or chance as a starter next season somewhere else. Green is the starter.

Radar Chief
11-07-2006, 12:16 PM
Trent Green knows the intricacies of this offense, knows the playbook in and out. When Green comes back into the lineup, the Chiefs offense becomes even more dangerous than it is now.

Once again, I recognize Huard has done a good job in the absence of Trent Green. But Huard is not the quarterback that Trent Green is.

:clap: Very good. I tried to make this same point yesterday but you did it much better than I could’ve. Rep. :thumb:

Chief Faithful
11-07-2006, 12:21 PM
The Steelers were the first team to ever win the Super Bowl the way they did. You don't follow the exceptions to the proven formulas, you follow the proven formulas. That's what NFL history teaches us, Direckshun.

But we both seem to agree that Trent, in good form and properly incorporated into the Chiefs offense, could (at the very least) bring a slight improvement to the Chiefs offense. And you're right, slight improvements aren't worth big risks.

What if I could assure you that bringing Trent back is a slight risk?

1. We're likely bringing him back against Oakland at home, the most gimme game on our otherwise rock-hard schedule. Against a great defense that will hit him and test him several times. He can afford numerous mistakes against Oakland in Arrowhead; the rest of the team doubles Oakland in talent. It's not that big of a risk.

2. The first game Trent ever played for the Rams, he was impressive. The first game Trent ever played for the Chiefs, he was impressive. Trent doesn't ease into an offense, he rises to the occasion. Mark my words, if we're going to bring him back against a team as weak as Oakland where we can afford a learning curve, he will be 100% the very next game. He's too familiar with everything he's going to be doing, and it won't be long.

3. Our offense has proven that it can elevate the play of a newcomer. Solari expertly eased Huard into the role. Kennison and Gonzales have bailed him out numerous times. Even the patchiest of KC lines have consistently protected Huard. And Trent'll have the best running back in the NFL to lean on during what will likely be a very short recovery to top form.

A division as heated as this doesn't demand that we "play it safe" by keeping Huard in. A division as heated as this demands that we pull out every stop, improving ourselves in every slight way so that we can be at our uppermost potential when we're in the heat of the race.

It is most important that your best QB has had game time before the playoffs. Huard may be able to get the team to the playoffs, but he is not their best QB. Better to bring Green back against a team like the Raiders in mid season to give him and the team the opportunity to develop that same chemistry before the playoffs. Green needs reps, why not against the Raiders?

Chief Faithful
11-07-2006, 12:22 PM
Why is Direckshun quoting himself and replying as if he is two separate identities?

He must have an injured need.