PDA

View Full Version : Starting Quarterback for the Kansas City Chiefs


Direckshun
04-30-2007, 11:06 AM
I think the slightly humorous thing in this situation is that we have three QBs who all could make a reasonable argument that they deserve the starting spot.

Green -- team leader with best resume

Croyle -- young QBotF that will inherit this team eventually

Huard -- played the best of all three QBs in 2006

Out of the three, who do you ideally want to start?

luv
04-30-2007, 11:13 AM
Croyle. He's got to get his feet wet. If Trent is still with us, then he would be a good mentor. We also have an excellent backup.

Frosty
04-30-2007, 11:15 AM
If they want to seriously try to make a play-off run, despite having next to no chance of making the Super Bowl - Trent Green

If they want to win a handful of games and putz around with no view on the future - Huard

If they want to look to the future while getting experience for their young players, even if means going 6-10 - Croyle

If they want the top pick in the draft next year - Printers

Molitoth
04-30-2007, 11:17 AM
Trent Green on week 1. That is if he wants to be here and win, and has a good attitude about still being a chief. If he walks out on the field with a dont give a shit attitude, then no.


If Trent fails during week 1. Put in Huard in week 2. Give Huard until week 5 and judge his performance. If Huard is failing at week 5, put Croyle in for the rest of the year for experience.

penguinz
04-30-2007, 11:18 AM
Trent Green on week 1. That is if he wants to be here and win, and has a good attitude about still being a chief. If he walks out on the field with a dont give a shit attitude, then no.


If Trent fails during week 1. Put in Huard in week 2. Give Huard until week 5 and judge his performance. If Huard is failing at week 5, put Croyle in for the rest of the year for experience.Are you related to HalfCan?

ChiefsCountry
04-30-2007, 11:22 AM
Depends on the preseason, if Croyle kicks butt - starter for the year. If he struggles and needs another season to learn start Green. Huard should stay #3 IMO.

bogie
04-30-2007, 11:26 AM
Start whoever wins the position. Don't start Croyle if he's not a starter. If whoever starts isn't winning, don't be afriad to replace him with the next best and so on. JMO.

Ultra Peanut
04-30-2007, 11:27 AM
JOSH SWOGGER

Logical
04-30-2007, 11:27 AM
If they want to seriously try to make a play-off run, despite having next to no chance of making the Super Bowl - Trent Green

If they want to win a handful of games and putz around with no view on the future - Huard

If they want to look to the future while getting experience for their young players, even if means going 6-10 - Croyle

If they want the top pick in the draft next year - Printers

I think I want to change my vote to Printers.;)

Fish
04-30-2007, 11:27 AM
Keep f*cking doubting Casey Printers...........

Slick32
04-30-2007, 11:34 AM
I think the slightly humorous thing in this situation is that we have three QBs who all could make a reasonable argument that they deserve the starting spot.

Green -- team leader with best resume

Croyle -- young QBotF that will inherit this team eventually

Huard -- played the best of all three QBs in 2006

Out of the three, who do you ideally want to start?

Totally wrong comparison to make. Green was injured and should not have returned last year.

Huard was respectable when he played, but is by far not the best QB on the team.

luv
04-30-2007, 11:38 AM
Totally wrong comparison to make. Green was injured and should not have returned last year.

Huard was respectable when he played, but is by far not the best QB on the team.
Well, out of the three's play time, who played the best, for last year, out of the three? The answer to that doesn't necessarily mean that they are the best of the three.

suds79
04-30-2007, 11:45 AM
I want for this team to move on to the next phase as the DV era didn't work out.

Brodie Croyle. Let the evaluation begin.

The other QBs are just 1-2 year options that won't do anything for us in the future.

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-30-2007, 11:46 AM
I vote for the guy who plays the best and wins the job in pre-season. Call me crazy.

luv
04-30-2007, 11:47 AM
I vote for the guy who plays the best and wins the job in pre-season. Call me crazy.
Crazy.

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-30-2007, 11:49 AM
Huard was respectable when he played
Respectable enough to be the second rated QB in the league.

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-30-2007, 11:49 AM
Crazy.
Thank you.

Slick32
04-30-2007, 11:52 AM
Respectable enough to be the second rated QB in the league.

I call BS on that one. You got a link?

Slick32
04-30-2007, 11:53 AM
Well, out of the three's play time, who played the best, for last year, out of the three? The answer to that doesn't necessarily mean that they are the best of the three.

I'm pointing out that it is an unfair comparison. Huard was adequate but definately not the best QB in KC, once again I must point out that he is a career backup.

crazycoffey
04-30-2007, 11:54 AM
I vote for the guy who plays the best and wins the job in pre-season. Call me crazy.



why would I call you crazy? :p
Oh and I agree with your assessment.



I also agree with Sir Arc..... (Huard's for sure)

If they want to seriously try to make a play-off run, despite having next to no chance of making the Super Bowl - Trent Green

If they want to win a handful of games and putz around with no view on the future - Huard

If they want to look to the future while getting experience for their young players, even if means going 6-10 - Croyle

If they want the top pick in the draft next year - Printers


But to play the game of the thread. I'm saying Green to win now and keep getting Brodie ready. If the trade for Green happens than start Brodie.

crazycoffey
04-30-2007, 11:54 AM
Crazy.



what

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-30-2007, 11:54 AM
I call BS on that one. You got a link?
It's been all over the place since he was playing last seaon. ESPN had the graphic on their site just last week. I'll see if it's still there.

tiptap
04-30-2007, 11:55 AM
I vote for Green. Let him run the team until 8 games in and see where we stand. If at that point we want to switch to Croyle if we aren't in the race strong (seeing we play on the road a lot at the end of the season). This gives time for the line situation to settle out and see how the injuries are doing. If Green plays well he becomes more valuable in a trade for 2008 so he can start or be a back up depending on how he wants to handle that. I don't think we have the line for 7 step drops anymore so whoever is playing needs to develop good ball faking skills.

Direckshun
04-30-2007, 11:58 AM
If we have to switch QBs midstream, LJ's going to have 370+ carries again.

Pick the QB and stick with him all season.

luv
04-30-2007, 11:58 AM
I'm pointing out that it is an unfair comparison. Huard was adequate but definately not the best QB in KC, once again I must point out that he is a career backup.
I see your point, and I agree. I just didn't see where he said he was the best QB. He just played the best in 2006.

Dr. Facebook Fever
04-30-2007, 11:59 AM
I call BS on that one. You got a link?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/statistics?stat=pass&pos=off&league=nfl&season=2&year=2006

Kerberos
04-30-2007, 12:01 PM
I bet I know how Hootie voted (or will vote if he is so inclined)!

;)

tiptap
04-30-2007, 12:38 PM
If we have to switch QBs midstream, LJ's going to have 370+ carries again.

Pick the QB and stick with him all season.

No we will be putting 3 RB in this years rotation. Even LJ is going to go for this since he has been productive enough to terminate the last two years of the contract and he won't want to run himself into the ground. I don't think you can make the argument that changing QB automatically means more carries for LJ.

CoMoChief
04-30-2007, 12:45 PM
If Green remains a Chief then start him because he's the best QB we got, there's no argument in that.

Manila-Chief
04-30-2007, 12:52 PM
If they want to seriously try to make a play-off run, despite having next to no chance of making the Super Bowl - Trent Green

If they want to win a handful of games and putz around with no view on the future - Huard

If they want to look to the future while getting experience for their young players, even if means going 6-10 - Croyle

If they want the top pick in the draft next year - Printers

The poll said, "Who would you LIKE to start." I hope Brodie wins the job and proves he can lead us to a championship. The jury is still out on that score. If he has "all" the tools then he needs to be gaining experience and he can't do that holding a clipboard.

Trent has been fantastic, but it is time to look to the furture. We don't have the horses to win a SB now ... nor will we have them in the next couple of years .... thus, Trent will be too old when that time comes.

But, I'm really with Laz ... start Printers and get a great draft pick for next year. After all we need to be building for the next regime to lead the Chiefs.

DaneMcCloud
04-30-2007, 12:55 PM
Brodie Croyle. If he completely struggles and still has the "deer in the headlights" look after 8 games with no sign of improvement, replace him with Huard. Select a QB in the 2008 draft and start the process again...

Trent Green has no place on this team, IMO.

Tribal Warfare
04-30-2007, 12:58 PM
Trent in the beginning of the season then ease in Croyle around mid-season .

Simply Red
04-30-2007, 01:00 PM
I voted Huard, for a change of pace.

RedThat
04-30-2007, 01:01 PM
I want Damon Huard to be the starter next year because he was our best player.

I don't think he was a fluke. I really think he had a GOOD year.

Im not too fond of starting Croyle yet. I think he is still a project. Quarterback is one of those positions where it takes time to learn, that is why I am not to crazy about starting Croyle this year.

*I liked what I saw from Huard last year, and without a doubt I want him to start this year. I think he gives us the best chance to win.

Frosty
04-30-2007, 01:04 PM
The poll said, "Who would you LIKE to start."

Croyle. Let's see what we got.

CoMoChief
04-30-2007, 01:06 PM
Trent Green gives us the best chance to win games.

StcChief
04-30-2007, 01:08 PM
Casey Printers outta no where takes it.... :p

Seriously Croyle if he earns it.

CoMoChief
04-30-2007, 01:12 PM
I really don't think Croyle will out perform Green in TC, but that's just my 2 cents.

tk13
04-30-2007, 01:12 PM
I think this whole "throw Croyle in the deep end, if he doesn't blow us away, he's a bust" idea is a bad bad idea. When it comes time for Croyle to take the reins, he needs at least a couple years, unless he's just horrifically bad. But that's what people are going to scream for. I don't have a problem with playing Croyle, but it will probably require some patience.

MOhillbilly
04-30-2007, 01:14 PM
huard if that doesnt go well croyle. unless the line is so horrid huard gets murdered.
dont want the young buck to get gunshy and pick up bad habits due to lack of protection.

htismaqe
04-30-2007, 01:24 PM
Trent Green gives us the best chance to win games.

How many? 8? 9?

No thanks.

This team is about 2008.

buddha
04-30-2007, 01:25 PM
Huard is the odds on favorite because Green won't be here by then and Croyle won't quite be ready. Does anybody here REALLY think that Trent Green with be in KC by that time? No way. Miami is over a sticky barrell right now. They will deal for him before long.

CoMoChief
04-30-2007, 03:07 PM
How many? 8? 9?

No thanks.

This team is about 2008.


You still wanna be competitive though. So are you saying that you wanna just tank the season? We're no better than a 4-5 win team with Croyle behind this Oline starting this season and not to mention that 9 wins got us into the playoffs last season.

I say see how the seasons starts out. Let Trent start. If shit goes bad plug in Croyle and see what he can do and if he's the future at that position or not.

Mile High Mania
04-30-2007, 03:12 PM
Outsider's non-biased view...

Seriously, Bowe *should* be the future #1 WR for the Chiefs. Kennison is nearly done and so is Trent. LJ *should* be your RB for year's to come. Gonzo has a couple of years left...

Focus on the youth movement and that means either Huard or Croyle at QB, not Trent. Allowing Trent to compete for and win the starting gig stunts the growth of any QB/WR bond you might have with Huard or Croyle and Bowe.

Winning 9 or 10 games would be nice, I'm sure... but, what's the point if you're starting over at QB in 2008?

Start the process now... pay the sins for the learning curve now and go forward with youth.

Brando
04-30-2007, 04:43 PM
What??? No Dee Brown option?? ROFL

sportsman1
04-30-2007, 05:07 PM
Im suprised more people dont want Huard. I want Huard to be starter and give Brodie more time. Mostly I want to give Brodie more time because im not sold on him. Trent proved hes through, I loved what Trent did but his time is over after that concussion. He should retire somewhat gracefully. As for Huard once again I have a hard time believing he's going to put up the same type of results as last year, which is why it would have been cool to get Brady Quinn. I still think out of what we have that Huard is going to be the best bet. If Huard puts up numbers like last year he'll be more than the best bet.

Cochise
04-30-2007, 06:45 PM
I think this whole "throw Croyle in the deep end, if he doesn't blow us away, he's a bust" idea is a bad bad idea. When it comes time for Croyle to take the reins, he needs at least a couple years, unless he's just horrifically bad. But that's what people are going to scream for. I don't have a problem with playing Croyle, but it will probably require some patience.

You know, it's just like the Royals 'fans' that complained when we brought in a few free agents that didn't work out. They say "put the young guys in and let them develop. I'd rather watch young guys lose". That's good, I say that too.

But most of them are the one howling loudest about the team sucking. And they are the empty seats when the team is sucking.

I am backing Croyle. But nobody should be backing Croyle unless they are prepared to see it through AT LEAST until the end of this year.

A lot of people want us to start him, but the Huard threads will start in the first half of week 1 if Croyle plays poorly... people will say, "d00d we are not mathematically eliminated yet! put in teh Huard!" but we need to stick to our guns.

Mecca
04-30-2007, 06:51 PM
It needs to be Croyle we see what he's got, hey if he's not that great and we win 3 games......guess what. There are no less than 5 players in next years draft that would be studs for us......2 are LT's 2 are DT's and one is a LB......

Time to play Croyle, if he sucks there are dominant game changers at the top of next years draft.

Claynus
04-30-2007, 06:51 PM
I can't decide at the moment.

Mecca
04-30-2007, 06:52 PM
I think this whole "throw Croyle in the deep end, if he doesn't blow us away, he's a bust" idea is a bad bad idea. When it comes time for Croyle to take the reins, he needs at least a couple years, unless he's just horrifically bad. But that's what people are going to scream for. I don't have a problem with playing Croyle, but it will probably require some patience.

I would start him more than 1 year because.......I don't like Brian Brohm and if we sucked that bad there are much better players for us that high.

Claynus
04-30-2007, 06:55 PM
I think I'd probably start Huard at first. If we start losing games, put in Croyle.

Mecca
04-30-2007, 06:57 PM
Have any of you guys taken a look at the top of next years draft class? Just wondering........

ChiefsCountry
04-30-2007, 07:00 PM
Have any of you guys taken a look at the top of next years draft class? Just wondering........

Baker and Long would be really nice. Both are franchise type left tackles. McFadden if he comes out would be up there.

Claynus
04-30-2007, 07:00 PM
Have any of you guys taken a look at the top of next years draft class? Just wondering........

The only guys I've looked at were the ones that were supposed to come out this year...that QB, some studly LT...

Mecca
04-30-2007, 07:02 PM
Baker and Long would be really nice. Both are franchise type left tackles. McFadden if he comes out would be up there.

You also have the 2 DT's who would be Sapp type monsters in our defense in Glenn Dorsey and Sedrick Ellis.........also Rey Mauluga if he comes out is a star MLB.

Brock
04-30-2007, 07:02 PM
I think it's pretty unlikely that they're going to start the season with Croyle, unless he just tears it up in training camp.

Mark M
04-30-2007, 08:03 PM
I want Tom Brady as the QB.

I'll have to settle with Croyle. Best to find out what the hell we have sooner, rather than later.

Of course, fans being what they (we) are, the screams for whomever is not the starter will begin about 10 seconds after the first INT ...

MM
~~:)

Cochise
04-30-2007, 08:05 PM
whomever is not the starter

You can be damn sure that guy is always the solution. ROFL

Thig Lyfe
04-30-2007, 08:12 PM
I voted Casey Printers, but only because Jared Zabransky was not an option.

milkman
04-30-2007, 08:18 PM
I say let's get on with the future.

DaWolf
04-30-2007, 08:39 PM
Considering Herm's luck with QB's and injuries the last two years, we might need all three...

boogblaster
04-30-2007, 10:06 PM
With Herm pretty much just building his D..it looks like he wants to stay close in games with D. and let the kid try to score enough to win ...

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2007, 01:36 AM
If you DID NOT vote for Croyle, you are an idiot and should no longer follow the NFL. I say this because I don't think Croyle is a stud, I don't know what he is. I know we need to see what he has, if anything. This team needs to get young.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2007, 01:47 AM
It is shocking to me how many people around here are clueless about youth movement. OMG! We drafter Croyle last year. He needs to take his lumps. He should get most of the snaps in TC and during the preseason. WE NEED TO SEE IF THIS KID CAN PLAY.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2007, 01:48 AM
Trent Green gives us the best chance to win games.Wow. Please stop. You look foolish.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2007, 01:49 AM
I think this whole "throw Croyle in the deep end, if he doesn't blow us away, he's a bust" idea is a bad bad idea. When it comes time for Croyle to take the reins, he needs at least a couple years, unless he's just horrifically bad. But that's what people are going to scream for. I don't have a problem with playing Croyle, but it will probably require some patience.THANK YOU! Someone gets it.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-01-2007, 01:50 AM
John Croyle. FTW!!

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2007, 01:52 AM
You still wanna be competitive though. So are you saying that you wanna just tank the season? We're no better than a 4-5 win team with Croyle behind this Oline starting this season and not to mention that 9 wins got us into the playoffs last season.

I say see how the seasons starts out. Let Trent start. If shit goes bad plug in Croyle and see what he can do and if he's the future at that position or not.
:banghead: I give up... :shake:

keg in kc
05-01-2007, 01:53 AM
We don't rebuild, we reload.

Reload the mediocre cannon, that is.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2007, 01:54 AM
Outsider's non-biased view...

Seriously, Bowe *should* be the future #1 WR for the Chiefs. Kennison is nearly done and so is Trent. LJ *should* be your RB for year's to come. Gonzo has a couple of years left...

Focus on the youth movement and that means either Huard or Croyle at QB, not Trent. Allowing Trent to compete for and win the starting gig stunts the growth of any QB/WR bond you might have with Huard or Croyle and Bowe.

Winning 9 or 10 games would be nice, I'm sure... but, what's the point if you're starting over at QB in 2008?

Start the process now... pay the sins for the learning curve now and go forward with youth.Hey, CoMoChief? Look here. He isn't even a Chiefs fan, and he gets it.

BigMeatballDave
05-01-2007, 01:57 AM
Im suprised more people dont want Huard. I want Huard to be starter and give Brodie more time. Mostly I want to give Brodie more time because im not sold on him. Trent proved hes through, I loved what Trent did but his time is over after that concussion. He should retire somewhat gracefully. As for Huard once again I have a hard time believing he's going to put up the same type of results as last year, which is why it would have been cool to get Brady Quinn. I still think out of what we have that Huard is going to be the best bet. If Huard puts up numbers like last year he'll be more than the best bet.Well, if you are not sold on him, shouldn't he play so we can see what he's got?
:doh!:

patteeu
05-01-2007, 08:21 AM
You know, it's just like the Royals 'fans' that complained when we brought in a few free agents that didn't work out. They say "put the young guys in and let them develop. I'd rather watch young guys lose". That's good, I say that too.

But most of them are the one howling loudest about the team sucking. And they are the empty seats when the team is sucking.

I am backing Croyle. But nobody should be backing Croyle unless they are prepared to see it through AT LEAST until the end of this year.

A lot of people want us to start him, but the Huard threads will start in the first half of week 1 if Croyle plays poorly... people will say, "d00d we are not mathematically eliminated yet! put in teh Huard!" but we need to stick to our guns.

I agree with this. Once we go to Croyle, I'd like to see us commit to him through thick and thin this year to give him every chance to develop. I probably should have voted for Croyle in the poll because he's the guy I'd like to see *win* the job during pre-season, but I expect Huard to win the job if it's really a level competition. Unless Huard is on fire, I'd expect to see Croyle sooner or later though. I voted Huard based on what I expect and because I'd rather see us move on to Huard/Croyle than stick with Green at this point.

htismaqe
05-01-2007, 08:25 AM
Why would anybody want to "move on" with Huard?

Is everybody forgetting that he's only 3 years younger than Green?

patteeu
05-01-2007, 09:43 AM
Why would anybody want to "move on" with Huard?

Is everybody forgetting that he's only 3 years younger than Green?

If you're referring to my post, I think of Huard as a transitional figure only (between the Green era and, hopefully, the Croyle era). If Croyle is ready to go at the beginning of the season then great. I'm willing to suffer through the growing pains. If not, let Huard take some early lumps during the tough stretch of our schedule at the beginning of the season and prepare Croyle to come in when Huard gets hurt or doesn't get the job done. If Huard keeps winning and Croyle ends up riding the bench for another year, I don't see anything wrong with that either.

htismaqe
05-01-2007, 09:47 AM
If you're referring to my post, I think of Huard as a transitional figure only (between the Green era and, hopefully, the Croyle era). If Croyle is ready to go at the beginning of the season then great. I'm willing to suffer through the growing pains. If not, let Huard take some early lumps during the tough stretch of our schedule at the beginning of the season and prepare Croyle to come in when Huard gets hurt or doesn't get the job done. If Huard keeps winning and Croyle ends up riding the bench for another year, I don't see anything wrong with that either.

I have ZERO problem with those who want to start Huard because they think he can win more games than Croyle.

But that's "holding on", not "moving on".

pikesome
05-01-2007, 09:48 AM
There's also the chance that Croyle isn't the answer, I'd like to know this in 2008 or 2009 rather than later. It would be nice if we could grow a QB for once. Please.

blueballs
05-01-2007, 09:49 AM
TrInt
HUmble
CroyAil

Chiefnj
05-01-2007, 09:49 AM
The best thing for the team is if Croyle outplays everyone in preseason and is named the starter.

Realistically if it were open to competition Green would probably win, but he isn't the future so there isn't really a point in playing him.

htismaqe
05-01-2007, 09:58 AM
The best thing for the team is if Croyle outplays everyone in preseason and is named the starter.

Realistically if it were open to competition Green would probably win, but he isn't the future so there isn't really a point in playing him.

I agree absolutely with your first sentence.

I would include Huard in your second sentence. I guess I fail to see how a 34-year old QB can be considered "the future".

Mecca
05-01-2007, 10:02 AM
I agree absolutely with your first sentence.

I would include Huard in your second sentence. I guess I fail to see how a 34-year old QB can be considered "the future".

Well some people would rather be under the delusion that we are a playoff team......

htismaqe
05-01-2007, 10:21 AM
I liken this situation to the situation we were in in 1998.

We had an established, even LOVED, head coach in Marty (Trent) who was coming off a very frustrating year. Rather than acknowledge that MartyBall had run it's course and go after a guy like Vermeil (Croyle), we decided to try to squeeze the Marty year's and see if we could get one last run with Gunther (Huard). In the end, we went to Vermeil (Croyle) anyway, and all we did in the process was delay the inevitable two more years.