PDA

View Full Version : So where do we officially stand on Feneca?


Direckshun
05-26-2007, 10:33 PM
All Pro guard Alan Feneca is pissed off with the Steelers, though considering he's playing for a classic NFL franchise and won a Super Bowl with them, I have no idea why, I think it has to do with money.

But doesn't matter. He's gone after this year. He's still on contract, so the Steelers will almost definitely be looking for a trade in the 2008 offseason.

On the negative side: He's 30, which admittedly isn't old for an OL but it might be too old for us. The Steelers will be looking for something major here, likely high draft pick(s?). Not to mention Feneca himself will be looking for a payoff, too.

Last time we forked up major money for an All-Pro OL on the market, Roaf became the best player on the entire team. Feneca would likely still be Pro Bowl quality long enough to endure the rebuilding season(s) and be in great form for a couple good postseason runs. Herm doesn't draft for need, so we may not draft OL next year -- so FA is where we need to snag an OG, and we couldn't do better than him.

WHAT SAY YE, CHIEFSPLANET.

Poll forthcoming. Leave me alone.

milkman
05-26-2007, 10:42 PM
No.

Mr. Flopnuts
05-26-2007, 10:44 PM
I don't think we should give up anything of real value for him. He's got 4-5 years in him which is good, but the last couple are going to be his declining years.

KCBOSS1
05-26-2007, 11:14 PM
We know what we could get with Faneca. The life of good offensive linemen is pretty long and they are usually productive until the end because it is more about technique than speed and other althletic qualities. Go Get Him! We've got to re-build the line now and need proven players.

Marlboro_Chief
05-27-2007, 12:00 AM
You mean Faneca? Dipshit.

cdcox
05-27-2007, 12:55 AM
There is a huge difference between a LT and a G. A probowl G is nice, but it's not going to change the entire complexion of your line like a HOF LT would. For the draft pick you give for Faneca, you could draft a stalwart that would start for 12 year and be cheaper on the cap over the period of the contract. Pass.

ChiefsCountry
05-27-2007, 12:58 AM
There is a huge difference between a LT and a G. A probowl G is nice, but it's not going to change the entire complexion of your line like a HOF LT would. For the draft pick you give for Faneca, you could draft a stalwart that would start for 12 year and be cheaper on the cap over the period of the contract. Pass.

We have a winner. Besides people are forgetting that Welbourn was a pretty good guard back in Philly.

el borracho
05-27-2007, 01:02 AM
No, thank you. Next!

htismaqe
05-27-2007, 06:03 AM
Rebuild through the draft.

Direckshun
05-27-2007, 02:32 PM
Mustard ran away with this thing.

CoMoChief
05-27-2007, 02:49 PM
Next year's draft has about 4-5 tackles that are projected to be 1st round picks. I pretty much see 2 scenarios:


Scenario #1

Honestly I dont think that this team will be any better than 6-10 regardless of any scenario, especially with the learning curve Croyle will have to go through. If that happens that means we would more than likely be picking anywhere between overall picks #6 to #9. That's good enough to snatch up OT Jake Long from MICH. If we do this we need to get Faneca because that would more than solidfy our Oline for at least 3 years. By then Croyle should be pretty productive.

Scenario #2

Damion McIntosh shows great promise this upcoming season to where he locks up the position hands down and we don't need to look at a LT in the 1st round, perhaps maybe in the 2nd or 3rd. This is where we have the chance to draft WR DeShaun Jackson from CAL.

This season I don't think is gonna be to pretty for us Chiefs fans, epsecially on offense. We play in a division that has 4 great defenses (including us hopefully) and with a rookie QB, that could spell trouble. But in the immediate future I see bright things for this club especially if we keep drafting like we are. I honestly think the best thing for this organization is to have a couple 6-10 seasons so we can build this team around better talent coming out of the draft.

htismaqe
05-27-2007, 07:44 PM
Next year's draft has about 4-5 tackles that are projected to be 1st round picks. I pretty much see 2 scenarios:


Scenario #1

Honestly I dont think that this team will be any better than 6-10 regardless of any scenario, especially with the learning curve Croyle will have to go through. If that happens that means we would more than likely be picking anywhere between overall picks #6 to #9. That's good enough to snatch up OT Jake Long from MICH. If we do this we need to get Faneca because that would more than solidfy our Oline for at least 3 years. By then Croyle should be pretty productive.

Scenario #2

Damion McIntosh shows great promise this upcoming season to where he locks up the position hands down and we don't need to look at a LT in the 1st round, perhaps maybe in the 2nd or 3rd. This is where we have the chance to draft WR DeShaun Jackson from CAL.

This season I don't think is gonna be to pretty for us Chiefs fans, epsecially on offense. We play in a division that has 4 great defenses (including us hopefully) and with a rookie QB, that could spell trouble. But in the immediate future I see bright things for this club especially if we keep drafting like we are. I honestly think the best thing for this organization is to have a couple 6-10 seasons so we can build this team around better talent coming out of the draft.

We won't go 6-10, even with Croyle.

Bowser
05-27-2007, 07:47 PM
We won't go 6-10, even with Croyle.

Are you saying under or over?

Personally, I'm going with 5-11, although I reserve the right to change that after the preseason games.

chagrin
05-27-2007, 07:51 PM
We have a winner. Besides people are forgetting that Welbourn was a pretty good guard back in Philly.


Not to be picky but he hasn't done shit since he's been here, 3 years ago is a long time in the NFL

chagrin
05-27-2007, 07:53 PM
I see both sides here but KC had good success with using some veteran O-linemen over the last 15 years than without them. I am not ready to admit that we have to rebuild from the friggin beginning, but how is he not worth throwing out a feeler for? What because he's only got 4 years left? Are you kidding me?

However, having said that - he is top tier and is going to require big money, we are probably better off going thorugh the draft.

Direckshun
05-27-2007, 07:56 PM
Looks like CP officially has mild interest in Faneca, bordering on indifference.

htismaqe
05-27-2007, 08:03 PM
Are you saying under or over?

Personally, I'm going with 5-11, although I reserve the right to change that after the preseason games.

I don't see any way that the offensive line can be worse than last year, which will help LJ. And while Brodie might make more mistakes, he's much less limited than Huard.

I think we'll be in the 7 to 8 win range.

Direckshun
05-27-2007, 08:13 PM
Chiefs should win at LEAST 6 at home.

Should win at LEAST 3 on the road.

9, 10 wins is what I'm expecting. If everything magically falls into place, 11 wins isn't out of the question.

keg in kc
05-27-2007, 09:01 PM
I don't get all the 4-5-6 win predictions.

We won 9 games last year.

This with Damon f*cking Huard starting a majority of the games. This with Trent Green doing his worst 'Trent Dilfer on a bad day' impersonation. This with Willie Roaf retiring out of the blue and then Jordan f*cking Black starting at LT. This with Kawika f*cking Mitchell starting at MLB. This with Ryan f*cking Sims in the rotation at DT. This with Sammy Knight (no offense, but 3 or 4 steps slow, my man...) and Greg Wesley at S.

The team should be better across the board. Younger, faster, stronger, tougher. I guess Chiefs fans have been conditioned by years of Martyocrity and then Vermeil that it's best to have low (or no) expectations lest they be disappointed.

Bowser
05-27-2007, 09:14 PM
I don't get all the 4-5-6 win predictions.

We won 9 games last year.

This with Damon f*cking Huard starting a majority of the games. This with Trent Green doing his worst 'Trent Dilfer on a bad day' impersonation. This with Willie Roaf retiring out of the blue and then Jordan f*cking Black starting at LT. This with Kawika f*cking Mitchell starting at MLB. This with Ryan f*cking Sims in the rotation at DT. This with Sammy Knight (no offense, but 3 or 4 steps slow, my man...) and Greg Wesley at S.

The team should be better across the board. Younger, faster, stronger, tougher. I guess Chiefs fans have been conditioned by years of Martyocrity and then Vermeil that it's best to have low (or no) expectations lest they be disappointed.

All good, valid points. Maybe I just want to change it up from my yearly 11 or 12 win prediction. Call it reverse karma, if you will. :D

I do have bad visions of what this offense is going to be, especially if Croyle wins the job. We'll pile another 380+ carries on LJ, and watch Brodie throw for 14 TD's and 19 INT's. Hopefully I'm way off base with that.

Like I said, I'll wait until Logical posts his yearly "How bad are we going to suck THIS year" thread after preseason to give a more informed opinion.

chagrin
05-27-2007, 09:23 PM
I don't get all the 4-5-6 win predictions.

We won 9 games last year.

This with Damon f*cking Huard starting a majority of the games. This with Trent Green doing his worst 'Trent Dilfer on a bad day' impersonation. This with Willie Roaf retiring out of the blue and then Jordan f*cking Black starting at LT. This with Kawika f*cking Mitchell starting at MLB. This with Ryan f*cking Sims in the rotation at DT. This with Sammy Knight (no offense, but 3 or 4 steps slow, my man...) and Greg Wesley at S.

The team should be better across the board. Younger, faster, stronger, tougher. I guess Chiefs fans have been conditioned by years of Martyocrity and then Vermeil that it's best to have low (or no) expectations lest they be disappointed.


F*CK YEAH!

keg in kc
05-27-2007, 09:35 PM
It's certainly possible that Croyle struggles. It's also possible that he struggles early, when we're playing on the road, and gets it together by the 4th or 5th game. It's not unheard of for a 2nd year quarterback to perform fairly well after a year on the sidelines. I think it's a matter of how people do around him. If McIntosh is solid at OLT, that will make him a better QB. Teams will have to line up to stop Larry Johnson. Tony Gonzalez is going to be a great outlet for a young QB. Dwayne Bowe is a big target as well. If he's able to put anything together on the field, he'll be an instant upgrade over Samie Parker. Parker himself, love him or hate him, is a bigger target as a 3rd receiver than Dante Hall. Webb and Hannon are both big targets to throw to. And Eddie Kennison is a solid wide receiver who's played consistently well here for years.

Just to put it into some perspective. If he gets any protection, he has this to throw to:

Bowe 6'2
Dunn 6'6
Gonzalez 6'5
Hannon 6'3
Kennison 6'1
Parker 5'11
Webb 6'2
Wilson 6'2

And again, since we know size isn't everything, he's got Tony Gonzalez. He's got Eddie Kennison. Guys who've done it for years.

It's not like we're asking him to throw to Snoop Minnis and Chris Thomas...

Doesn't mean it'll work. But I think it has a chance to.

Logical
05-27-2007, 09:42 PM
I don't get all the 4-5-6 win predictions.

We won 9 games last year.

This with Damon f*cking Huard starting a majority of the games. This with Trent Green doing his worst 'Trent Dilfer on a bad day' impersonation. This with Willie Roaf retiring out of the blue and then Jordan f*cking Black starting at LT. This with Kawika f*cking Mitchell starting at MLB. This with Ryan f*cking Sims in the rotation at DT. This with Sammy Knight (no offense, but 3 or 4 steps slow, my man...) and Greg Wesley at S.

The team should be better across the board. Younger, faster, stronger, tougher. I guess Chiefs fans have been conditioned by years of Martyocrity and then Vermeil that it's best to have low (or no) expectations lest they be disappointed.
Or perhaps we are expecting the shit results that are not uncommon with Herm when topped off with QBs that probably would not start for 85% of all other NFL teams. Oh lets not forget the players on this offense are still getting older to a great degree.

keg in kc
05-27-2007, 09:49 PM
Or perhaps we are expecting the shit results that are not uncommon with Herm Oh, I know what you mean. Shit results. Two 9-win seasons and two 10-win seasons in 6 years as a head coach. Awful. Just awful.

Now I'd be the last to pretend that I'm not afraid of a herminally-ill team. But to me that means the Chiefs will continue to be a game or two on either size of .500 every year. That's what's he's proven to date. Not shit results. Average results.

Like Marty/Gun/Vermeil 4.0.

4 wins would be an aberration. That would take half the team getting injured. Which, come to think of it, happened last year. When we won 9 games.

Logical
05-27-2007, 10:11 PM
Oh, I know what you mean. Shit results. Two 9-win seasons and two 10-win seasons in 6 years as a head coach. Awful. Just awful.

Now I'd be the last to pretend that I'm not afraid of a herminally-ill team. But to me that means the Chiefs will continue to be a game or two on either size of .500 every year. That's what's he's proven to date. Not shit results. Average results.

Like Marty/Gun/Vermeil 4.0.

4 wins would be an aberration. That would take half the team getting injured. Which, come to think of it, happened last year. When we won 9 games.
I believe I was responding to you saying 4/5/6 wins. 6 wins is my prediction, that is 2 this side of .500, just on the shy side. By the way you really did me a diservice by leaving out my conditionals about the quality of quarterbacks and the offensive players getting older. But thanks anyway for being so courteous. By the way did you forget his record the season before he came to KC?

keg in kc
05-27-2007, 10:37 PM
I believe I was responding to you saying 4/5/6 wins. 6 wins is my prediction, that is 2 this side of .500, just on the shy side. 6 wins is feasible, although I think unlikely. 4 wins is not likely at all.By the way you really did me a diservice by leaving out my conditionals about the quality of quarterbacks and the offensive players getting older.Disservice? Christ, Jim. I just didn't want to write a book-length reply. ROFL

The quality of QBs isn't measurably different as far as I can tell. Huard is Huard. For whatever that's worth. Green, whether he's here or not, was awful last season. Croyle is a mystery. In any event, it's basically going to be the same as last year. I don't see how it's going to be
worse.

I think it all boils down to line play. I think anybody would be an upgrade over Black, and that obviously includes McIntosh. Waters is a stud. I'm probably alone on this, but I think Welbourn will be an uprade over Shields (Will's a loss as a team leader in the lockerrom; his play, however, hasn't been notable since about 2003 in my opinion). Right tackle is sort of a mystery right now, but even so I think as a whole, the line will be significantly better in '07 than it was a year ago. Better tackle play will help the guards (strength of the line?), which will in turn help Wiegmann. Will they be the amazing line of 2002-2004? No. I don't think so. But I think they'll be good enough.

"Good" enough will help Croyle (or Huard) immensely.

As for getting older, well, they're getting younger on offense, too. Yes, Gonzalez is 31. But tight end is one of those positions where age isn't as big a detriment and he's shown no sign of slowing. At all.

Jason Dunn's potentially a problem. You'd have to think he's getting close to the end of his run, at 34.

Wiegmann? Also 34. Who knows.

Kennison's another one at 34. Another who knows, although I don't know that I'd say he's shown any real sign he's at the end. Receivers seem to be playing further into their 30's now.

On the flip side, Waters is what I would call a young 30, because of the course of his career. Damion McIntosh is 30. LJ is 28 in November, and even with last season's numbers, is probably 2-3 years behind other backs his age in terms of wear and tear. But back's can fall off quickly (look at Priest...). Samie Parker's 27. Kris Wilson's 27. Jeff Webb's 25. Chris Hannon's 23. Dwayne Bowe's 23.

That reads like the right kind of age balance to me. Seasoned line. Young skill players.

But who knows.But thanks anyway for being so courteous.I'm only discourteous to trolls, Jimbo, you know that.By the way did you forget his record the season before he came to KC?No, that was the whole point of 4 losses requiring half the team to go down with injury.

htismaqe
05-28-2007, 07:07 AM
Jim, you're abject hatred of all things Croyle is really past the point of being cute. You sound like my great-grandma.

htismaqe
05-28-2007, 07:11 AM
The quality of QBs isn't measurably different as far as I can tell. Huard is Huard. For whatever that's worth. Green, whether he's here or not, was awful last season. Croyle is a mystery. In any event, it's basically going to be the same as last year. I don't see how it's going to be worse.

You failed to address the most pertinent piece of Jim's original post:

Or perhaps we are expecting the shit results that are not uncommon with Herm when topped off with QBs that probably would not start for 85% of all other NFL teams.

You see, "Logical" thinks Brodie Croyle is a waste of roster space because he was drafted in the 3rd round and no QB drafted in the 3rd round could be considered a legitimate prospect.

If only we had Akili Smith, or Tim Couch, or Joey Harrington, or David Carr, or...

OnTheWarpath58
05-28-2007, 08:50 AM
You failed to address the most pertinent piece of Jim's original post:

Or perhaps we are expecting the shit results that are not uncommon with Herm when topped off with QBs that probably would not start for 85% of all other NFL teams.

You see, "Logical" thinks Brodie Croyle is a waste of roster space because he was drafted in the 3rd round and no QB drafted in the 3rd round could be considered a legitimate prospect.

If only we had Akili Smith, or Tim Couch, or Joey Harrington, or David Carr, or...

I wonder if people thought that back in 1979 when a lad named Montana was drafted.....

bdeg
05-28-2007, 09:20 AM
I wonder if people thought that back in 1979 when a lad named Montana was drafted.....
Not to mention the obvious 6th round Tom Brady.

The coaching staff has enough confidence that he's ready to step up that we are trying to let Trent go. If Brody didn't have any promise do you think we wouldn't have resigned TG?

And if you're Logical's right and he does suck, we still have Huard, who outperformed Trent last year anyway. It's a win-win compared to last year's QB situation.

milkman
05-28-2007, 09:37 AM
Or perhaps we are expecting the shit results that are not uncommon with Herm when topped off with QBs that probably would not start for 85% of all other NFL teams. Oh lets not forget the players on this offense are still getting older to a great degree.

Let's assume that you are right about Croyle, that he wouldn't be starting for 85% of all other NFL teams.

In the end, what have we got to lose by giving him the opportunity to prove you right?

This team isn't going anywhere this year.

We find out you're right, that just gets us to go out and find the right guy that much sooner.

Logical
05-28-2007, 04:16 PM
Let's assume that you are right about Croyle, that he wouldn't be starting for 85% of all other NFL teams.

In the end, what have we got to lose by giving him the opportunity to prove you right?

This team isn't going anywhere this year.

We find out you're right, that just gets us to go out and find the right guy that much sooner.

I agree with this completely, I am just being realistic in my expectations for the season.

Logical
05-28-2007, 04:20 PM
Jim, you're abject hatred of all things Croyle is really past the point of being cute. You sound like my great-grandma.

You clearly don't get it, I don't hate Croyle, nor do I think he has to be a failure because he was a 3rd round draft choice. I just expect him to have a bad first season starting. He could very well turn out OK in a couple of years.

keg in kc
05-28-2007, 04:26 PM
I can't wait until the season starts and some of these questions are answered.

Offseason talk is a lot like sports radio. It means absolutely nothing in the big picture.

the Talking Can
05-28-2007, 05:05 PM
Croyle is a completely unknown quantity.

I hope to hell we actually start him from day 1 and don't "ease" him into it by starting Huard for half the season.

I am excited to see the good and the bad with him. But we could easily lose a lot of close games because of him. He could turn out to be a great QB and still basically suck next year. Winning 6 games wouldn't surprise me in the least, neither would winning 10.

htismaqe
05-28-2007, 06:52 PM
You clearly don't get it, I don't hate Croyle, nor do I think he has to be a failure because he was a 3rd round draft choice. I just expect him to have a bad first season starting. He could very well turn out OK in a couple of years.

ROFL

Clearly I DO get it, and clearly you think we're all idiots.

You posted this not even two full days ago:


OK what convinces you we should believe a third round QB is going to be a success as our QBOTF, the one in a 100 shot that is Tom Brady? In the last 10 years how many 3rd round QBs went on to become the QBoTF for their drafting franchise?

I take it you have some facts as to why you know Brodie Croyle will be better than Cleo Lemon. Please enlighten me.

Logical
05-28-2007, 09:05 PM
ROFL

Clearly I DO get it, and clearly you think we're all idiots.

You posted this not even two full days ago:

I stand by that post but it does not mean I don't think long term he will be a success. Tom Brady took his team to a Super Bowl win in his first season starting. You don't think that was a 1 in 100 shot? What other first year starters that were 3rd round or lower have been big winners 10 or more wins in their first season starting? How many led their teams to losing records in comparison.

Who is being the idiot or unrealistic in their expectations you or I? I would put money on my low expectations.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 11:43 AM
I stand by that post but it does not mean I don't think long term he will be a success. Tom Brady took his team to a Super Bowl win in his first season starting. You don't think that was a 1 in 100 shot? What other first year starters that were 3rd round or lower have been big winners 10 or more wins in their first season starting? How many led their teams to losing records in comparison.

Who is being the idiot or unrealistic in their expectations you or I? I would put money on my low expectations.

Way to put the "I was only talking about THIS season" disclaimer on your post AFTER THE FACT.

Clearly, you weren't talking about this season. QBotF stands for "Quarterback of the FUTURE". Are you trying to suggest that you used the QB of the FUTURE reference that many times in the same post, but you weren't really talking about the future but rather just this season?

Like I said, clearly you think we're all idiots.

ROFL

CoMoChief
05-29-2007, 11:51 AM
I don't get all the 4-5-6 win predictions.

We won 9 games last year.

This with Damon f*cking Huard starting a majority of the games. This with Trent Green doing his worst 'Trent Dilfer on a bad day' impersonation. This with Willie Roaf retiring out of the blue and then Jordan f*cking Black starting at LT. This with Kawika f*cking Mitchell starting at MLB. This with Ryan f*cking Sims in the rotation at DT. This with Sammy Knight (no offense, but 3 or 4 steps slow, my man...) and Greg Wesley at S.

The team should be better across the board. Younger, faster, stronger, tougher. I guess Chiefs fans have been conditioned by years of Martyocrity and then Vermeil that it's best to have low (or no) expectations lest they be disappointed.

We are starting a ROOKIE (pretty much) QB.

The only way we win more than 6 games is if the defense is a top 5 unit, but there are even questions on defense:

Jared Allen is out for 4 games and is arguably the best player on our defense. We don't have any more CB's outside Law and Surtain that are worth a shit.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 11:56 AM
We are starting a ROOKIE (pretty much) QB.

The only way we win more than 6 games is if the defense is a top 5 unit, but there are even questions on defense:

Jared Allen is out for 4 games and is arguably the best player on our defense. We don't have any more CB's outside Law and Surtain that are worth a shit.

Sitting out a year and holding a clipboard is FAR MORE valuable that people realize.

Croyle is not "pretty much" a rookie.

StcChief
05-29-2007, 12:07 PM
Fenaca if he can be had for a performance contract. Reasonable trades. NO Draft picks or low ones.

keg in kc
05-29-2007, 12:14 PM
It's long odds, but it's not set in stone that a 2nd year QB will suck.

Drew Brees started for the Chargers in 2002, his second season (he'd thrown 27 passes in 2001, with no starts). He threw for more than 3000 yards and they went 8-8. That team was far worse than the one the Chiefs will put on the field in '07.

Carson Palmer started for the Bengals in 2004, his second season (he didn't throw a pass in 2003), He threw for more than 2800 yards and they went 8-8. That team did not have the talent the Chiefs will put on the field in '07.

It's a *team* game. How Croyle performs will in no small part depend on how everyone around him performs. If he has blocking, if LJ continues to be LJ, and if the receivers catch the passes he throws, he has a chance to succeed. If, on the other hand, he gets sacked 75 times, LJ falls apart, and Kennison and Gonzalez develop stone hands while Dwayne Bowe sits on the bench picking his nose, Croyle has no chance at all.

There's a reason young QBs fail: 9 times out of 10 they're on really bad teams. I don't think the Chiefs are a really bad team.

Maybe I'm wrong. :shrug:

Nobody will know for sure until the games begin. Right now we're all full of hot air.

JohnnyV13
05-29-2007, 12:23 PM
Yeah,

Croyle really isn't a rookie. There's a big difference between a guy that knows the playbook and someone trying to both grasp a new system and adjust to the NFL at the same time.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 12:26 PM
Yeah,

Croyle really isn't a rookie. There's a big difference between a guy that knows the playbook and someone trying to both grasp a new system and adjust to the NFL at the same time.

Precisely.

A true rookie can be completely overwhelmed by both the playbook AND the competition.

Croyle is GOING to make mistakes, and he's likely gonna struggle with the competition. Because he's new to being on the NFL field.

But he's far from a rookie, because he knows the playbook.

Reerun_KC
05-29-2007, 12:28 PM
Yeah,

Croyle really isn't a rookie. There's a big difference between a guy that knows the playbook and someone trying to both grasp a new system and adjust to the NFL at the same time.


Playbook? More like play-notepad... This is run, run, pass, punt..

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 12:29 PM
Playbook? More like play-notepad... This is run, run, pass, punt..

Which will make Croyle MORE successful. Less attempts = less turnovers.

keg in kc
05-29-2007, 12:37 PM
Which will make Croyle MORE successful. Less attempts = less turnovers.It may give him a chance to be more successful. He *can* still suck, however.

And while a simplified offense is certainly more user-friendly, it comes with a caveat: teams will only have to focus on stopping LJ until Croyle proves he can do anything. The offense, if it's going the direction it appears to be, is going to be much more predictable (for defenses), especially with the passing playbook pared down by half or more. I thought Saunders maybe went a little too far with that, the revolving playbook, with passing plays never used twice and cycled out after 4 weeks, but it did make it a lot more difficult for the opponent to know what was coming. I'd like to think Solari can find a happy medium between that and Martyocreball, but he hasn't done a lot to earn confidence at this point.

Hopefully last year was the result of injuries, and not a sign of the future. Have to admit I'm holding my breath on that, though.

OnTheWarpath58
05-29-2007, 12:40 PM
Which will make Croyle MORE successful. Less attempts = less turnovers.

Which is why Damon Huard looked like a Pro Bowler last year.

Play to the QB's strengths. Don't ask him to do things he's not capable of or not confident in.

Croyle will be just fine, IMO.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 12:46 PM
It may give him a chance to be more successful. He *can* still suck, however.

And while a simplified offense is certainly more user-friendly, it comes with a caveat: teams will only have to focus on stopping LJ until Croyle proves he can do anything. The offense, if it's going the direction it appears to be, is going to be much more predictable (for defenses), especially with the passing playbook pared down by half or more. I thought Saunders maybe went a little too far with that, the revolving playbook, with passing plays never used twice and cycled out after 4 weeks, but it did make it a lot more difficult for the opponent to know what was coming. I'd like to think Solari can find a happy medium between that and Martyocreball, but he hasn't done a lot to earn confidence at this point.

Hopefully last year was the result of injuries, and not a sign of the future. Have to admit I'm holding my breath on that, though.

Of course, he could still suck. So could Trent Dilfer. My only contention is that he's not a rookie, and his year on the sidelines last year will help him a lot more than people want to think.

Furthermore, a simplified offense can mask alot of issues. The prime example is Drew Brees. He didn't light the world on fire in his first season as a starter, but it was generally considered to be a "solid" year by most in which he didn't cost his team very many games. He threw for more TD's than INT's and over 3000 yards. What people didn't see was his Yards per Attempt of just over 6 - a full yard less than the league average. We have the RB and TE to do exactly what Sandy Eggo did.

CoMoChief
05-29-2007, 01:24 PM
Sitting out a year and holding a clipboard is FAR MORE valuable that people realize.

Croyle is not "pretty much" a rookie.

Can't get any better without getting some real action out on the playing field.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 01:26 PM
Can't get any better without getting some real action out on the playing field.

I absolutely agree.

Logical
05-29-2007, 05:49 PM
Way to put the "I was only talking about THIS season" disclaimer on your post AFTER THE FACT.

Clearly, you weren't talking about this season. QBotF stands for "Quarterback of the FUTURE". Are you trying to suggest that you used the QB of the FUTURE reference that many times in the same post, but you weren't really talking about the future but rather just this season?

Like I said, clearly you think we're all idiots.

ROFL

Parker I used the reference all of twice in that post. I was also pointing out we had no reason to expect any more success logically than Miami does out of Cleo Lemon. Nobody refuted it with facts, and I still contend a third round or later QB winning in his first season like Tom Brady is a 1 in 100 shot. Do you have some facts to dispute that or are you just trying to kill the messenger in hope you will kill the message?

Originally Posted by Logical

OK what convinces you we should believe a third round QB is going to be a success as our QBOTF, the one in a 100 shot that is Tom Brady? In the last 10 years how many 3rd round QBs went on to become the QBoTF for their drafting franchise?

I take it you have some facts as to why you know Brodie Croyle will be better than Cleo Lemon. Please enlighten me.

Direckshun
05-29-2007, 06:02 PM
Are you still serious that you're not confident if Croyle will be any better than Lemon?

keg in kc
05-29-2007, 06:05 PM
we had no reason to expect any more success logically than Miami does out of Cleo LemonThe fact that we were 9-7 in 2006 and have upgraded a number of positions on the roster, while Miami was 6-10 a year ago, would be one logical reason to expect greater success here. We are not installing a new offensive system. Beyond that, Lemon's own coaching staff doesn't seem at all interested in seeing him start, which says to me that the KC staff sees something in Croyle that Miami does not see in Lemon.

I think it's safe to call those a few logical reasons to expect greater success for Croyle in KC than Lemon in Miami.

That final reason alone is why there's a potential for greater success over the long haul. Croyle's probably going to start in his second season...and not because of injury or poor play on someone else's part. Lemon can't say the same, about any point in his career, and he's going into year 4. We're talking about a second year starter versus a career backup.

Logical
05-29-2007, 06:44 PM
The fact that we were 9-7 in 2006 and have upgraded a number of positions on the roster, while Miami was 6-10 a year ago, would be one logical reason to expect greater success here. We are not installing a new offensive system. Beyond that, Lemon's own coaching staff doesn't seem at all interested in seeing him start, which says to me that the KC staff sees something in Croyle that Miami does not see in Lemon.

I think it's safe to call those a few logical reasons to expect greater success for Croyle in KC than Lemon in Miami.

That final reason alone is why there's a potential for greater success over the long haul. Croyle's probably going to start in his second season...and not because of injury or poor play on someone else's part. Lemon can't say the same, about any point in his career, and he's going into year 4. We're talking about a second year starter versus a career backup.

I am sorry I am not talking team record but player performance. By the way if I remember this post I made it was in a Green thread and I was pointing out that Green was not a deal maker for Miami any more than he would be for KC. I still don't see why Miami wants a 37 year old quarterback.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 06:49 PM
Parker I used the reference all of twice in that post. I was also pointing out we had no reason to expect any more success logically than Miami does out of Cleo Lemon. Nobody refuted it with facts, and I still contend a third round or later QB winning in his first season like Tom Brady is a 1 in 100 shot. Do you have some facts to dispute that or are you just trying to kill the messenger in hope you will kill the message?

Bullshit.

I refuted it, with facts, 4 posts after yours.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3990296

Futhermore, you NEVER SAID "in his first season" until now.

But if you feel inclined to move the target to make your opinion harder to hit, I'm up for a challenge.

Logical
05-29-2007, 06:49 PM
Are you still serious that you're not confident if Croyle will be any better than Lemon?I would say I have higher hopes for Croyle but in all honesty that is because I am a KC fan. Those hopes probably are not realistic.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 06:50 PM
Are you still serious that you're not confident if Croyle will be any better than Lemon?

Of course he's serious.

Which is why his opinion on the Chiefs should never be taken seriously.

Logical
05-29-2007, 06:51 PM
Bullshit.

I refuted it, with facts, 4 posts after yours.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=3990296

Futhermore, you NEVER SAID "in his first season" until now.

But if you feel inclined to move the target to make your opinion harder to hit, I'm up for a challenge.

I am not finding that post. Not saying you did not just that I cannot find it. What is the post number?

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 06:51 PM
I would say I have higher hopes for Croyle but in all honesty that is because I am a KC fan. Those hopes probably are not realistic.

Why are they not realistic?

Do you have any tangible evidence to suggest that Croyle doesn't have the potential to be a good NFL QB?

Logical
05-29-2007, 06:52 PM
Of course he's serious.

Which is why his opinion on the Chiefs should never be taken seriously.

I think you take it the wrong way, I don't think either one of them is going to succeed this year on the poor teams they play for.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 06:53 PM
I am not finding that post. Not saying you did not just that I cannot find it. What is the post number?

Your post is #30.

30 + 4 = 34.

Logical
05-29-2007, 06:53 PM
Why are they not realistic?

Do you have any tangible evidence to suggest that Croyle doesn't have the potential to be a good NFL QB?

Because I think this is going to be a bad offense this year. I think he will contribute to making it worse because of his lack of experience.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 06:54 PM
I think you take it the wrong way, I don't think either one of them is going to succeed this year on the poor teams they play for.

Damon Huard went 4-3 with Jordan Black and Samie Parker.

Brodie Croyle will have a better LT, a better #2 WR, and a better defense.

If Career Journeyman Huard can do it, Croyle can.

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 06:55 PM
Because I think this is going to be a bad offense this year. I think he will contribute to making it worse because of his lack of experience.

Again, you NEVER SAID "this season".

You said "of the FUTURE".

Own up to what you said, Jim.

Logical
05-29-2007, 06:56 PM
Your post is #30.

30 + 4 = 34.

Parker, perhaps you can explain to me why when I use that link I end up on different page and the post order is backwards than my normal viewing. I also notice that it shows me as not logged in on that page?

Logical
05-29-2007, 07:00 PM
Your post is #30.

30 + 4 = 34.

That post does not provide refutation, no examples of other third round or later successes other than the aforementioned 1 in 100 shot of Brady.

Here is your post in case you don't remember it.

I take it you have facts as to why Croyle will NOT be better than Cleo Lemon.

Futhermore, I take it you have facts as to why Croyle is not a legitimate QBotF, while somebody like Jamarcus Russell or Jay Cutler is.

Here's a question for you:

How many FIRST round QB's drafted - let's say, since 2000 - went on to be the QBotF of their franchise?

Fact is, Brodie played at Alabama, against probably the toughest competition in college football. His surrounding cast was substandard, to put it politely and he had to overcome adversity every step of the way. He started his entire career there and put up numbers reminiscent of some Bama all-time greats like Joe Namath. I could go on and on and on, but I highly doubt you'll get the point, so I might as well not waste my time.

Brodie Croyle is a bust because of what round he was picked in. ROFL

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 07:04 PM
Here. For whatever reason, the URL I posted has the syntax incorrect.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3990342

Logical
05-29-2007, 07:10 PM
Here. For whatever reason, the URL I posted has the syntax incorrect.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3990342


Thanks I already found it see post 67

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 07:19 PM
That post does not provide refutation, no examples of other third round or later successes other than the aforementioned 1 in 100 shot of Brady.

Here is your post in case you don't remember it.

Ah, I see.

His college career has zero bearing on how he might produce in the NFL. No wonder you don't consider those things I mentioned as "facts".

Futhermore, I hope you realize that you just implicitly ADMITTED that the reason you think Brodie will fail is BECAUSE HE WAS A THIRD ROUNDER.

Finally, here's your list.

1997
Jim Druckenmiller - 1st round
Jake Plummer - 2nd round
1998
Peyton Manning - 1st round
Ryan Leaf - 1st round
Charlie Batch - 2nd round
Johnathan Quinn - 3rd round
Brian Griese - 3rd round
1999 (Worst year for QB's ever?)
Tim Couch - 1st round
Donovan McNabb - 1st round
Akili Smith - 1st round
Daunte Culpepper - 1st round
Cade McNown - 1st round
Shawn King - 2nd round
Brock Huard - 3rd round
2000
Chad Pennington - 1st round
Giovanni Carmazzi - 3rd round
Chris Redman - 3rd round
2001
Michael Vick - 1st round
Drew Brees - 2nd round
Quincy Carter - 2nd round
Marques Tuiasosopo - 2nd round
2002
David Carr - 1st round
Joey Harrington - 1st round
Patrick Ramsey - 1st round
Josh McCown - 3rd round
2003
Carson Palmer - 1st round
Byron Leftwich - 1st round
Kyle Boller - 1st round
Rex Grossman - 1st round
Dave Ragone - 3rd round
Chris Simms - 3rd round
2004
Eli Manning - 1st round
Philip Rivers - 1st round
Ben Roethlisberger - 1st round
J.P. Losman - 1st round
Matt Schaub - 3rd round
2005
Alex Smith - 1st round
Aaron Rogers - 1st round
Jason Campbell - 1st round
Charlie Frye - 3rd round
Andrew Walter - 3rd round
David Greene - 3rd round

htismaqe
05-29-2007, 07:32 PM
And here's an even better list. Compare this one to the previous. Not only are there plenty of successful QB's drafted after the 1st round, it also shows that 1st-round QB's make up the majority of BOTH lists. In fact, to get one of those 1st-round guys, some teams had to go through the process multiple times before they actually got one. Cincinatti

The Top 30 passers in the NFL, according to passer rating, last season, followed by where they were drafted:

Peyton Manning, 1st
Damon Huard, undrafted
Drew Brees, 2nd
Donovan McNabb, 1st
Tony Romo, undrafted
Carson Palmer, 1st
Marc Bulger, 6th
Philip Rivers, 1st
Tom Brady, 6th
Mark Brunnell, 5th
J.P. Losman, 1st
Chad Pennington, 1st
Jake Delhomme, undrafted
Steve McNair, 1st
David Carr, 1st
David Garrard, 4th
Jon Kitna, undrafted
Eli Manning, 1st
Matt Hasslebeck, undrafted
Michael Vick, 1st
Ben Roethlisberger, 1st
Alex Smith, 1st
Matt Leinart, 1st
Rex Grossman, 1st
Brett Favre, 2nd
Charlie Frye, 3rd
Brad Johnson, 9th
Jake Plummer, 2nd
Joey Harrington, 1st

Simply Red
05-29-2007, 07:55 PM
You mean Faneca? Dipshit.

:stupid:
Says the true "DIPSHIT" that can't follow the "SFW", "NSFW" thread protocol.

Logical
05-29-2007, 08:14 PM
Ah, I see.

His college career has zero bearing on how he might produce in the NFL. No wonder you don't consider those things I mentioned as "facts".

Futhermore, I hope you realize that you just implicitly ADMITTED that the reason you think Brodie will fail is BECAUSE HE WAS A THIRD ROUNDER.

Finally, here's your list.

1997
Jim Druckenmiller - 1st round
Jake Plummer - 2nd round
1998
Peyton Manning - 1st round
Ryan Leaf - 1st round
Charlie Batch - 2nd round
Johnathan Quinn - 3rd round
Brian Griese - 3rd round
1999 (Worst year for QB's ever?)
Tim Couch - 1st round
Donovan McNabb - 1st round
Akili Smith - 1st round
Daunte Culpepper - 1st round
Cade McNown - 1st round
Shawn King - 2nd round
Brock Huard - 3rd round
2000
Chad Pennington - 1st round
Giovanni Carmazzi - 3rd round
Chris Redman - 3rd round
2001
Michael Vick - 1st round
Drew Brees - 2nd round
Quincy Carter - 2nd round
Marques Tuiasosopo - 2nd round
2002
David Carr - 1st round
Joey Harrington - 1st round
Patrick Ramsey - 1st round
Josh McCown - 3rd round
2003
Carson Palmer - 1st round
Byron Leftwich - 1st round
Kyle Boller - 1st round
Rex Grossman - 1st round
Dave Ragone - 3rd round
Chris Simms - 3rd round
2004
Eli Manning - 1st round
Philip Rivers - 1st round
Ben Roethlisberger - 1st round
J.P. Losman - 1st round
Matt Schaub - 3rd round
2005
Alex Smith - 1st round
Aaron Rogers - 1st round
Jason Campbell - 1st round
Charlie Frye - 3rd round
Andrew Walter - 3rd round
David Greene - 3rd round

The only guy 3rd round or later that I see that might be considered a potential success is Chris Simms unless you consider Brian Griese a success (personally I don't)

keg in kc
05-29-2007, 08:34 PM
Because I think I don't know that what any of us thinks would qualify as "tangible evidence".