PDA

View Full Version : RAND: Don't look too far down the road


Buehler445
06-05-2007, 07:46 AM
http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2007/06/05/rand_dont_look_too_far_down_the_road/

RAND: Don't look too far down the road
Jun 05, 2007, 1:18:20 AM by Jonathan Rand - FAQ


During the next few months, we’ll keep hearing lots of reasons why the Chiefs’ starting quarterback should be Damon Huard, Brodie Croyle or even Trent Green should trade talks with the Dolphins fall apart. Not all the reasons will sound all that reasonable.

Coach Herm Edwards was asked at the end of the weekend mini-camp if it was important to his eventual starting quarterback that he get the nod soon. There have, in fact, been NFL quarterbacks who’ve been so mishandled, booed or criticized that they’ve needed their confidence rebuilt with an early assurance that the starting jobs was theirs.

That’s not necessary with the Chiefs. Huard has spent a decade in the fire station responding whenever the bell rings and wouldn’t be fazed if he were named the starter five minutes before kickoff for the opener.

Croyle, entering his second season, would be so happy to start that the timing wouldn’t matter to him, either. And Green, after six years as the opening-day starter, could resume that role as easily as somebody slipping back on the living room couch.

So Edwards needs not hurry to name a starting quarterback. Besides, he and his staff will need all the time they can get to make an educated guess on the readiness of Croyle, who threw just seven passes as a rookie.

Edwards won’t actually know whether Croyle is ready until he gets to play. All the practice field and pre-season reps in the world won’t reveal if a quarterback’s decision making, leadership and skills can hold up against the blinding speed and relentless pressure of a regular-season game.

A major factor in Croyle’s favor, supposedly, is that the Chiefs can’t afford to stunt his development while AFC West rivals develop young quarterbacks – the Raiders with rookie JaMarcus Russell, the Broncos with Jay Cutler and the Chargers with Philip Rivers.

This factor is overrated. If Croyle performs as well as either of his rivals, his age and upside would be the logical tie-breaker to give him the job. But if he’s not ready to play and win, it would be a mistake to force feed him into the lineup just to keep up with the Joneses. It’s too difficult to win in the NFL to compromise a season just to develop a young quarterback.

The Broncos probably would’ve made the playoffs last season had Mike Shanahan not benched veteran Jake Plummer with a 7-4 record. Tired of Plummer’s interceptions, Shanahan went to Cutler, a rookie, and the Broncos finished 2-3. In a home game against the 49ers that could’ve put the Broncos in the playoffs, Cutler played unevenly after getting knocked woozy and the Broncos were upset 26-23. That loss gave the Chiefs the AFC’s last playoff spot.

A coach is looking too far down the road if he’s worried that in a year or two his division rivals will have more experienced quarterbacks. Just look at the Chargers last year.

Marty Schottenheimer was forced to start Rivers, a third-year player who’d never started, because the front office allowed veteran Drew Brees to leave via free agency. The other AFC teams started out with veterans – Green, Plummer and the Raiders’ Aaron Brooks. The Chargers finished 14-2. So much for worrying about having the division’s least experienced passer.

It’s always a bonus to find a talented young quarterback who can lead a franchise into the future. But if Green, pushing 37, were still a Pro Bowl quarterback and not the player who declined last season, Edwards would be crazy not to start him. The NFL is too unpredictable and volatile – and a playoff spot is much too precious — for a coach to look too far down the road.

Edwards ought to pick the quarterback who’s best equipped to win right now.



Does anyone have thoughts on the bolded issue. I haven't followed too many quarterbacks' development, so I wanted your guys opinions.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 07:53 AM
This is the biggest problem with the Chiefs and the f*ck tool Carl... KC Media is so stupid "Edwards ought to pick the quarterback who’s best equipped to win right now."

Win right now? Why? Why not build for the next 5-6 years or longer? Why is everyone so enamored with those first round losses with some backup or old vet? Stupid, Stupid, Stupid... How many times have we witnessed this over the last 18 years???

What a piece of shit article... This is why KC has never won a superbowl with Carl. They cant build for the future....

DAMMNIT RAND :cuss:

Count Zarth
06-05-2007, 07:59 AM
No, he has a good point. There's no reason to rush Croyle.

Chiefnj
06-05-2007, 08:04 AM
I think it is important to find a young QB, develop him and stick with him. I think it is important to figure out this year if Croyle is the man or not.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 08:04 AM
No, he has a good point. There's no reason to rush Croyle.


No reason to start Huard either...

What is so important about this year that we feel we have to compromise our rebuilding process with starting some washed up never was or a qb that was served up scrabbled last year?


No need to rush Croyle and pressure him to carry this team.. We arent going to the playoffs anyway or win if we make it, so why waste another year of Croyle on the bench just so we can continue our trend of playing over the hill QB's?

When was the last time we started a QB this young and tried to develop a QB in KC? I really would like to know....

Buehler445
06-05-2007, 08:07 AM
Is there a normal time that it takes good quarterbacks to develop? My point is that if he is not ready this season, what is the probability that he will ever be ready? From my admittedly short experience, it seems like good QB's coming out of college only need to sit for a year or so. Others like Green have taken longer, but I don't think they are typically drafted as QBOF type players. Is there any "normal" time that they need to develop?

The other thing is that Herm's offense, as I understand, isn't tough and he should be able to pick it up relatively quickly, its just his leadership and decision making that is needing developed. Is that correct?

Count Zarth
06-05-2007, 08:08 AM
No reason to start Huard either...

What is so important about this year that we feel we have to compromise our rebuilding process?

Dude, we're not going 6-10 this year. Just shut up already.

Radar Chief
06-05-2007, 08:13 AM
When was the last time we started a QB this young and tried to develop a QB in KC? I really would like to know....

Todd Blackledge, QBOTF. WooWoo

mikey23545
06-05-2007, 08:13 AM
Dude, we're not going 6-10 this year. Just shut up already.

Couldn't have said it better myself...

This team is going to be better than last years, and is ascending.

StcChief
06-05-2007, 08:25 AM
Best man plays. Period. If Croyle doesn't start season
I still expect him mid way thru season... ala 2006 Donxs

Short Leash Hootie
06-05-2007, 08:31 AM
Dude, we're not going 6-10 this year. Just shut up already.
Reerun has to be the dumbest person on this board.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 08:32 AM
Dude, we're not going 6-10 this year. Just shut up already.


So Mr Spellchecker, YOU would bench Croyle and start Huard? That would be playing for the future in your book?

Also, I never said 6-10 in any of my posts on this topic.... Where are you getting that weak action from?

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 08:33 AM
Reerun has to be the dumbest person on this board.


Why because I didnt say 6-10?

trndobrd
06-05-2007, 08:37 AM
So Mr Spellchecker, YOU would bench Croyle and start Huard? That would be playing for the future in your book?

Also, I never said 6-10 in any of my posts on this topic.... Where are you getting that weak action from?

Start whoever is going to give the team the best chance of winning on Sunday.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 08:40 AM
Start whoever is going to give the team the best chance of winning on Sunday.


What about best chance to win next season? instead of Brodie, do we draft yet another QB to sit on the bench while we play musical chairs with 30+ year old QB's?

Wouldnt you like to know if Brodie can play or not? Like someone said, Herms offense is pretty simple... He just has to manage the game, make a couple of throws and hand off to LJ....

Count Zarth
06-05-2007, 08:40 AM
So Mr Spellchecker, YOU would bench Croyle and start Huard? That would be playing for the future in your book?

If sitting Croyle down for a year is the best thing for the future, so be it.


Also, I never said 6-10 in any of my posts on this topic.... Where are you getting that weak action from?

Weak action, huh?

Be realistic here 6-10 is more like it...

you have to have something that resembles an offense...

But I have a feeling MR Buttsex Football will pull a rabbit out and take the Chiefs to a season stomping record of 6-10....

You have to score points to win in the NFL....

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 08:40 AM
This factor is overrated.

Overrated by Carl Peterson and his mouthpieces at KCChiefs.com.

They evidently forgot to listen to their head coach, who SPECIFICALLY stated it was a concern of his.

Trent Green reminds us at least once a day of this fact.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 08:42 AM
This team is NOT GOING TO WIN A SUPER BOWL with Huard.

There is ZERO reason to go into the season with another re-tread over-the-hill QB at the helm.

It's time to FINALLY BUILD something in KC.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 08:42 AM
If sitting Croyle down for a year is the best thing for the future, so be it.



Weak action, huh?


Your such a little bitch GoChiefs.... Where did I post in this thread about 6-10?


besides say we do go 10-6, Does that guarantee us a playoff spot?

Redrum_69
06-05-2007, 08:42 AM
I think it is important to find a good coach, support him and stick with him. I think it is important to figure out this year if Herman Edwards is the man or not.



FYP

Count Zarth
06-05-2007, 08:42 AM
Your such a little bitch GoChiefs.... Where did I post in this thread about 6-10?


besides say we do go 10-6, Does that guarantee us a playoff spot?

Now it's IN THIS THREAD? I quote your 6-10 chicken little posts and you pull that garbage?

What a joke. You're full of crap.

Redrum_69
06-05-2007, 08:44 AM
No, he has a good point. There's no reason to rush Croyle.


SHouldnt you be copy/pasting someones elses work and claiming it as your own?

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 08:45 AM
This team is NOT GOING TO WIN A SUPER BOWL with Huard.

There is ZERO reason to go into the season with another re-tread over-the-hill QB at the helm.

It's time to FINALLY BUILD something in KC.


Somebody posted Todd Blackledge was the last time we drafted a QBoTF....

How many 30+ year old's have we ran through here in the last 20 years?

It is time to take a new direction with the QB, I am fully in agreement with Herm, Yes you read this right, I am in agreement with Herm that now is the time to start Croyle...

If Herm would announce Croyle as the starter, that might Force Carls hand in getting something done with Trent... KC doenst need this type of distraction while developing a young QB....

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 08:47 AM
If Herm would announce Croyle as the starter, that might Force Carls hand in getting something done with Trent... KC doenst need this type of distraction while developing a young QB....

That's the ONLY reason there's a "competition" going on at QB, and it's the ONLY reason we're reading this garbage from KCChiefs.com.

Everybody at 1 Arrowhead is lying through their teeth right now so that Carl can get his draft pick.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 08:47 AM
Now it's IN THIS THREAD? I quote your 6-10 chicken little posts and you pull that garbage?

What a joke. You're full of crap.


Yeah okay GoChiefs... You of all people shouldnt be critizing anyones posts or threads... And you know why...


Pot meet Kettle....

Count Zarth
06-05-2007, 08:48 AM
Yeah okay GoChiefs... You of all people shouldnt be critizing anyones posts or threads... And you know why...


Pot meet Kettle....

Tap out acknowledged. Concession accepted.

Count Zarth
06-05-2007, 08:49 AM
SHouldnt you be copy/pasting someones elses work and claiming it as your own?

Shut up, retard.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 08:49 AM
That's the ONLY reason there's a "competition" going on at QB, and it's the ONLY reason we're reading this garbage from KCChiefs.com.

Everybody at 1 Arrowhead is lying through their teeth right now so that Carl can get his draft pick.


Thats a valid point.. IF Herm named Croyle as the starter or such, then Trents value would drop and Carl would be hosed for the 4th....

So until then, we get these solid, play the old guy articles.....

Chiefnj
06-05-2007, 08:53 AM
If Croyle can't start you seriously have to begin questioning whether he ever will be able to.

He played at Alabama, not a Division III school. He's had to play on a pretty big stage, and he played every year he was on the team (including being the starter beginning his soph year).

One year on the bench to get accustomed to the speed of the game in a simplified offense that will rely heavily on the running game, and he can't start?

Deal with the growing pains and go for it.

Deep down I think Herm plans on starting him, he just won't announce it.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 08:55 AM
If Croyle can't start you seriously have to begin questioning whether he ever will be able to.

He played at Alabama, not a Division III school. He's had to play on a pretty big stage, and he played every year he was on the team (including being the starter beginning his soph year).

One year on the bench to get accustomed to the speed of the game in a simplified offense that will rely heavily on the running game, and he can't start?

Deal with the growing pains and go for it.

Deep down I think Herm plans on starting him, he just won't announce it.


Htismaqe has a great point in post #24....

Carl wants that draft pick so any announcement is not in the near future...

pikesome
06-05-2007, 08:57 AM
The only reason to start Huard or Green is if the staff thinks Croyle isn't ready and isn't going to be ready in the first half of the season and that him sucking is going to stunt his development. It's unlikely all three are going to happen. Even if Huard takes us to the SB we're going to need a new QB next year because the Chiefs aren't going to want to pay Huard what he'd want because of his age. Likewise with Green. The "butts-in-seats" argument isn't even a good one. I find it unlikely that a 4-12, 5-11, 6-10 season is going to drive people away in one year. 4 or 5 in a row might but not one.

crazycoffey
06-05-2007, 08:57 AM
If Croyle can't start you seriously have to begin questioning whether he ever will be able to.

He played at Alabama, not a Division III school. He's had to play on a pretty big stage, and he played every year he was on the team (including being the starter beginning his soph year).

One year on the bench to get accustomed to the speed of the game in a simplified offense that will rely heavily on the running game, and he can't start?

Deal with the growing pains and go for it.

Deep down I think Herm plans on starting him, he just won't announce it.



Yup and Yup....

but if the deal with Miami goes through and Green is back to Pro bowl form (or someplace close to it) I don't have a problem with him being reinstated either.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 08:59 AM
If Croyle can't start you seriously have to begin questioning whether he ever will be able to.

He played at Alabama, not a Division III school. He's had to play on a pretty big stage, and he played every year he was on the team (including being the starter beginning his soph year).

One year on the bench to get accustomed to the speed of the game in a simplified offense that will rely heavily on the running game, and he can't start?

Deal with the growing pains and go for it.

Deep down I think Herm plans on starting him, he just won't announce it.

:clap:

Radar Chief
06-05-2007, 09:00 AM
Somebody posted Todd Blackledge was the last time we drafted a QBoTF....

IIRC, we’ve drafted other QB’s, but have not spent a first round pick on one since then.

Chiefnj
06-05-2007, 09:06 AM
They drafted guys like Blundin, Elkins, Barnes and Stenstrum. My mind if foggy, maybe I'm making some of those names up. I think one or two were 2nd round picks.

Redrum_69
06-05-2007, 09:23 AM
Shut up, retard.


Repost

Redrum_69
06-05-2007, 09:25 AM
This is by far the most colorful rep that Gocheifs has ever left:


RAND: Don't look too fa... 06-05-2007 08:49 AM GoChiefs eat shit you worthless sack of twats

splatbass
06-05-2007, 09:25 AM
I hope Croyle is ready and starts this season. That said, if he isn't ready he should sit out until he is, whether it is later this season or next. NFL history is littered with QBs who were thrown to the wolves early before they were ready and performed badly, developed bad habits, and ended up busts. You can ruin a QB with good potential by starting him before he is ready.

Count Zarth
06-05-2007, 09:28 AM
This is by far the most colorful rep that Gochiefs has ever left:


RAND: Don't look too fa... 06-05-2007 08:49 AM GoChiefs eat shit you worthless sack of twats

What a little bitch you are.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 09:34 AM
What a little bitch you are.


REPOST!

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 09:35 AM
I hope Croyle is ready and starts this season. That said, if he isn't ready he should sit out until he is, whether it is later this season or next. NFL history is littered with QBs who were thrown to the wolves early before they were ready and performed badly, developed bad habits, and ended up busts. You can ruin a QB with good potential by starting him before he is ready.


We have wasted many of QB's on the bench for this fear... Screw it, if he cant do it this year. Draft and move on.... You never know if you dont try....

Buehler445
06-05-2007, 09:41 AM
We have wasted many of QB's on the bench for this fear... Screw it, if he cant do it this year. Draft and move on.... You never know if you dont try....

I would be inclined to think the same way, but like I said, I don't have too much knowledge on QB development. Another good thing is that a lot of the long-time vets are gone. I think this will help his development as a leader. Hopefully he won't run into the problem of trying to get a bunch of set-in-their ways old vets that won't listen to a young guy.

My biggest concern would be providing protection. It is hard to develop his decision making when he is running for his life. Does he have a pretty quick release, or does he need to hold it.

Chiefnj
06-05-2007, 09:44 AM
My biggest concern would be providing protection. It is hard to develop his decision making when he is running for his life. Does he have a pretty quick release, or does he need to hold it.

He should be used to playing behind a porous OL. At 'Bama he had one of the worst lines in school history.

I believe his release and motion, etc., are all good. His biggest knock was his injury history (playing behind a poor OL) and there were some footwork/pocket presence issues.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 09:47 AM
I hope Croyle is ready and starts this season. That said, if he isn't ready he should sit out until he is, whether it is later this season or next. NFL history is littered with QBs who were thrown to the wolves early before they were ready and performed badly, developed bad habits, and ended up busts. You can ruin a QB with good potential by starting him before he is ready.

Those QB's who "started too early" are almost all guys that started in their rookie season.

History is much kinder to guys who started in their 2nd season after spending one season holding a clipboard.

He MUST BE ready. The only way to know for sure is to "throw him to the wolves".

unothadeal
06-05-2007, 09:48 AM
Play 'em.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 09:48 AM
He should be used to playing behind a porous OL. At 'Bama he had one of the worst lines in school history.

I believe his release and motion, etc., are all good. His biggest knock was his injury history (playing behind a poor OL) and there were some footwork/pocket presence issues.

Pretty much. If you go back and look at his scouting reports they all pretty much say:

Cons:
***INJURY HISTORY***
oh, and he's not fast enough to escape speed rushers

EDIT: Most of them actually commend his pocket "presence" saying that he does a great job of recognizing pressure and throwing the ball away instead of forcing bad throws.

crazycoffey
06-05-2007, 09:49 AM
I vote for the "throw him to the wolves" option, Let's see if we have a starter, a Ryan Leaf or a career backup on our hands, so we can draft appropriately next year.

Chiefnj
06-05-2007, 09:57 AM
Is there more, or less, pressure on Croyle if Herm were to annoint him the starter today?

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 09:59 AM
Is there more, or less, pressure on Croyle if Herm were to annoint him the starter today?

Well there's 2 things at work here, IMO.

First to answer your question directly, I say neither. He's never started before, and that's the bulk of the pressure he's gonna feel. I don't think he's gonna feel a lot of pressure competing for a job that was never his to begin with. Huard and Green bear that pressure.

Second, I think this whole thing is a sham. I think Croyle already knows the job is his to lose.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 09:59 AM
Is there more, or less, pressure on Croyle if Herm were to annoint him the starter today?


That pressure would be off Croyle and on to Carl... Carl needs to hold on to Trent and keep this QB situation open. This way he can get his pick for Trent...

I would wonder if it wouldnt do wonders for Croyle's confidence if he was named the starter....

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 10:01 AM
Well there's 2 things at work here, IMO.

First to answer your question directly, I say neither. He's never started before, and that's the bulk of the pressure he's gonna feel. I don't think he's gonna feel a lot of pressure competing for a job that was never his to begin with. Huard and Green bear that pressure.

Second, I think this whole thing is a sham. I think Croyle already knows the job is his to lose.


That is what I have been gathering all along....

That is why this article is so weak and very uninformed..

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 10:02 AM
That is why this article is so weak and very uninformed..

Welcome to KCChiefs.com.

Buehler445
06-05-2007, 10:09 AM
Welcome to KCChiefs.com.

No poopy. Our website is the bad.

pikesome
06-05-2007, 10:10 AM
That pressure would be off Croyle and on to Carl... Carl needs to hold on to Trent and keep this QB situation open. This way he can get his pick for Trent...



According to Clayton on ESPN Green was the best looking QB at camp. The tone of his little report made me think that Carl's still working on getting that 4th. Also I've heard less complaining about the Chiefs being stubborn and more about Miami being stingy.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 10:11 AM
According to Clayton on ESPN Green was the best looking QB at camp. The tone of his little report made me think that Carl's still working on getting that 4th. Also I've heard less complaining about the Chiefs being stubborn and more about Miami being stingy.

Yep.

You're gonna hear more and more about how "good" Green looks until they finally get what they want.

Buehler445
06-05-2007, 10:13 AM
I would wonder if it wouldnt do wonders for Croyle's confidence if he was named the starter....

He seems like a pretty confident kid to start with. The following quote is from the Q&A with him on the website.

Q: Do you feel that you’re ready to be a starting quarterback in the NFL?

CROYLE: “I do. If you would have asked me the same question last year I would have probably said the same thing. But last year I wasn’t. With a whole year of learning and an off-season of continuing to learn and continuing to get a little bigger, I feel like I’m ready to go.”

http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2007/06/03/qa_with_qb_brodie_croyle__63/

That doesn't seem like a just blowing smoke answer. I think the thing that would help the most would be getting starters reps. That is my biggest concern at this point with the Trent episode. JMO

Chiefnj
06-05-2007, 10:19 AM
Well there's 2 things at work here, IMO.

First to answer your question directly, I say neither. He's never started before, and that's the bulk of the pressure he's gonna feel. I don't think he's gonna feel a lot of pressure competing for a job that was never his to begin with. Huard and Green bear that pressure.

Second, I think this whole thing is a sham. I think Croyle already knows the job is his to lose.

I think there could be more pressure if he is the starter. Everyone loves the backup QB. If he has a bad day and Huard a good day, everyone starts to question the decision and question him.

There is probably more pressure on Herm if he names Croyle. If there is a competition it doesn't matter who is doing better at the moment.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 10:21 AM
I think there could be more pressure if he is the starter. Everyone loves the backup QB. If he has a bad day and Huard a good day, everyone starts to question the decision and question him.

There is probably more pressure on Herm if he names Croyle. If there is a competition it doesn't matter who is doing better at the moment.

Good point.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 10:23 AM
I think there could be more pressure if he is the starter. Everyone loves the backup QB. If he has a bad day and Huard a good day, everyone starts to question the decision and question him.

There is probably more pressure on Herm if he names Croyle. If there is a competition it doesn't matter who is doing better at the moment.


Solid, Alot of people are sold on Huard for his play agianst the weak NFC west defenses.... nevermind that Huard fumbled 9 times in 254 attempts, which lead the league...

bogie
06-05-2007, 10:35 AM
If Herm thinks Croyle can win, he should start him. If he thinks Croyle can't win, he should not start him. If he doesn't know the answer to this question yet... that would concern me. I do want to build for the future, but starting someone just because they're young seems dumb to me.

keg in kc
06-05-2007, 10:37 AM
Without shuffling through all the posts, my one comment would be a reminder that winning and building for the future are not necessarily mutually-exclusive concepts. You don't have to go 3-13 and draft first for 5 years to build a strong core of youth. As it would appear our first (and hopefully second) drafts under Herm demonstrate.

A second comment might be that not all players develop in just 1 or 2 years, and throwing Croyle "to the wolves" or "into the fire" in his second season as a pro, if he's not ready, may not be the best move, either for him or for the franchise, in the long term.

It's a hard decision to make...

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 10:38 AM
If Herm thinks Croyle can win, he should start him. If he thinks Croyle can't win, he should not start him. If he doesn't know the answer to this question yet... that would concern me. I do want to build for the future, but starting someone just because they're young seems dumb to me.

Win what?

Sorry, but the whole "best chance to win" argument is lame.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 10:46 AM
Without shuffling through all the posts, my one comment would be a reminder that winning and building for the future are not necessarily mutually-exclusive concepts. You don't have to go 3-13 and draft first for 5 years to build a strong core of youth. As it would appear our first (and hopefully second) drafts under Herm demonstrate.

A second comment might be that not all players develop in just 1 or 2 years, and throwing Croyle "to the wolves" or "into the fire" in his second season as a pro, if he's not ready, may not be the best move, either for him or for the franchise, in the long term.

It's a hard decision to make...


True, you dont have to go 3-13 to rebuild your team, Herm is proving that as we speak... But you can win with a young QB, See SD last year. Pitt the year before...

Just because we are used to being the revolving door for aging QB's doesnt mean we cant win with Brodie...

crazycoffey
06-05-2007, 10:51 AM
True, you dont have to go 3-13 to rebuild your team, Herm is proving that as we speak... But you can win with a young QB, See SD last year. Pitt the year before...

Just because we are used to being the revolving door for aging QB's doesnt mean we cant win with Brodie...



you just said something positive about Herm.....





:Poke:

Short Leash Hootie
06-05-2007, 10:54 AM
Your such a little bitch GoChiefs.... Where did I post in this thread about 6-10?


besides say we do go 10-6, Does that guarantee us a playoff spot?
95% of the time it does...

Wile_E_Coyote
06-05-2007, 10:55 AM
Chief fans are use to older QBs at the helm. Hope the crowd has the patience for a 24 year old & the mistakes that come with it.

KC lives Chiefs 12 months a year. The media can be brutal, if only to have something to talk & write about

Short Leash Hootie
06-05-2007, 10:58 AM
as soon as someone gives me a good reason why it's intelligent to start a QB with 7 career passes (2 of them being INT's) when his team starts the season with three of four on the road with two of the games being @ Chicago and @ San Diego, then I'll admit Huard should be the backup.

Until then, Trent or Huard should be the QB that starts the season...because WHOEVER starts for us this year, is destined for failure during the first quarter of the season...we're going to be 1-3, 2-2 AT BEST...

If we start 1-3 we can bench Huard and Croyle can be our "savior"...at least he'll have 7 of 9 at home to find a comfort zone and then we'll be able to determine if we have our QB of the future...

How does this not make sense to everybody?

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 10:59 AM
Chief fans are use to older QBs at the helm. Hope the crowd has the patience for a 24 year old & the mistakes that come with it.

KC lives Chiefs 12 months a year. The media can be brutal, if only to have something to talk & write about


Same here! It is finally refreshing to know we have a Coach that will make the call and try and develop a QB. This is new and uncharted waters for the Chiefs...

If you can sit and watch Herm coach your team and like it? Then you can have the paitence to develop a rookie QB....

crazycoffey
06-05-2007, 11:02 AM
....How does this not make sense to everybody?



we took the source into consideration...... :shrug:

Wile_E_Coyote
06-05-2007, 11:07 AM
Same here! It is finally refreshing to know we have a Coach that will make the call and try and develop a QB. This is new and uncharted waters for the Chiefs...

If you can sit and watch Herm coach your team and like it? Then you can have the paitence to develop a rookie QB....

Brodie also has to follow in Trent Green's footsteps. It's nothing like those poor saps who had to follow Elway's. But Green put a deep shadow over his predecessors, as well he should. Grbac, Bono, ect :rolleyes:

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 11:10 AM
Brodie also has to follow in Trent Green's footsteps. It's nothing like those poor saps who had to follow Elway's. But Green put a deep shadow over his predecessors, as well he should. Grbac, Bono, ect :rolleyes:
If Brodie can preform at 80% of what Trent gave KC and the Chiefs on and off the field, I think the fans would be greatly appreciative.

Wile_E_Coyote
06-05-2007, 11:12 AM
If Brodie can preform at 80% of what Trent gave KC and the Chiefs on and off the field, I think the fans would be greatly appreciative.

If he had 80% of the supporting cast Trent had...would help

Chiefnj
06-05-2007, 11:16 AM
as soon as someone gives me a good reason why it's intelligent to start a QB with 7 career passes (2 of them being INT's) when his team starts the season with three of four on the road with two of the games being @ Chicago and @ San Diego, then I'll admit Huard should be the backup.

Until then, Trent or Huard should be the QB that starts the season...because WHOEVER starts for us this year, is destined for failure during the first quarter of the season...we're going to be 1-3, 2-2 AT BEST...

If we start 1-3 we can bench Huard and Croyle can be our "savior"...at least he'll have 7 of 9 at home to find a comfort zone and then we'll be able to determine if we have our QB of the future...

How does this not make sense to everybody?

I'm okay if the kid struggles. I expect it. If Croyle starts from day one I think anything over 6 wins for the season isn't too shabby.

pikesome
06-05-2007, 11:23 AM
I'm okay if the kid struggles. I expect it. If Croyle starts from day one I think anything over 6 wins for the season isn't too shabby.

I approve this message. It'd be nice to see someone other than a vet start for the Chiefs. I'm crossing my fingers that he turns out.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 11:26 AM
as soon as someone gives me a good reason why it's intelligent to start a QB with 7 career passes (2 of them being INT's) when his team starts the season with three of four on the road with two of the games being @ Chicago and @ San Diego, then I'll admit Huard should be the backup.

Until then, Trent or Huard should be the QB that starts the season...because WHOEVER starts for us this year, is destined for failure during the first quarter of the season...we're going to be 1-3, 2-2 AT BEST...

If we start 1-3 we can bench Huard and Croyle can be our "savior"...at least he'll have 7 of 9 at home to find a comfort zone and then we'll be able to determine if we have our QB of the future...

How does this not make sense to everybody?

The NFL is tough.

Brodie needs to learn how to overcome adversity. He can't do that if you let him sit on the bench and sacrifice one of the veteran backups in the name of sheltering Brodie from a tough road schedule.

Demonpenz
06-05-2007, 11:33 AM
I am for whoever helps us win games.

BigMeatballDave
06-05-2007, 11:35 AM
Win what?

Sorry, but the whole "best chance to win" argument is lame.Yes. "Best chance to win" doesn't matter if you are re-tooling...

pikesome
06-05-2007, 11:38 AM
Yes. "Best chance to win" doesn't matter if you are re-tooling...

You trade "best chance to win" for "best chance to win over the next 5 years". Hopefully.

Fish
06-05-2007, 11:41 AM
as soon as someone gives me a good reason why it's intelligent to start a QB with 7 career passes (2 of them being INT's) when his team starts the season with three of four on the road with two of the games being @ Chicago and @ San Diego, then I'll admit Huard should be the backup.

Until then, Trent or Huard should be the QB that starts the season...because WHOEVER starts for us this year, is destined for failure during the first quarter of the season...we're going to be 1-3, 2-2 AT BEST...

If we start 1-3 we can bench Huard and Croyle can be our "savior"...at least he'll have 7 of 9 at home to find a comfort zone and then we'll be able to determine if we have our QB of the future...

How does this not make sense to everybody?

If Croyle starts the first 4 games and does well, the confidence and trial-by-fire experience he'll gain will be well worth whatever our record would be those first 4 games. What better way to show Croyle support than to say you're the man, here's your chance... it's gonna be tough, but either way show us what you've got.

Waiting till the schedule gets easier goes against Herm's modulus operandi. If he wants to see whether Croyle is the tough guy nail-chewing leader of the team, this would be the perfect opportunity IMO.

BigMeatballDave
06-05-2007, 11:41 AM
as soon as someone gives me a good reason why it's intelligent to start a QB with 7 career passes (2 of them being INT's) when his team starts the season with three of four on the road with two of the games being @ Chicago and @ San Diego, then I'll admit Huard should be the backup.

Until then, Trent or Huard should be the QB that starts the season...because WHOEVER starts for us this year, is destined for failure during the first quarter of the season...we're going to be 1-3, 2-2 AT BEST...

If we start 1-3 we can bench Huard and Croyle can be our "savior"...at least he'll have 7 of 9 at home to find a comfort zone and then we'll be able to determine if we have our QB of the future...

How does this not make sense to everybody?BECAUSE A YOUTH MOVEMENT MEANS YOU PLAY YOUR YOUNGER PLAYERS. Duh! Jesus H. Christ. Why are people so afraid to start a young QB. Its not like we are used to winning.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 12:00 PM
BECAUSE A YOUTH MOVEMENT MEANS YOU PLAY YOUR YOUNGER PLAYERS. Duh! Jesus H. Christ. Why are people so afraid to start a young QB. Its not like we are used to winning.


because for the last 20 years we have recycled old vets through here like the Chiefsplanet uses Redrums mom, now she is old and tired....

ChiefsCountry
06-05-2007, 12:28 PM
Best chance to win this year - Trent Green
Best chance to win this year and future - Brodie Croyle
Best chance to draft #1 next season - Damon Huard

HemiEd
06-05-2007, 12:29 PM
They drafted guys like Blundin, Elkins, Barnes and Stenstrum. My mind if foggy, maybe I'm making some of those names up. I think one or two were 2nd round picks.

David Jaynes? Wasn't he the popular KU QB that didn't work out?

Count Zarth
06-05-2007, 12:30 PM
Best chance to draft #1 next season - Damon Huard

Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how much people still ****ing doubt Damon Huard.

OnTheWarpath58
06-05-2007, 12:34 PM
Until then, Trent or Huard should be the QB that starts the season...because WHOEVER starts for us this year, is destined for failure during the first quarter of the season...we're going to be 1-3, 2-2 AT BEST...

How does this not make sense to everybody?


We SHOULD be able to win @ Houston and against Minnesota with Casey Printers at QB.

And personally, I'm looking forward to our defense getting after Wrecks Grossman in Week 2.

IMO, we'll be 2-2 AT WORST.

Wile_E_Coyote
06-05-2007, 12:35 PM
I wonder how much last year helped Croyle. He saw the undisputed leader in Trent Green go down. Then saw Huard go in & be very effective(given time). Last year gave grasshopper much to chew on

Short Leash Hootie
06-05-2007, 12:49 PM
we are going to lose @ Houston...

I have a STRONG feeling about that one.

Count Zarth
06-05-2007, 12:50 PM
we are going to lose @ Houston...

I have a STRONG feeling about that one.

Houston defense is still among the league's worst. LJ will run wild on their ass.

crazycoffey
06-05-2007, 12:57 PM
we are going to lose @ Houston...

I have a STRONG feeling about that one.


I'll put $20 down today that we win @ Houston.

Buehler445
06-05-2007, 12:59 PM
I'll put $20 down today that we win @ Houston.

I may take 2:1 on that one.

go bowe
06-05-2007, 01:04 PM
Now it's IN THIS THREAD? I quote your 6-10 chicken little posts and you pull that garbage?

What a joke. You're full of crap.oh, c'mon...

it's full of shit...

shit...

not crap...

try to keep up... :Poke:

crazycoffey
06-05-2007, 01:20 PM
I may take 2:1 on that one.


What, I lose = I pay you 20, but I win you pay me 40? I would do that..... :D


I didn't offer odds, dammit, it is still OUR chiefs.....

Buehler445
06-05-2007, 01:22 PM
What, I lose = I pay you 20, but I win you pay me 40? I would do that..... :D


I didn't offer odds, dammit, it is still OUR chiefs.....

You are correct. I really think they will win, but Houston has come a long way. Long way to go, but a lot can happen on any given Sunday.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 01:25 PM
You are correct. I really think they will win, but Houston has come a long way. Long way to go, but a lot can happen on any given Sunday.


Well at least with Hicks gone, They wont bootleg the hell out of us!

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 01:26 PM
Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how much people still ****ing doubt Damon Huard.


That is so true, 32 other teams, management of said teams and fans all across the NFL are still to this day doubting Damon Hootie Huard.

crazycoffey
06-05-2007, 01:27 PM
You are correct. I really think they will win, but Houston has come a long way. Long way to go, but a lot can happen on any given Sunday.


Ah, I thought you wanted the action against KC.... (was being sarcastic in my last post, or was trying to be.)

Buehler445
06-05-2007, 01:30 PM
Ah, I thought you wanted the action against KC....

I did, but at 2:1 odds. I couldn't cheer for the Texans, but I can bet on them.

ChiefsCountry
06-05-2007, 01:33 PM
Wow. It never ceases to amaze me how much people still ****ing doubt Damon Huard.

Maybe its bc he pissed down his leg anytime we played anyone good.

bogie
06-05-2007, 01:41 PM
Win what?

Sorry, but the whole "best chance to win" argument is lame.

I hate to think we have to have a losing season while we rebuild. What if we keep playing young players and keep losing? I am an admitted homer. I would love it if Croyle can excel, but I would hate it if we're starting him just because he's young and not the better QB. When do we make the decision that he stinks? Then what? Do we keep him in and settle for stinko or do we put in Huard and try to win some games? If Huard is the better QB and they know it, I would start Huard. I keep reading that people have already made up their minds that Croyle should start. For me, not putting your best athlete on the field is lame.

bogie
06-05-2007, 01:45 PM
BECAUSE A YOUTH MOVEMENT MEANS YOU PLAY YOUR YOUNGER PLAYERS. Duh! Jesus H. Christ. Why are people so afraid to start a young QB. Its not like we are used to winning.

Not used to winning, just damb tired of losing.

crazycoffey
06-05-2007, 01:46 PM
I did, but at 2:1 odds. I couldn't cheer for the Texans, but I can bet on them.


I think you are just a closet homose.. er.... Texan fan.


NTTAWWT

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 01:48 PM
I hate to think we have to have a losing season while we rebuild. What if we keep playing young players and keep losing? I am an admitted homer. I would love it if Croyle can excel, but I would hate it if we're starting him just because he's young and not the better QB. When do we make the decision that he stinks? Then what? Do we keep him in and settle for stinko or do we put in Huard and try to win some games? If Huard is the better QB and they know it, I would start Huard. I keep reading that people have already made up their minds that Croyle should start. For me, not putting your best athlete on the field is lame.

Who said anything about having a LOSING SEASON? In the end, what's the difference between 7-9 and 9-7, besides the draft pick?

DAMON HUARD IS NOT GOING TO WIN US A SUPER BOWL. PERIOD. And after this season (maybe the next) he isn't going to win us ANYTHING, because he's OLD.

Croyle MAY have that ability. But we won't know until we put him in and find out. And if he turns out to stink, we'll be in prime position to draft his replacement next year.

What you're essentially saying is that you'd gladly give up on the next 10 years of Chiefs football in exchange for the chance to win 2 or 3 more games and lose in the 1st round of the playoffs this coming season.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 01:49 PM
Not used to winning, just damb tired of losing.

If you're tired of losing, why are you so willing to accept the status quo?

bogie
06-05-2007, 01:56 PM
Who said anything about having a LOSING SEASON? In the end, what's the difference between 7-9 and 9-7, besides the draft pick?

DAMON HUARD IS NOT GOING TO WIN US A SUPER BOWL. PERIOD. And after this season (maybe the next) he isn't going to win us ANYTHING, because he's OLD.

Croyle MAY have that ability. But we won't know until we put him in and find out. And if he turns out to stink, we'll be in prime position to draft his replacement next year.

What you're essentially saying is that you'd gladly give up on the next 10 years of Chiefs football in exchange for the chance to win 2 or 3 more games and lose in the 1st round of the playoffs this coming season.

If, during practice, Croyle sucks, I don't want him starting. If during practice Croyle is competitive with Huard then go ahead and start him. But, to write off Huard and start Croyle just because Croyle is young, is not very smart IMO.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 01:58 PM
If, during practice, Croyle sucks, I don't want him starting. If during practice Croyle is competitive with Huard then go ahead and start him. But, to write off Huard and start Croyle just because Croyle is young, is not very smart IMO.

Not very smart at all.

After all, it's a much better idea to put it all off as long as possible. That way we can avoid fixing the problem in next year's draft, or the draft after.

bogie
06-05-2007, 02:01 PM
If you're tired of losing, why are you so willing to accept the status quo?

I'm not willing to accept the status quo, but I don't want a lame 2nd year QB playing just because he's young. I think people want to start him just because he's young (lame or not) If they start him, fine, but he better by God earn the position, not start just because he's younger. I find no logic in that.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 02:02 PM
I'm not willing to accept the status quo, but I don't want a lame 2nd year QB playing just because he's young. I think people want to start him just because he's young (lame or not) If they start him, fine, but he better by God earn the position, not start just because he's younger. I find no logic in that.

So start the 35-year old stopgap for a year and do this all again next year. By then, it's too late to draft a replacement.

Hell, Huard has a 3-year deal. Let's bench Croyle until 2009 and then we can spend another 3rd-rounder on a QB that we can sit on the bench behind a career backup for 3 years.

bogie
06-05-2007, 02:09 PM
Not very smart at all.

After all, it's a much better idea to put it all off as long as possible. That way we can avoid fixing the problem in next year's draft, or the draft after.

I'm not very good at making my point. If Croyle deserves the position and has proven he can be a winning QB in the NFL, by all means start him. I'm reading on here that people seem to have already decided Croyle should be the stater just because he's young. If, during practice he proves to be unacceptable at his position and Huard proves he can win, start Huard, kick Croyle to the curb and find someone next year that can prove that he can be a winning QB in the NFL. I firmly disagree with the concept of starting someone just because he's younger. For the record, I want the team to get younger, but I want the younger team to make the team because they're winners, not because they're younger.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 02:12 PM
I'm not very good at making my point. If Croyle deserves the position and has proven he can be a winning QB in the NFL, by all means start him. I'm reading on here that people seem to have already decided Croyle should be the stater just because he's young. If, during practice he proves to be unacceptable at his position and Huard proves he can win, start Huard, kick Croyle to the curb and find someone next year that can prove that he can be a winning QB in the NFL. I firmly disagree with the concept of starting someone just because he's younger. For the record, I want the team to get younger, but I want the younger team to make the team because they're winners, not because they're younger.

You're going to kick Croyle to the curb without ever starting him in an actual game?

bogie
06-05-2007, 02:12 PM
So start the 35-year old stopgap for a year and do this all again next year. By then, it's too late to draft a replacement.

Hell, Huard has a 3-year deal. Let's bench Croyle until 2009 and then we can spend another 3rd-rounder on a QB that we can sit on the bench behind a career backup for 3 years.

What if Croyle sucks in practice? Do you start him?

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 02:13 PM
What if Croyle sucks in practice? Do you start him?

Yep.

I'm not gonna pass judgement on him until he proves himself, one way or the other, in an actual game situation.

bogie
06-05-2007, 02:14 PM
You're going to kick Croyle to the curb without ever starting him in an actual game?

If he sucks, yes. Don't you think they can determine his skill level during practice?

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 02:15 PM
If he sucks, yes. Don't you think they can determine his skill level during practice?

Absolutely not.

And coaches would tell you as much.

CHIEF4EVER
06-05-2007, 02:16 PM
Until then, Trent or Huard should be the QB that starts the season...because WHOEVER starts for us this year, is destined for failure during the first quarter of the season...we're going to be 1-3, 2-2 AT BEST...

And you know this HOW? Last time I checked football games are played on the field and the final score determines wins and losses.....not speculation.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 02:20 PM
And you know this HOW? Last time I checked football games are played on the field and the final score determines wins and losses.....not speculation.


Herm!!!

bogie
06-05-2007, 02:23 PM
Yep.

I'm not gonna pass judgement on him until he proves himself, one way or the other, in an actual game situation.

I gotta tell ya, if the coaching staff has to put him on the field in actual game situations after being with and practicing with the organization for 2 years to determine whether he can win games or not seems weird to me. I hope he's better than Huard or Green. But I'm not starting him if he doesn't WIN the job. If he doesn't WIN the job, bench him until Huard sucks it up and then put him in. If he doen't WIN the job, we find someone else that's young next year and maybe they'll WIN the job. For me, you put your best athletes on the field. You play to win the game :) .

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 02:35 PM
I gotta tell ya, if the coaching staff has to put him on the field in actual game situations after being with and practicing with the organization for 2 years to determine whether he can win games or not seems weird to me. I hope he's better than Huard or Green. But I'm not starting him if he doesn't WIN the job. If he doesn't WIN the job, bench him until Huard sucks it up and then put him in. If he doen't WIN the job, we find someone else that's young next year and maybe they'll WIN the job. For me, you put your best athletes on the field. You play to win the game :) .

You seem to be focused on this upcoming season.

I'm trying to look at this from a future perspective.

Let me ask you this:

Do you honestly think the Chiefs can win the Super Bowl this year with Damon Huard at the helm?

bogie
06-05-2007, 02:40 PM
You seem to be focused on this upcoming season.

I'm trying to look at this from a future perspective.

Let me ask you this:

Do you honestly think the Chiefs can win the Super Bowl this year with Damon Huard at the helm?

If the O line protects him and our WR's can catch balls and Huard can find TG and LJ can hit the holes and our D is improved, yes I do.
Let me ask you this:
What did Huard do last year to convince you he can't win the Super Bowl?

bogie
06-05-2007, 02:43 PM
You seem to be focused on this upcoming season.

I'm trying to look at this from a future perspective.

Let me ask you this:

Do you honestly think the Chiefs can win the Super Bowl this year with Damon Huard at the helm?

For the record, I too am looking to the future. Starting bad football players just because they're younger, is not going to improve our future

OnTheWarpath58
06-05-2007, 02:43 PM
If he sucks, yes. Don't you think they can determine his skill level during practice?

Ask Atlanta that question about Brett Favre.

Green Bay about Kurt Warner.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 02:44 PM
If the O line protects him and our WR's can catch balls and Huard can find TG and LJ can hit the holes and our D is improved, yes I do.
Let me ask you this:
What did Huard do last year to convince you he can't win the Super Bowl?

It's not necessarily about Huard.

I don't think the TEAM is good enough to win it all. We still need a couple of pieces on defense. And we need 4 or 5 pieces on offense.

By the time we get those, Huard will be Green's age and we'll be scrambling for a QB.

Let's address the QB position NOW, for better or worse, so that we can concentrate on filling those last few holes.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 02:45 PM
For the record, I too am looking to the future. Starting bad football players just because they're younger, is not going to improve our future

If Brodie Croyle turns out to be bad, we can draft his replacement immediately following the season.

If you start Huard under the pretense that he gives you a better chance to win now, you STILL don't know if Croyle is any good or not.

Which means you do this all again next year.

Why put off the inevitable?

keg in kc
06-05-2007, 02:50 PM
The way I would do it is, if Croyle wins the job outright in camp, you give it to him. If he doesn't, you plan to bring him in by midseason. And, then, if he doesn't show enough to earn a starting job by midseason, then it's probably clear you need to look for your guy in next year's draft. I don't think it's necessarily a situation where he needs to start all 16, and I don't have a problem with bringing him along relatively slowly.

Hopefully he shines in camp and the preseason and makes it a non-issue. If he's not ready to go by the middle of the year, then he's probably not 'the guy'.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 02:54 PM
The way I would do it is, if Croyle wins the job outright in camp, you give it to him. If he doesn't, you plan to bring him in by midseason. And, then, if he doesn't show enough to earn a starting job by midseason, then it's probably clear you need to look for your guy in next year's draft. I don't think it's necessarily a situation where he needs to start all 16, and I don't have a problem with bringing him along relatively slowly.

Hopefully he shines in camp and the preseason and makes it a non-issue. If he's not ready to go by the middle of the year, then he's probably not 'the guy'.

That's not a bad compromise.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 03:00 PM
What did Huard do last year to convince you he can't win the Super Bowl?


Wizzed down his pants agianst strong D's... Fumbled the ball way too much... Hung TG out to dry in the Miami game. Those are just a few...

Why is it so hard for KC fans to finally want to build a team through the draft including the QB position? Why dont you want to find out if Brodie can be the guy or not?

Has the last 20 years of aging vets and nothing to show for it that memorable that we must hold on to the status quo? Damn it is time for a change, seriously, KC needs to develop a QB, everyone else can, why cant we?

Huard cannot and will not lead KC to the superbowl... IF so then plenty of other teams would of came calling for his services this offseason...
Huard isnt jack shit....

Buehler445
06-05-2007, 03:15 PM
The way I would do it is, if Croyle wins the job outright in camp, you give it to him. If he doesn't, you plan to bring him in by midseason. And, then, if he doesn't show enough to earn a starting job by midseason, then it's probably clear you need to look for your guy in next year's draft. I don't think it's necessarily a situation where he needs to start all 16, and I don't have a problem with bringing him along relatively slowly.

Hopefully he shines in camp and the preseason and makes it a non-issue. If he's not ready to go by the middle of the year, then he's probably not 'the guy'.

I too, think this is the way to go. As much as we hate the donks, they may have had it right with Cutler. Lets just hope to good God Croyle is amazing.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 03:17 PM
I too, think this is the way to go. As much as we hate the donks, they may have had it right with Cutler. Lets just hope to good God Croyle is amazing.

It's the way to go if, and only if, Huard CLEARLY outplays Croyle in camp and preseason.

If it's close in any way, go with Croyle.

Reerun_KC
06-05-2007, 03:18 PM
I too, think this is the way to go. As much as we hate the donks, they may have had it right with Cutler. Lets just hope to good God Croyle is amazing.


Lets just hope to God he is a solid QB and the fair weather fans of KC pulls Huards man-hood out of their mouths and gives the kid a chance...

Valiant
06-05-2007, 03:20 PM
SHouldnt you be copy/pasting someones elses work and claiming it as your own?


LOL

bogie
06-05-2007, 03:43 PM
If Brodie Croyle turns out to be bad, we can draft his replacement immediately following the season.

If you start Huard under the pretense that he gives you a better chance to win now, you STILL don't know if Croyle is any good or not.

Which means you do this all again next year.

Why put off the inevitable?

What is the inevitable? You say start Croyle even if he sucks because he's younger. To me, with that, the inevitable is, we lose because Croyle sucks and we replace him next year. If we start Huard because he's better, we have a better chance for a winning season and next year we find a QB that can win the job. Or, we start Huard, he sucks, and we have no choice but to give Croyle his shot.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 03:47 PM
What is the inevitable? You say start Croyle even if he sucks because he's younger. To me, with that, the inevitable is, we lose because Croyle sucks and we replace him next year. If we start Huard because he's better, we have a better chance for a winning season and next year we find a QB that can win the job. Or, we start Huard, he sucks, and we have no choice but to give Croyle his shot.

First of all, what good is a winning season? You keep saying it and it still doesn't mean anything.

Second, if you sit Croyle he's STILL an unknown. You're going to draft a QB next year even though you might not need one.

Finally, if we start Huard, he plays well, and we have a "winning season" what's going to keep the team from starting him AGAIN next year? He's got a 3-year deal.

We've done this bit before. We've started a dozen or more journeymen at QB in the past 20 years. We've got zero conference championships and no playoff wins in the past 15 years.

It's time to do something different, even if it's just for the sake of doing something different.

bogie
06-05-2007, 03:50 PM
It's the way to go if, and only if, Huard CLEARLY outplays Croyle in camp and preseason.

If it's close in any way, go with Croyle.

:hmmm: I thought this is what I've been trying say. Like I said, I'm not very good at making my points.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 03:55 PM
:hmmm: I thought this is what I've been trying say. Like I said, I'm not very good at making my points.

Sorry, I got off on a tangent there.

I think what keg suggested (that's the response of mine you quoted) has merit.

It's not my first choice for course of action - I'd start Croyle for no other reason than it would mean Huard isn't starting. But that's just me.

bogie
06-05-2007, 03:57 PM
First of all, what good is a winning season? You keep saying it and it still doesn't mean anything.

Second, if you sit Croyle he's STILL an unknown. You're going to draft a QB next year even though you might not need one.

Finally, if we start Huard, he plays well, and we have a "winning season" what's going to keep the team from starting him AGAIN next year? He's got a 3-year deal.

We've done this bit before. We've started a dozen or more journeymen at QB in the past 20 years. We've got zero conference championships and no playoff wins in the past 15 years.

It's time to do something different, even if it's just for the sake of doing something different.

Making it deep into the playoffs would be nice, a SB would be spectacular. I need immediate gratification. If Huard wins this year, that's a bad thing? If he wins this year and sucks it up next year, we repalce him next year. My whole debate on this, is that people want to start someone simply because they're younger, even if they suck, that seems illogical to me.

redbrian
06-05-2007, 04:08 PM
For years folks harped about Green being handed the starting job, now we have 3 quarter backs competing for the job, which is good.

You give the job to the best quarter back period, who ever wins coming out of preseason is the man, the Chiefs can keep Green right up to opening day, if he wins the job fantastic, if he doesn’t then you trade or cut him.

If Miami does not want to give anything for him now then you don’t let them have him till it’s to late (too bad for Green but Green and his agent played this badly).

Chiefnj
06-05-2007, 04:16 PM
That's not a bad compromise.

I don't care for it. If you are going to start Huard it means the team thinks Huard has a better chance to win. What if he wins? Are you going to pull the starter when you are 5-3? 6-4? 5-5? And have a legit playoff shot?

bogie
06-05-2007, 04:55 PM
I don't care for it. If you are going to start Huard it means the team thinks Huard has a better chance to win. What if he wins? Are you going to pull the starter when you are 5-3? 6-4? 5-5? And have a legit playoff shot?

You pull him if he starts sucking. I think it's usually pretty obvious after 3 or 4 losses in a row. I could tell immediately that Green shouldn't have come back last year.

keg in kc
06-05-2007, 05:02 PM
You cross that bridge when you get there.

And a better chance to win with Huard in September doesn't necessarily mean they won't have a better chance of winning with Croyle in November.

Huard wasn't paid starter money. He's a smart man; he knows what that means. He's keeping the chair warm until the real captain's ready. Whether that's Croyle or someone else.

htismaqe
06-05-2007, 07:59 PM
Making it deep into the playoffs would be nice, a SB would be spectacular. I need immediate gratification. If Huard wins this year, that's a bad thing? If he wins this year and sucks it up next year, we repalce him next year. My whole debate on this, is that people want to start someone simply because they're younger, even if they suck, that seems illogical to me.

Define "win".

Huard is 35. He's limited talent-wise.

Anything less than an AFC Championship is a waste of a season, IMO.

I'm not interested in watching Huard win 9 or 10 games and lose in the 1st round of the playoffs.

CHIEF4EVER
06-06-2007, 03:15 AM
Why are people so afraid of the youth movement? Unless a miracle of epic proportions occurs, we are not going to the SB or even the AFCCG for that matter. Why not take our lumps now and let the youngsters get the mistakes out of their systems? What we have been doing the last 20 years is the true definition of Insanity....doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result each time.