PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs move forward


C-Mac
06-07-2007, 08:35 AM
Chiefs move forward
While sad to see Green traded to Miami, his former team is optimistic about future.
By JASON KING
The Kansas City Star

Miami Herald: Dolphins introduce Green, signaling end for Culpepper
A four-year plan at Miami
His red-and-white nameplate is gone now, right along with the helmet, practice jersey and playbook.

Inside Trent Green’s former locker, nine empty hangers dangle from a silver rod. An unclasped padlock rests atop a shelf, and the chair Green occupied for seven years is turned toward a naked wall.

One stall away, Brodie Croyle is bombarded with questions about his former Chiefs teammate.

“Things finally worked out the way everybody wanted them to,” Croyle said. “It’s good to move on.”

That’s exactly what the Chiefs did Wednesday. Less than 24 hours after Green and his Pro Bowl resume were shipped in a trade to Miami, the buzz in the Chiefs’ locker room was more about the future than the past.

As much as they hate to lose Green, Kansas City’s players expressed optimism about the direction of their franchise. Much of their enthusiasm centers on Croyle, who will try to fend off Damon Huard in the battle to become the Chiefs’ starter.

“Obviously Damon has proven that he can play and that he belongs in this league,” tight end Tony Gonzalez said. “The big question is whether or not Brodie can handle this. I think he will. Right now it’s a lot easier for him because the bullets aren’t live. But once they start flying around, I think you’re going to see that he’s going to be a good quarterback.”

Chiefs coach Herm Edwards agrees. Otherwise the Chiefs probably wouldn’t have traded Green to the Dolphins for a conditional fifth-round pick.

Edwards has hinted for months now that he prefers to play a younger quarterback. Croyle, a second-year pro from Alabama, appears to be the guy. Even if Croyle fails to beat out Huard for the job, it’s obvious that Croyle will see significant action in 2007.

“I like his demeanor,” Edwards said. “He comes across laid-back, like he’s a Southern guy that’s been fishing all day. But he’s a competitor, a competitor. This guy has dealt with a lot of adversity. He had some knocks (in college) that a lot of guys wouldn’t have come back from.”

Although Wednesday’s practice was closed, players said Huard and Croyle took an equal amount of reps along with third-stringer Casey Printers. After the workout Croyle said he felt prepared to take over the starting job.

“I’m still not where I need to be,” Croyle said, “but if I keep working hard and have a good training camp, then I think I’ve got a good shot.”

Whoever gets the nod will face the tall task of improving a Kansas City passing game that was stagnant at times in 2006. In a 23-8 playoff loss to the Colts, the Chiefs didn’t record a first down until late in the third quarter.

Gonzalez said he expects the Chiefs to simplify their passing game by cutting down on shifts and movements.

“We’ve got to get better,” Gonzalez said. “Everybody knows Larry Johnson can run the football. That’s no secret. He’s one of the best running backs in the league — if not the best — and our offensive line is going to be better. Everyone knows we’re going to be able to pound the rock.

“But you have to be able to pass to offset that defense putting eight or nine guys in the box like they did in the playoffs, when we couldn’t move the ball. That was ridiculous as far as I’m concerned. We need to correct it.”

Kansas City’s starter since 2001, Green would’ve been more than happy to do just that in 2007. Instead, he began seeking a trade after he was asked in March to accept a lesser role and restructure his contract.

PhillyChiefFan
06-07-2007, 09:08 AM
I'm happy we are getting younger, since the rest of the team is young, its a good time to rebuild the offense too IMO. However, I think that if Croyle starts it will be a while till he gets in the groove. Anyone seen him practice...hows he look???!?!

Direckshun
06-07-2007, 09:21 AM
Everybody 'round here with the exception of a couple guys thought that Croyle has displayed the best arm in practice.

Coogs
06-07-2007, 09:27 AM
Gonzalez said he expects the Chiefs to simplify their passing game by cutting down on shifts and movements.


This is what I have been saying all along on the simplification of our offense. It does not have to go back to stone age football just by simplifying things for the receivers. As I have said all along, the Colts line up with Harrison on the right side and Wayne on the left nearly every darn time. No motion to speak of.... just line up and run the play based on the number of people in the box.

Something like that could workd as well here.

PhillyChiefFan
06-07-2007, 09:28 AM
I guess now is as good of time as you can get to prove yourself if your Croyle

Question: I am trying to get tickets to a game at Arrowhead for next season...is there ANY chance of getting 2??

Direckshun
06-07-2007, 09:29 AM
I guess now is as good of time as you can get to prove yourself if your Croyle

Question: I am trying to get tickets to a game at Arrowhead for next season...is there ANY chance of getting 2??
Yeap. Get them ASAP, though, they sell out quick.

FAX
06-07-2007, 09:33 AM
Everybody 'round here with the exception of a couple guys thought that Croyle has displayed the best arm in practice.

That raises an interesting issue, Mr. Direckshun. I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, "arm" is more important than "head" in the form of field experience or good decision-making under pressure?

I think I'd rather have a quarterback with less "arm" and more "head" as opposed to very little "head" and giant gobs of "arm". Less "head" probably equates to fewer first downs, TOP, and increased turnovers although I suppose one could make the argument that less "arm" might also lead to underthrows, soft balls, and easy picks. Very little "head" also causes problems in seeing the field since your eye sockets are almost even with the faceguard which restricts field vision. Then again, no "arm" makes it difficult to reach under center. Still, given the choice between "head" and "arm", I think I'd have to go with "head" even though "arm" is good and all.

FAX

PhillyChiefFan
06-07-2007, 09:34 AM
Good, I can't wait. Last Chiefs game I was at Heinz Field last year. Sad thing was it was my birthday present from my girlfriend

Buehler445
06-07-2007, 10:38 AM
That raises an interesting issue, Mr. Direckshun. I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, "arm" is more important than "head" in the form of field experience or good decision-making under pressure?

I think I'd rather have a quarterback with less "arm" and more "head" as opposed to very little "head" and giant gobs of "arm". Less "head" probably equates to fewer first downs, TOP, and increased turnovers although I suppose one could make the argument that less "arm" might also lead to underthrows, soft balls, and easy picks. Very little "head" also causes problems in seeing the field since your eye sockets are almost even with the faceguard which restricts field vision. Then again, no "arm" makes it difficult to reach under center. Still, given the choice between "head" and "arm", I think I'd have to go with "head" even though "arm" is good and all.

FAX

I think head is better as well. While you do need arm strength to make certain throws effectively, people with a lack of arm can be successful. Look at Pennington with the Jets. He was blasted for arm strength BEFORE he had surgury on his throwing shoulder twice. But his offense was very effective because it only asked him to do what he could, unlike forcing a square peg in a round hole. I think in order to be effective, it needs to be a combination of excellent "head" decent enough "arm" and solid "playcalling". Any one of those aspects becomes broken, and the whole things falls apart.

ChiefsCountry
06-07-2007, 11:05 AM
IMO all the shifting that Vermeil's offense did was just a smoke screen to run a power up the middle. I dont know how many times they would shift and then run up the middle.

FAX
06-07-2007, 11:18 AM
Good point, Mr. ChiefsCountry. Very good point. I think that would be "leg". Or, maybe "hip" allowing the player to spin and make the handoff which also requires "hand". Plenty of "hip" is also necessary for "arm" and "leg" to work. Plus, with no "hip" there's probably no upper "body" and, therefore, no place for "head". Without sufficient "hip", you probably can't get along with the young players either. This means that "hip" is vitally important.

Basically, I think the attributes in order of importance should be;

"hip"
"head"
"hand"
"arm"
"leg"

FAX

pikesome
06-07-2007, 11:28 AM
That raises an interesting issue, Mr. Direckshun. I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, "arm" is more important than "head" in the form of field experience or good decision-making under pressure?

I think I'd rather have a quarterback with less "arm" and more "head" as opposed to very little "head" and giant gobs of "arm". Less "head" probably equates to fewer first downs, TOP, and increased turnovers although I suppose one could make the argument that less "arm" might also lead to underthrows, soft balls, and easy picks. Very little "head" also causes problems in seeing the field since your eye sockets are almost even with the faceguard which restricts field vision. Then again, no "arm" makes it difficult to reach under center. Still, given the choice between "head" and "arm", I think I'd have to go with "head" even though "arm" is good and all.

FAX

Look at the really successful QBs. Montana and Brady excelled because of head and drive more than arm. Peyton has the arm but his head is what makes him special (Harrison and Wayne don't hurt either). It doesn't matter if you can throw the ball 50 yards down field if you're throwing it to the other team or even just up for grabs. Pocket presence and defense reading are also more important.

FAX
06-07-2007, 11:46 AM
I couldn't agree more, Mr. pikesome. Clearly, you've researched this matter in more detail than I and, therefore, it is a pleasure to discuss the issue with you. With that in mind, it does occur to me that what the quarterbacks you mention also have in common is "neck". Perhaps we've overlooked the importance of this feature. Without "neck", field vision is limited to one direction only. I think we can all agree that even the most skilled quarterback will have limited use of "head" without "neck". Therefore, I don't think we can completely eliminate "neck" as a critical attribute for success.

FAX

Misplaced_Chiefs_Fan
06-07-2007, 11:51 AM
I couldn't agree more, Mr. pikesome. Clearly, you've researched this matter in more detail than I and, therefore, it is a pleasure to discuss the issue with you. With that in mind, it does occur to me that what the quarterbacks you mention also have in common is "neck". Perhaps we've overlooked the importance of this feature. Without "neck", field vision is limited to one direction only. I think we can all agree that even the most skilled quarterback will have limited use of "head" without "neck". Therefore, I don't think we can completely eliminate "neck" as a critical attribute for success.

FAX


Which is why Bartee could never have made it as a quarterback. The inability to turn one's head, while a detriment as a CB, is definitely a drawback at the QB position.

I'm glad you cleared that up for me, Mr. Fax.

pikesome
06-07-2007, 11:56 AM
I couldn't agree more, Mr. pikesome. Clearly, you've researched this matter in more detail than I and, therefore, it is a pleasure to discuss the issue with you. With that in mind, it does occur to me that what the quarterbacks you mention also have in common is "neck". Perhaps we've overlooked the importance of this feature. Without "neck", field vision is limited to one direction only. I think we can all agree that even the most skilled quarterback will have limited use of "head" without "neck". Therefore, I don't think we can completely eliminate "neck" as a critical attribute for success.

FAX

So what you're saying is this is the perfect QB?

http://us.st11.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/collegefanfare_1952_2461156

htismaqe
06-07-2007, 11:59 AM
That raises an interesting issue, Mr. Direckshun. I wonder if, in the grand scheme of things, "arm" is more important than "head" in the form of field experience or good decision-making under pressure?

That's just the thing. Brodie has the "head" for it.

Go read the scouting reports. His biggest strength was that he's cool under pressure and makes very good decisions with the ball.

FAX
06-07-2007, 12:14 PM
That's just the thing. Brodie has the "head" for it.

Go read the scouting reports. His biggest strength was that he's cool under pressure and makes very good decisions with the ball.

I'm glad to hear that, Mr. htismaqe. I, for one, have believed for some time that Croyle had the potential makings of a very solid NFL quarterback. In many past posts, I have mentioned that, since I live in the land of the SEC, I had the opportunity to watch him quite a bit. When you take into account the talent on his side of the ball (read shaky OL), he often impressed. Frankly, my only concern was whether or not NFL-caliber training would add sufficient weight and strength to his frame fast enough to allow him get through an entire season sans injury. Also, of course, the speed of the NFL is something to which he'll have to become accustomed.

You will, I'm certain, be glad to hear that it is generally accepted among SEC fans that he has the neck for the job.

FAX

bogie
06-07-2007, 12:33 PM
I couldn't agree more, Mr. pikesome. Clearly, you've researched this matter in more detail than I and, therefore, it is a pleasure to discuss the issue with you. With that in mind, it does occur to me that what the quarterbacks you mention also have in common is "neck". Perhaps we've overlooked the importance of this feature. Without "neck", field vision is limited to one direction only. I think we can all agree that even the most skilled quarterback will have limited use of "head" without "neck". Therefore, I don't think we can completely eliminate "neck" as a critical attribute for success.

FAX

If I recall one of the black gals on American Idol didn't have a neck and she did okay.

milkman
06-09-2007, 12:43 PM
If I recall one of the black gals on American Idol didn't have a neck and she did okay.

Must have been the "head".