PDA

View Full Version : Derrick Johnson on NFL Network...


Count Zarth
07-01-2007, 08:05 PM
He said "Damon Huard is probably going to be our quarterback to start off, and Brodie Croyle is right behind him."

:hmmm:

Something we don't know about, maybe?

Direckshun
07-01-2007, 08:07 PM
Might not be a bad idea to throw Huard in there for first four games.

Texans have a good DL. Bears, Vikings, Chargers... all great Ds.

Of course, if you bring in Croyle week 5, then he faces the Jags.

I say you throw him in Game 1 and let him learn. You've got to start him somewhere.

JBucc
07-01-2007, 08:10 PM
I hope not. If Huard starts and we play halfway decent that's just more pressure on Herm to keep him in and win now. Then it's another year of waiting for Brodie. Poopy.

luv
07-01-2007, 08:10 PM
Croyle starts.

Direckshun
07-01-2007, 08:14 PM
Well, I don't know.

Let's say we bring in Croyle week 5. Sure, he'd start his career off against a top 10 D, but 6 of his first 8 games will be in Arrowhead, and he'll get to end the season with the series of road games.

What does that do? Well, first of all, it throws Huard into the first four games while we're (a.) facing the two most lethal defenses we'll see on the road this year, and (b.) wait for our OL to gel and young WRs to get in the groove.

:shrug:

What do you guys think of that strategy?

BigMeatballDave
07-01-2007, 08:24 PM
DJ is defense. I don't care what he says. Lets go through TC 1st...

KurtCobain
07-01-2007, 08:28 PM
Well, I don't know.

Let's say we bring in Croyle week 5. Sure, he'd start his career off against a top 10 D, but 6 of his first 8 games will be in Arrowhead, and he'll get to end the season with the series of road games.

What does that do? Well, first of all, it throws Huard into the first four games while we're (a.) facing the two most lethal defenses we'll see on the road this year, and (b.) wait for our OL to gel and young WRs to get in the groove.

:shrug:

What do you guys think of that strategy?

rep

Direckshun
07-01-2007, 08:36 PM
rep
When you think about it that way, it doesn't sound unreasonable, does it!

12 games (plus any playoff games?) is a fine first year for Croyle. There isn't much difference between 12 and 16, and really you're only sparing him two ferocious assaults on the road with an OL in construction and a slew of receivers who haven't done anything yet.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-01-2007, 08:39 PM
I think Croyle needs all the reps he can get, preseason and regular. Start him game one vs. Houston, and live or die with him.

BigMeatballDave
07-01-2007, 08:43 PM
Well, I don't know.

Let's say we bring in Croyle week 5. Sure, he'd start his career off against a top 10 D, but 6 of his first 8 games will be in Arrowhead, and he'll get to end the season with the series of road games.

What does that do? Well, first of all, it throws Huard into the first four games while we're (a.) facing the two most lethal defenses we'll see on the road this year, and (b.) wait for our OL to gel and young WRs to get in the groove.

:shrug:

What do you guys think of that strategy?Nope! I wanna know ASAP if this kid has it or not.

Direckshun
07-01-2007, 08:49 PM
Nope! I wanna know ASAP if this kid has it or not.
Impatience isn't a strategy, though.

It's just an idea, anyway. I see value in sitting Croyle out the first four games.

Would I do it, personally? Eh... I don't know.

blueballs
07-01-2007, 09:04 PM
Croyle was a smoke screen
to dump Green and his price tag

PastorMikH
07-01-2007, 09:28 PM
I want to see them in TC and Preseason. If Croyle is anywhere close to Huard, start him and keep Huard close by if he's getting hammered in a game - I'd hate to see him get hurt or get so jumpy that he never recovers from it.

Also, I want to see how the O-Line does in pre-season. If they suck like last year, start Huard. He has enough experience to at least have a chance at saving himself where Croyle would get killed.

Direckshun
07-01-2007, 10:14 PM
Also, I want to see how the O-Line does in pre-season. If they suck like last year, start Huard. He has enough experience to at least have a chance at saving himself where Croyle would get killed.
That's probably about as close to how I feel as we're going to get.

Bowser
07-01-2007, 10:15 PM
I hope not. If Huard starts and we play halfway decent that's just more pressure on Herm to keep him in and win now. Then it's another year of waiting for Brodie. Poopy.

The downside, of course, is that we play halfway decent and win some games.


I've got a sinking feeling that we're going to miss Trent at some point this year.

CoMoChief
07-01-2007, 10:38 PM
Well, I don't know.

Let's say we bring in Croyle week 5. Sure, he'd start his career off against a top 10 D, but 6 of his first 8 games will be in Arrowhead, and he'll get to end the season with the series of road games.

What does that do? Well, first of all, it throws Huard into the first four games while we're (a.) facing the two most lethal defenses we'll see on the road this year, and (b.) wait for our OL to gel and young WRs to get in the groove.

:shrug:

What do you guys think of that strategy?


It depends on how Huard does. If we have a winning record you DO NOT change QB's over to someone who's pretty much a rookie with hardly any playing experience.

Bowser
07-01-2007, 10:42 PM
It depends on how Huard does. If we have a winning record you DO NOT change QB's over to someone who's pretty much a rookie with hardly any playing experience.

Sure you do, if you're Mike Shanahan. Then you ensure that you don't make the playoffs.

jAZ
07-01-2007, 10:42 PM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4033156&postcount=35

That's a load of crap, jAZ.

The only way Huard gets on the field is if Brodie gets hurt.
ROFL

Count Zarth
07-01-2007, 10:43 PM
I'm not sure why you are laughing. We're months away from the regular season, retard.

Demonpenz
07-01-2007, 10:43 PM
I want whoever gets us the most wins

RustShack
07-01-2007, 11:31 PM
Even though Croyle is young I think he would get us the most wins, now if we were throwing him in the Colts offence, or the Chiefs offence a couple years ago that would be bad, but hes in a simple pass, hand off first type offence. It will hurt Bowe and Webb more if they get used to playing with Huard and then a couple weeks later they have to start a new chemistry with Croyle.

CoMoChief
07-01-2007, 11:33 PM
Sure you do, if you're Mike Shanahan. Then you ensure that you don't make the playoffs.

Jake Plummer wasn't playing well and even though DEN was in the mix of a playoff race, I totally agreed with the rat's move on putting Jay Cutler in there.

BigMeatballDave
07-01-2007, 11:34 PM
I've got a sinking feeling that we're going to miss Trent at some point this year.Move on, dude...

KcMizzou
07-01-2007, 11:36 PM
Move on, dude...Well, he's right.

We're gonna miss him. We'll lose games Trent would have won, IMO. That's all part of grooming a young QB. You're gonna take some lumps. I'm alright with that.

BigMeatballDave
07-01-2007, 11:36 PM
I want whoever gets us the most winsThis season is not about winning anything. We are trying to get younger. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

Short Leash Hootie
07-01-2007, 11:38 PM
Well, I don't know.

Let's say we bring in Croyle week 5. Sure, he'd start his career off against a top 10 D, but 6 of his first 8 games will be in Arrowhead, and he'll get to end the season with the series of road games.

What does that do? Well, first of all, it throws Huard into the first four games while we're (a.) facing the two most lethal defenses we'll see on the road this year, and (b.) wait for our OL to gel and young WRs to get in the groove.

:shrug:

What do you guys think of that strategy?
Oh, ok...

Because I haven't been SAYING THIS SAME EXACT THING for the last, I don't know, THREE MONTHS.

It's logical.

htismaqe won't admit it...

But when it happens, I will, once again, be right...and he will, once again, be wrong...LIKE USUAL...but he'll back-peddle and come up with some bullshit on how he never said this and never said that...blah blah blah

Mr. Flopnuts
07-01-2007, 11:38 PM
Well, I don't know.

Let's say we bring in Croyle week 5. Sure, he'd start his career off against a top 10 D, but 6 of his first 8 games will be in Arrowhead, and he'll get to end the season with the series of road games.

What does that do? Well, first of all, it throws Huard into the first four games while we're (a.) facing the two most lethal defenses we'll see on the road this year, and (b.) wait for our OL to gel and young WRs to get in the groove.

:shrug:

What do you guys think of that strategy?


It sounds like the logical thing to do. Let this kid get his first real work in front of an adoring home crowd. I don't care the strength of team, just make sure it's a friendly environment. Our schedule is rough to start, put him in after week 4.

Direckshun
07-01-2007, 11:38 PM
This season is not about winning anything. We are trying to get younger. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
Because you don't watch games and go "wow, look at them grow!"

You watch for wins. Herm has some sort of phrase that encapsulates that mentality but it escapes me at the moment...

Count Zarth
07-01-2007, 11:39 PM
Heh. I didn't realize Hootie would be all over this thread.

bringbackmarty
07-01-2007, 11:43 PM
Croyle starts.
Nobody knows for sure luv. You may end up being right, but not even Herm is stupid enough to make up his mind before he sees Croyle play with the first team in preseason. remember he threw the ball only a few times last year, and most of his completions were interceptions. Herm hates interceptions, it's one reason why passing is no longer part of the offense on first and second down.
Croyle also has a history of injury, he could not hold up well at all going against starting defensive linemen. Not to mention Huard played well last year.
Blueballs could be right about the smokescreen too. I hate to admit it but it is a Carlesque move.

Direckshun
07-01-2007, 11:46 PM
Nobody knows for sure luv. You may end up being right, but not even Herm is stupid enough to make up his mind before he sees Croyle play with the first team in preseason. remember he threw the ball only a few times last year, and most of his completions were interceptions. Herm hates interceptions, it's one reason why passing is no longer part of the offense on first and second down.
Croyle also has a history of injury, he could not hold up well at all going against starting defensive linemen. Not to mention Huard played well last year.
Blueballs could be right about the smokescreen too. I hate to admit it but it is a Carlesque move.
Three things.

First of all, turn off the football part of your brain when you read a blueballs post. Matter of fact, turn off every part of your brain. You don't draft a QB in the 3rd round for a smokescreen.

Secondly, Brett Favre's first game in the NFL was a total disaster. He put up numbers almost identical to what Croyle did against the Steelers.

Thirdly, Croyle's going to finish the season. I guess we're all wondering if he's going to start it.

BigMeatballDave
07-01-2007, 11:46 PM
If Croyle cannot beat out Huard for the starting job, then we need to draft a QB next year.

Chiefs Pantalones
07-01-2007, 11:47 PM
If Croyle cannot beat out Huard for the starting job, then we need to draft a QB next year.

I agree, but that won't happen. Croyle will beat him out. Herm is going to give him EVERY chance to be starting vs. Houston.

bringbackmarty
07-01-2007, 11:48 PM
I'm not sure why you are laughing. We're months away from the regular season, retard.
I think that's the point dicklicker...........months away, anything can happen.

luv
07-01-2007, 11:49 PM
How long do you sit on a rookie QB, though? Maybe there's a reason we've never developed a QB we've drafted (correct me if I'm wrong on that). We play it safe. I know you play to win the game, but I just think there's more to it. Especially when rebuilding.

But I'm an idiot chick who doesn't know shit about what she's talking about.

Direckshun
07-01-2007, 11:52 PM
How long do you sit on a rookie QB, though? Maybe there's a reason we've never developed a QB we've drafted (correct me if I'm wrong on that). We play it safe. I know you play to win the game, but I just think there's more to it. Especially when rebuilding.

But I'm an idiot chick who doesn't know shit about what she's talking about.
Most situations, you sit on him for a year or two years. Every now and then, when your guy is a natural and your team sucks, you start him right away (see: JaFartCuss PussHell -- trademarked!).

It's not unusual to give a rookie QB two seasons of study before you put them out on the field. But usually you want them out there by their second season.

KcMizzou
07-01-2007, 11:55 PM
(see: JaFartCuss PussHell -- trademarked!).
Heh, no offense but that's horrible.

Almost as bad as my Dr Seuss poem. Not quite, but close.

Direckshun
07-01-2007, 11:57 PM
Heh, no offense but that's horrible.
ROFL

blueballs
07-02-2007, 12:00 AM
damn no school nights

bringbackmarty
07-02-2007, 12:08 AM
Nobody here who knows you believes that you are an idiot luv.
There is some history that says if Croyle stinks it up in preseason we won't play him.

Three things.

First of all, turn off the football part of your brain when you read a blueballs post. Matter of fact, turn off every part of your brain. You don't draft a QB in the 3rd round for a smokescreen.

Secondly, Brett Favre's first game in the NFL was a total disaster. He put up numbers almost identical to what Croyle did against the Steelers.

Thirdly, Croyle's going to finish the season. I guess we're all wondering if he's going to start it.

Didn't we draft Blundin in the second?. What happened to him? He sure started a bunch of games for us, and played for us exactly how long? Couple of seasons I believe.
here are his stats:
TM | G |Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD |

kc 3 | 1 3 33.3 2 0.7 0 0 | 0 0 0 |
kc 5 | 1 5 20.0 13 2.6 0 1 | 0 0 0 |
det 1 | 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 1 | 0 0 0 |
tot 9 | 2 9 22.2 15 1.7 0 2 | 0 0 0 |
He (croyle) could show Herm absolutely nothing. The offense could really click under Huard, Croyle could get hurt. You don't make kneejerk blanket decisions with this much money on the line, especially other peoples money. You also don't want to waste a year of everbody's time. I don't think herm has made up his mind. He would be really stupid if he has already.
Do I think there is some bias, sure, there always is towards the younger player. Do I think Croyle will be Brett Favre - no that is just plain nuts.

RustShack
07-02-2007, 12:09 AM
I think one year is how long you should sit out your QB, in a safe offence like we run now you probably don't even need to sit them that long. I'm not saying Croyle is going to be like Big Ben, but hes in a good situation like he was. He even learned from good a couple good QB's for a year, somthing Big Ben didn't do. I say get the better talented and younger player in there, and start developing the chemistry with Bowe and Webb now instead of screwing them all over in the long run.

keg in kc
07-02-2007, 12:53 AM
I've got a sinking feeling that we're going to miss Trent at some point this year.God knows we missed him last year.

Especially when he started playing again.

Smed1065
07-02-2007, 01:35 AM
Well, I don't know.

Let's say we bring in Croyle week 5. Sure, he'd start his career off against a top 10 D, but 6 of his first 8 games will be in Arrowhead, and he'll get to end the season with the series of road games.

What does that do? Well, first of all, it throws Huard into the first four games while we're (a.) facing the two most lethal defenses we'll see on the road this year, and (b.) wait for our OL to gel and young WRs to get in the groove.

:shrug:

What do you guys think of that strategy?

Also keeps a new QB healthy when that is one question mark of his. If you throw him in the fire, that is fine but why do it on the road and against some tuff D's. If he was to get injured in the first four games, everybody would ask why did you start him against some of the best D's in the NFL. That would also allow some game speed gelling by the O-line which is one of the most important factors for a O-line (game speed reps)

Give him the benefit of Arrowhead and the time to check out our O-line before hand.

luv
07-02-2007, 01:39 AM
Also keeps a new QB healthy when that is one question mark of his. If you throw him in the fire, that is fine but why do it on the road and against some tuff D's. If he was to get injured in the first four games, everybody would ask why did you start him against some of the best D's in the NFL. That would also allow some game speed gelling by the O-line which is one of the most important factors for a O-line (game speed reps)

Give him the benefit of Arrowhead and the time to check out our O-line before hand.
Aren't you doing that during preseason?

Smed1065
07-02-2007, 01:48 AM
Aren't you doing that during preseason?

Not really game speed. Game speed is only accomplished during the games that count because of concerns of injuries etc...

Also pre-season is usually all second stringers 90% of the time, not the starters.

Short Leash Hootie
07-02-2007, 03:06 AM
But I'm an idiot chick who doesn't know shit about what she's talking about.
Yep.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 08:03 AM
If Croyle cannot beat out Huard for the starting job, then we need to draft a QB next year.


True, If Croyle cant beat out a shitty backup, then what good is he? IF Huard starts this year, the season will be a total waste and we will have to draft another QB next year and start this all over agian...

Croyle will be the starter from week 1 or we should start looking at draft picks and QB's for next year.

Huard wont take the Chiefs anywhere...

BigMeatballDave
07-02-2007, 08:22 AM
Also keeps a new QB healthy when that is one question mark of his. If you throw him in the fire, that is fine but why do it on the road and against some tuff D's. If he was to get injured in the first four games, everybody would ask why did you start him against some of the best D's in the NFL. That would also allow some game speed gelling by the O-line which is one of the most important factors for a O-line (game speed reps)

Give him the benefit of Arrowhead and the time to check out our O-line before hand.Sounds like a form of coddling. I though the Vermiel era was over...

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 08:25 AM
Sounds like a form of coddling. I though the Vermiel era was over...


Apparently not? I dont think the era of washed recycles will ever end in KC... Fans love the never was QB, that never takes them anywhere....

I thought Herm was different, but apparently he is a coddler just like Vermiel...

Good Points.

Chiefnj
07-02-2007, 08:37 AM
- I don't buy into the "start him at a home game" because it will be easier and less pressure. If anything it is more pressure. The boo-birds will be out in full force if he is struggling.

- If Brodie isn't ready to start in week 1 after 4 years at 'Bama and 1 year learning the pro game, why would he be that much better off after 3 or 4 more games on the bench?

- Is it fair to the entire offense to play the QB shuffle game? Shouldn't the receivers (especially the 3 young guys) get accustomed to one QB? Shouldn't the OL get used to one QB?

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 08:38 AM
- I don't buy into the "start him at a home game" because it will be easier and less pressure. If anything it is more pressure. The boo-birds will be out in full force if he is struggling.

- If Brodie isn't ready to start in week 1 after 4 years at 'Bama and 1 year learning the pro game, why would he be that much better off after 3 or 4 more games on the bench?

- Is it fair to the entire offense to play the QB shuffle game? Shouldn't the receivers (especially the 3 young guys) get accustomed to one QB? Shouldn't the OL get used to one QB?


:bravo: Nice post....

BigMeatballDave
07-02-2007, 08:40 AM
- I don't buy into the "start him at a home game" because it will be easier and less pressure. If anything it is more pressure. The boo-birds will be out in full force if he is struggling.

- If Brodie isn't ready to start in week 1 after 4 years at 'Bama and 1 year learning the pro game, why would he be that much better off after 3 or 4 more games on the bench?

- Is it fair to the entire offense to play the QB shuffle game? Shouldn't the receivers (especially the 3 young guys) get accustomed to one QB? Shouldn't the OL get used to one QB?Agreed.

Sanka
07-02-2007, 09:02 AM
I think that starting Huard the first 4 games, and allowing the O-Line to build some chemistry would be a good idea. Then start Croyle the remainder of the season. I don't really have high hopes for this season, we are building for a run 2 to 3 years from now.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 09:06 AM
I think that starting Huard the first 4 games, and allowing the O-Line to build some chemistry would be a good idea. Then start Croyle the remainder of the season. I don't really have high hopes for this season, we are building for a run 2 to 3 years from now.


So if your building for a run 2 or 3 years from now? Why would you start Huard?

Get the O-Line used to someone else, Calls, audibles, etc... Then change it up with a totally different guy right as soon as they get used to Huard?

Brilliant!!!

jAZ
07-02-2007, 09:34 AM
I'm not sure why you are laughing. We're months away from the regular season, retard.
Quick trying to be Jason Whitlock. He's proven himself much smarter than you seem capable of.

jAZ
07-02-2007, 09:37 AM
I think that starting Huard the first 4 games, and allowing the O-Line to build some chemistry would be a good idea. Then start Croyle the remainder of the season. I don't really have high hopes for this season, we are building for a run 2 to 3 years from now.
If the line isn't looking strong by week 1, there is no doubt that throwing Huard to the wolves is the right long-term move. Croyle's biggest knock is his being injury prone makes the call pretty easy.

Micjones
07-02-2007, 09:41 AM
I'm not opposed to Huard starting the first quarter of the season. Croyle will still get his shot.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 09:44 AM
I'm not opposed to Huard starting the first quarter of the season. Croyle will still get his shot.


What makes Huard so much better than Croyle?

Neither one has played a full NFL season... Croyle is in his 2nd year and has a legit shot at starting... Huard has been in the league for what 11 years and now is just getting his chance to pretend to be a starter....

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 09:45 AM
Well, I don't know.

Let's say we bring in Croyle week 5. Sure, he'd start his career off against a top 10 D, but 6 of his first 8 games will be in Arrowhead, and he'll get to end the season with the series of road games.

What does that do? Well, first of all, it throws Huard into the first four games while we're (a.) facing the two most lethal defenses we'll see on the road this year, and (b.) wait for our OL to gel and young WRs to get in the groove.

:shrug:

What do you guys think of that strategy?

You're not facillitating the development of Croyle by sheltering him from good defenses.

Starting Huard at all, for any amount of games, is YET AGAIN this team's committment to mediocrity and never moving forward.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 09:49 AM
Oh, ok...

Because I haven't been SAYING THIS SAME EXACT THING for the last, I don't know, THREE MONTHS.

It's logical.

htismaqe won't admit it...

But when it happens, I will, once again, be right...and he will, once again, be wrong...LIKE USUAL...but he'll back-peddle and come up with some bullshit on how he never said this and never said that...blah blah blah

ROFL

Whether or not Huard starts games has no bearing on whether or not I'm right or wrong.

STARTING HUARD IS A STOPGAP MEASURE AND WILL DELAY ANY CHANCE THIS TEAM HAS AT SUPER BOWL THAT MUCH FURTHER.

No matter how many games Huard starts, I am right and will always be right about that.

As for what I have and have not said, there's no need to make ridiculous statements. Use the search function.

Unless you're too lazy, that is. Or maybe you're just stupid.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 09:50 AM
Jake Plummer wasn't playing well and even though DEN was in the mix of a playoff race, I totally agreed with the rat's move on putting Jay Cutler in there.

And that's different from the Chiefs' situation how?

Denver was never going to win a Super Bowl with Plummer. And we're not gonna win one with Huard.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 09:52 AM
How long do you sit on a rookie QB, though? Maybe there's a reason we've never developed a QB we've drafted (correct me if I'm wrong on that). We play it safe. I know you play to win the game, but I just think there's more to it. Especially when rebuilding.

But I'm an idiot chick who doesn't know shit about what she's talking about.

Look. An "idiot chick" just posted one of the most profound Chiefs takes in the history of Chiefsplanet.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 09:55 AM
- I don't buy into the "start him at a home game" because it will be easier and less pressure. If anything it is more pressure. The boo-birds will be out in full force if he is struggling.

- If Brodie isn't ready to start in week 1 after 4 years at 'Bama and 1 year learning the pro game, why would he be that much better off after 3 or 4 more games on the bench?

- Is it fair to the entire offense to play the QB shuffle game? Shouldn't the receivers (especially the 3 young guys) get accustomed to one QB? Shouldn't the OL get used to one QB?

:clap: :clap: :clap:

jAZ
07-02-2007, 09:57 AM
You're not facillitating the development of Croyle by sheltering him from good defenses.

Starting Huard at all, for any amount of games, is YET AGAIN this team's committment to mediocrity and never moving forward.
You are facillitating his development if you are sheilding him from a shitty offensive line.

Chiefnj
07-02-2007, 09:59 AM
I wonder if the Chiefs are going to sit Bowe against Jax. I wouldn't want his psyche to get all bruised having to go up against Rashean Mathis all day.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 10:01 AM
You are facillitating his development if you are sheilding him from a shitty offensive line.

He played behind a shitty offensive line in college - one of the shittiest in D1 football and one of the shittiest in the HISTORY of Bama football.

If he's not used to it by now, he's not gonna be. Period.

jAZ
07-02-2007, 10:20 AM
He played behind a shitty offensive line in college - one of the shittiest in D1 football and one of the shittiest in the HISTORY of Bama football.

If he's not used to it by now, he's not gonna be. Period.
You don't get "used" to career ending injuries. But you can improve the performance of an offensive line with game experience.

It's not unreasonable to hold him back if putting him out there leaves him at high risk of becoming a footnote in Chiefs football history.

My point is that it's not a matter of absolutes as you are emphatically trying to make it.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 10:23 AM
You don't get "used" to career ending injuries. But you can improve the performance of an offensive line with game experience.

It's not unreasonable to hold him back if putting him out there leaves him at high risk of becoming a footnote in Chiefs football history.

My point is that it's not a matter of absolutes as you are emphatically trying to make it.

Injuries can happen at any time. At least two of Croyle's injuries were NOT CONTACT-RELATED.

If his injury risk is SO high that you can't line him up and play football on any given Sunday because the opponent might be "too tough" then you have no business playing him at all.

Cut him, play Huard, and draft a QB next year.

He's either ready to play or he isn't. Simple as that. If you're adjusting your roster based on who you're playing, they've already beat you.

OnTheWarpath58
07-02-2007, 10:28 AM
I wonder if the Chiefs are going to sit Bowe against Jax. I wouldn't want his psyche to get all bruised having to go up against Rashean Mathis all day.



ROFL ROFL

jAZ
07-02-2007, 10:29 AM
Injuries can happen at any time. At least two of Croyle's injuries were NOT CONTACT-RELATED.

If his injury risk is SO high that you can't line him up and play football on any given Sunday because the opponent might be "too tough" then you have no business playing him at all.

Cut him, play Huard, and draft a QB next year.

He's either ready to play or he isn't. Simple as that. If you're adjusting your roster based on who you're playing, they've already beat you.
Sorry, but there is a difference between any QB behind a shitty OL and starting one behind a solid one.

If the coaches think that the OL is shitty on opening day, but that they expect a month of full speed games will help them gel and amplify their performance as a unit, it's reasonable and in fact critical that they take that fact into account when picking their QB.

Generally, I agree with your sentiment that you don't hold out the QB because he's going to face a challenge because it might hurt his psyche. But there is a limit to that reasoning, and we are discussing a scenarior beyond that limit.

Will that scenario play out?

OnTheWarpath58
07-02-2007, 10:29 AM
He's either ready to play or he isn't. Simple as that. If you're adjusting your roster based on who you're playing, they've already beat you.


:clap: :clap: :clap:

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 10:35 AM
Sorry, but there is a difference between any QB behind a shitty OL and starting one behind a solid one.

If the coaches think that the OL is shitty on opening day, but that they expect a month of full speed games will help them gel and amplify their performance as a unit, it's reasonable and in fact critical that they take that fact into account when picking their QB.

Generally, I agree with your sentiment that you don't hold out the QB because he's going to face a challenge because it might hurt his psyche. But there is a limit to that reasoning, and we are discussing a scenarior beyond that limit.

Will that scenario play out?

If this team EVER wants to get beyond being a red-headed stepchild in the AFC Playoff picture, they'll start Croyle Day 1 and let him handle it.

If those first 4 games are indeed as brutal as you're making them out to be, they're going to provide an INVALUABLE learning experience. Not only that, but because the situation is created primarily by happenstance (the schedule itself), it's likely that it's a chance at a learning experience that might only come around once or twice in his entire tenure here.

Play the man and move this team forward, for better or worse.

Or play it safe and continue the near two decades of ridiculous and needless mediocrity.

It's a simple choice.

Wile_E_Coyote
07-02-2007, 10:36 AM
There is no blue print for a young QB. Each player needs to be handled different. Take LJ for an example. Maybe setting him was the right thing to do. He wouldn't play special teams & has proved he was immature at the time.

Only those around Brodie at practice know. And DJ though a defensive player, doesn't think he's ready. Just his opinion

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 10:38 AM
There is no blue print for a young QB. Each player needs to be handled different. Take LJ for an example. Maybe setting him was the right thing to do. He wouldn't play special teams & has proved he was immature at the time.

Only those around Brodie at practice know. And DJ though a defensive player, doesn't think he's ready. Just his opinion

Having heard Pollard among others discuss the situation, it's obvious that these young guys are saying this out of respect for a veteran that's been in the league for a decade (Huard). They don't have any inside information.

Wile_E_Coyote
07-02-2007, 10:42 AM
Having heard Pollard among others discuss the situation, it's obvious that these young guys are saying this out of respect for a veteran that's been in the league for a decade (Huard). They don't have any inside information.

I've heard DJ talk on the radio. Love the guy, but he doesn't come across as very media savvy

FAX
07-02-2007, 10:43 AM
There is no blue print for a young QB. Each player needs to be handled different. Take LJ for an example. Maybe setting him was the right thing to do. He wouldn't play special teams & has proved he was immature at the time.

Only those around Brodie at practice know. And DJ though a defensive player, doesn't think he's ready. Just his opinion

Whoa. Stop. Time out. The pause that refreshes.

I hadn't heard this before, Mr. Wile_E_Coyote. Are you saying that LJ "refused" to play on special teams?

FAX

Wile_E_Coyote
07-02-2007, 10:45 AM
Whoa. Stop. Time out. The pause that refreshes.

I hadn't heard this before, Mr. Wile_E_Coyote. Are you saying that LJ "refused" to play on special teams?

FAXActually, that could be more rumor than fact. And rumors were flying pretty loose around diaper gate

FAX
07-02-2007, 10:48 AM
Actually, that could be more rumor than fact. And rumors were flying pretty loose around diaper gate

Ah, okay. Thanks, Mr. Wile_E_Coyote.

For a minute there, I thought I was going to have to come to KC and clip a pop in LJ's ass cap.

FAX

jAZ
07-02-2007, 10:51 AM
Play the man and move this team forward, for better or worse.

Or play it safe and continue the near two decades of ridiculous and needless mediocrity.

It's a simple choice.
Wow.

Talk about a chicken-little post.

Wile_E_Coyote
07-02-2007, 10:52 AM
I heard a local radio show guy repeat that about LJ a couple of weeks ago. That he wouldn't play special teams. Some times rumors become treated as facts over time.
Such as some people, Peterson has claimed to h ave drafted :)

macdawg
07-02-2007, 11:12 AM
"If Huard starts and we play halfway decent that's just more pressure on Herm to keep him in and win now. Then it's another year of waiting for Brodie. Poopy."

Right because heaven forbid we actually win some games, I understand that your anxious to see this kid but don't you see how that comment would piss people off?

If he deserves to start he will start, seems like Herm is giving him plenty opportunity.

bogie
07-02-2007, 11:12 AM
Injuries can happen at any time. At least two of Croyle's injuries were NOT CONTACT-RELATED.

If his injury risk is SO high that you can't line him up and play football on any given Sunday because the opponent might be "too tough" then you have no business playing him at all.

Cut him, play Huard, and draft a QB next year.

He's either ready to play or he isn't. Simple as that. If you're adjusting your roster based on who you're playing, they've already beat you.

If he's even close to Huard's skills I agree, start him. If not, start Huard, if Huard sucks, put Croyle in because at that point we have nothing to lose. If Croyle can't win, cut him and move on. But don't start the kid just because he's a kid. That does no-one any good. JMO.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 11:18 AM
If he's even close to Huard's skills I agree, start him. If not, start Huard, if Huard sucks, put Croyle in because at that point we have nothing to lose. If Croyle can't win, cut him and move on. But don't start the kid just because he's a kid. That does no-one any good. JMO.


When did Huard get starter skills? Huard has never started a full season, let alone show anyone in the last 10 years of the NFL that he was starter material....

You guys act like Huard is Montana or something... Please, the dude is a backup, always has and always will be...

The Chiefs need to step up and develop a QB. This musical backup, lets win what we can crap has to stop. Plan for the future KC.. Stop living the "one and done KC playoff dream"

If Croyle has Huard skills, then we are f*cked anyway... So start planning for the draft and possibly a new QB...

Huard skills? ROFL That was priceless...

bogie
07-02-2007, 11:32 AM
When did Huard get starter skills? Huard has never started a full season, let alone show anyone in the last 10 years of the NFL that he was starter material....

You guys act like Huard is Montana or something... Please, the dude is a backup, always has and always will be...

The Chiefs need to step up and develop a QB. This musical backup, lets win what we can crap has to stop. Plan for the future KC.. Stop living the "one and done KC playoff dream"

If Croyle has Huard skills, then we are f*cked anyway... So start planning for the draft and possibly a new QB...

Huard skills? ROFL That was priceless...

So, you're saying Huard sucks and should not start and if Croyle sucks even worse than Huard start him. I don't buy in to the whole accept losing while we rebuild.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 11:36 AM
So, you're saying Huard sucks and should not start and if Croyle sucks even worse than Huard start him. I don't buy in to the whole accept losing while we rebuild.


What makes you think Huard is going to give you the best chance to win....

luv
07-02-2007, 11:47 AM
So, you're saying Huard sucks and should not start and if Croyle sucks even worse than Huard start him. I don't buy in to the whole accept losing while we rebuild.
Why draft QB's if your not going to play them? We start Damon, then we'll be like, "Well Croyle doesn't have enough experience. We should trade for a QB." Why not take a chance and try something new? Obviously, what we've been doing hasn't been working.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 11:56 AM
Why draft QB's if your not going to play them? We start Damon, then we'll be like, "Well Croyle doesn't have enough experience. We should trade for a QB." Why not take a chance and try something new? Obviously, what we've been doing hasn't been working.

:hail:

bogie
07-02-2007, 12:28 PM
What makes you think Huard is going to give you the best chance to win....

I have said all along, if Croyle wins the job start him. I'm waiting for reports from TC to decide who should start. But I don't buy into the theory of starting someone just because they're younger. Croyle is in a perfect position to be our QBOTF, but if he can't beat out a back-up, he's not our QBOTF.

bogie
07-02-2007, 12:30 PM
Why draft QB's if your not going to play them? We start Damon, then we'll be like, "Well Croyle doesn't have enough experience. We should trade for a QB." Why not take a chance and try something new? Obviously, what we've been doing hasn't been working.

I don't believe our problems in the past have had anything to do with the QB. If I recall, we've had a pretty good O the past few years.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 12:34 PM
Wow.

Talk about a chicken-little post.

News flash - this team hasn't won a playoff game since 1993.

No chicken little about it, it's time for a change.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 12:36 PM
So, you're saying Huard sucks and should not start and if Croyle sucks even worse than Huard start him. I don't buy in to the whole accept losing while we rebuild.

I don't buy the whole "accept losing while we try the same thing we've tried for the past 15 years hoping like hell that the results are somehow different" thing.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 12:37 PM
I have said all along, if Croyle wins the job start him. I'm waiting for reports from TC to decide who should start. But I don't buy into the theory of starting someone just because they're younger. Croyle is in a perfect position to be our QBOTF, but if he can't beat out a back-up, he's not our QBOTF.

Training camp is not live fire.

You won't know if he's good enough to be the future unless he PLAYS.

There's absolutely ZERO reason to start Huard at this point.

luv
07-02-2007, 12:43 PM
I don't buy the whole "accept losing while we try the same thing we've tried for the past 15 years hoping like hell that the results are somehow different" thing.
Quote from 28 Days with Sandra Bullock:

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

bogie
07-02-2007, 12:45 PM
Training camp is not live fire.

You won't know if he's good enough to be the future unless he PLAYS.

There's absolutely ZERO reason to start Huard at this point.

I respectfully disagree. I believe coaches can tell from training camp if a player has it or not. They may think he has it and start him only to find out he can't compete in live fire. But if during training camp he doesn't compete, he's going to be even worse in live fire, so why start him.

Chiefnj
07-02-2007, 12:53 PM
I respectfully disagree. I believe coaches can tell from training camp if a player has it or not. They may think he has it and start him only to find out he can't compete in live fire. But if during training camp he doesn't compete, he's going to be even worse in live fire, so why start him.

If the coaches believe he can't compete they will have seriously misjudged his talent and screwed up the draft by not jumping ahead one spot for another QBOTF.

FAX
07-02-2007, 12:55 PM
I disrespectfully agree. Brodie's had time to bulk up as much as he's going to, observe NFL speed first hand, and familiarize himself with what's left of our once great playbook. So, that's good.

However, the starting QB should win that job in camp. If it's Huard, that's okay in the long term because it will make Brodie work harder. Given the youth on this team, from the standpoint of wins/losses it really won't matter much. But Brodie needs to win the job and, if he doesn't, he needs to improve his game until he can.

FAX

RustShack
07-02-2007, 01:02 PM
I've never heard anything but good news about Croyle from the Chiefs, they think he has what it takes, and so do I. If they didn't they would of got someone else.

bogie
07-02-2007, 01:02 PM
I disrespectfully agree. Brodie's had time to bulk up as much as he's going to, observe NFL speed first hand, and familiarize himself with what's left of our once great playbook. So, that's good.

However, the starting QB should win that job in camp. If it's Huard, that's okay in the long term because it will make Brodie work harder. Given the youth on this team, from the standpoint of wins/losses it really won't matter much. But Brodie needs to win the job and, if he doesn't, he needs to improve his game until he can.

FAX

You may disrespect me, but at least you agree. I hope Croyle blows the competition away, but if he doesn't, start Huard. If Huard starts sucking, then put in Croyle.

bogie
07-02-2007, 01:04 PM
I've never heard anything but good news about Croyle from the Chiefs, they think he has what it takes, and so do I. If they didn't they would of got someone else.

I hope you're right.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 01:06 PM
Maybe the Question should be? What has Huard ever done to warrant a starting position?

FAX
07-02-2007, 01:07 PM
You may disrespect me, but at least you agree. I hope Croyle blows the competition away, but if he doesn't, start Huard. If Huard starts sucking, then put in Croyle.

I wasn't disrespecting you, Mr. bogie. I was disrespecting the man.

FAX

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 01:14 PM
I respectfully disagree. I believe coaches can tell from training camp if a player has it or not. They may think he has it and start him only to find out he can't compete in live fire. But if during training camp he doesn't compete, he's going to be even worse in live fire, so why start him.

The coaches have actually already said that Croyle "has it." What they want to know now is if he can DO IT.

bogie
07-02-2007, 01:23 PM
I wasn't disrespecting you, Mr. bogie. I was disrespecting the man.

FAX

Oh, well I then I agree with you...respectably

bogie
07-02-2007, 01:26 PM
Maybe the Question should be? What has Huard ever done to warrant a starting position?

Other than being born several years after Huard, I could say the same about Croyle.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 01:28 PM
You're not facillitating the development of Croyle by sheltering him from good defenses.
I'm not sheltering him from good defenses. His first game in Week 5 would be against a Top 5 D.

You pick your battles.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 01:30 PM
When did Huard get starter skills? Huard has never started a full season, let alone show anyone in the last 10 years of the NFL that he was starter material....
He's been behind Marino, Brady, and Green.

And the record he's carried when he does play/start is stellar.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 01:30 PM
I'm not sheltering him from good defenses. His first game in Week 5 would be against a Top 5 D.

You pick your battles.

Same difference, home vs. away.

Excuses. Excuses. Excuses.

Enough with the excuses, Carl.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 01:31 PM
He's been behind Marino, Brady, and Green.

And the record he's carried when he does play/start is stellar.

Looking forward to another 10 years of first-round playoff exits.

bogie
07-02-2007, 01:31 PM
The coaches have actually already said that Croyle "has it." What they want to know now is if he can DO IT.

As long as his "it" is equal to, or better than Huard's "it", I think he should start.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 01:34 PM
As long as his "it" is equal to, or better than Huard's "it", I think he should start.

1) You cannot know how his "it" compares to Huard's until he PLAYS.

2) Even if his "it" isn't equal to Huard's, there's no reason to start Huard. Unless you enjoy 9-7 seasons with no real success at the end.

luv
07-02-2007, 01:34 PM
Same difference, home vs. away.

Excuses. Excuses. Excuses.

Enough with the excuses, Carl.
Ouch.

go bowe
07-02-2007, 01:36 PM
* * *
But I'm an idiot chick who doesn't know shit about what she's talking about.hey, that hasn't stopped the rest of us from posting, why should it affect you?

actually, i think you've made great progress towards becoming a knowledgable fan...

plus, your and idiot, try to get it right next time... :p :p :p

FAX
07-02-2007, 01:37 PM
What if the defenses hit "it"? What then for God's sake?

FAX

Chiefnj
07-02-2007, 01:39 PM
If Herm really wanted to go with the best player period then they should have kept Green.

luv
07-02-2007, 01:40 PM
If Herm really wanted to go with the best player period then they should have kept Green.
That'll open up a whole new can of worms.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 01:42 PM
Same difference, home vs. away.

Excuses. Excuses. Excuses.
It's not the same difference, it's an actual difference, which is part of the reason that's such a dumb phrase. Want to compare our sack allowances home vs. away? Receiving yards? Interceptions?

It's not the end of the world to bank on the reality that our team simply plays five times better at home. We have plenty of time to change that, even in 2007, but for now we can actually use that knowledge and a gift of an 8 game stretch in our schedule to bring Croyle in.

I wasn't even arguing the cause, I was just arguing that it's reasonable. But screw it. I now declare myself Official Spokesman Of The Start Croyle In Game 4 Committee. I dare all challengers before me to test my might.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 01:44 PM
It's not the same difference, it's an actual difference, which is part of the reason that's such a dumb phrase. Want to compare our sack allowances home vs. away? Receiving yards? Interceptions?

It's obvious you thinkt his team has a chance in 2007. I don't. Simple as that.

I'm concerned about the future of this team, and in my opinion, no future good comes from starting an old, career-backup QB for any amount of time.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 01:45 PM
It's not the same difference, it's an actual difference, which is part of the reason that's such a dumb phrase. Want to compare our sack allowances home vs. away? Receiving yards? Interceptions?

It's not the end of the world to bank on the reality that our team simply plays five times better at home. We have plenty of time to change that, even in 2007, but for now we can actually use that knowledge and a gift of an 8 game stretch in our schedule to bring Croyle in.

I wasn't even arguing the cause, I was just arguing that it's reasonable. But screw it. I now declare myself Official Spokesman Of The Start Croyle In Game 4 Committee. I dare all challengers before me to test my might.


STFU

FAX
07-02-2007, 01:45 PM
The SCRIGAFOCs?

Good luck recruiting for that deal, Mr. Direckshun.

Really.

FAX

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 01:49 PM
It's not the same difference, it's an actual difference, which is part of the reason that's such a dumb phrase. Want to compare our sack allowances home vs. away? Receiving yards? Interceptions?

It's not the end of the world to bank on the reality that our team simply plays five times better at home. We have plenty of time to change that, even in 2007, but for now we can actually use that knowledge and a gift of an 8 game stretch in our schedule to bring Croyle in.

I wasn't even arguing the cause, I was just arguing that it's reasonable. But screw it. I now declare myself Official Spokesman Of The Start Croyle In Game 4 Committee. I dare all challengers before me to test my might.


Seriously? What does it prove to start Huard for the first 4 games of the season?

luv
07-02-2007, 01:51 PM
Seriously? What does it prove to start Huard for the first 4 games of the season?
I always thought he thought it was a bad idea to switch QB's mid-season. He could have just been talking about coaches' habits, though. Too lazy to look it up. I'm looking forward to his avatar change.

Chiefnj
07-02-2007, 01:52 PM
If you start Huard when, if at any time, do you pull him?

bogie
07-02-2007, 01:57 PM
1) You cannot know how his "it" compares to Huard's until he PLAYS.

2) Even if his "it" isn't equal to Huard's, there's no reason to start Huard. Unless you enjoy 9-7 seasons with no real success at the end.

I totally get your point. The only thing we disagree on is that you want to start Croyle no matter what, just because he's younger. I understand the theory of rebuilding a team. I do not think you need to start a bunch of kids just because they're young and putting up with years of losing, HOPING they get better. Huard's what, 32 or 33? He's not beat up and when he was given an opportunity to be a starter he was pretty solid. Has Huard been a career back-up because he was never given a chance? Last year he got his chance and he did a damb fine job. We don't know anymore about Huard being a proven QB than Croyle. How do we know Huard's not a winner just waiting for his chance? There is every possibility that if Huard competes for the job and wins, he could gain a level of confidence we've never seen and could absolutely take us deeper into the playoffs and if the rest of the team steps up, who knows what could happen. Again, our biggest problem is not at the QB position. I just don't agree with starting someone that hasn't earned the position, just because they're younger.

bogie
07-02-2007, 01:58 PM
If Herm really wanted to go with the best player period then they should have kept Green.

Green didn't want to compete for the job.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 01:59 PM
If you start Huard when, if at any time, do you pull him?



That's the question? When?

I think it is more of the majority of the Chiefs fans are scared to death to actually build a winning team through the draft.. They want the prove vet or savvy QB to come in and keep the string of mediocre going...

They are unwilling to build for a championship and develop the talent to do so... That is why you hear so much whining for Huard.. Huard is the safe washed up QB that hasn't done shit in the NFL.... But he went 5-3 last year against a weak NFC West... And don't give me this, he was behind so and so BS either... IF he was any good someone would of grabbed him and made him a starter, instead of him being buried on someone's dept chart for 10 years...

RustShack
07-02-2007, 02:03 PM
The only time I think you switch a QB is when you have a Vet start the season to show the Rookie for awhile, its just pointless to do it when the other QB isn't a rooke. Croyle has way more talent and upside, hes sat out a year and learned from Green and Huard, if hes not ready now he never will be. He has the weapons this year and a defence to help, throw him out there and let him win some games. (assuming he dosn't totally suck it up in training camp and preseason, but hes looked really good so far)

sedated
07-02-2007, 02:08 PM
(As I have sai several times)

why would anybody think Carl would let Herm throw away a season by developing a QB?

He's got tickets to sell, and prices to raise.

He'll wait for the team to bury itself.

It amazes me that a group of intelligent Chiefs fans like the ones on this board can be so blind to this.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 02:12 PM
I totally get your point. The only thing we disagree on is that you want to start Croyle no matter what, just because he's younger.

The reasoning behind starting Croyle at all costs is that he MIGHT SUCK. If he does, we need to draft another QB. It's better to know that NOW rather than later.

Huard's what, 32 or 33? He's not beat up and when he was given an opportunity to be a starter he was pretty solid. Has Huard been a career back-up because he was never given a chance? Last year he got his chance and he did a damb fine job.

He threw 11 TD passes. As soon as Huard came in, we ratcheted down the offense in order to minimize mistakes. Huard did just fine minimizing mistakes (although he nearly led the league in fumbles) but to win it all you have to do MORE. Huard isn't that guy. He's a caretaker and that's it.

Seriously, do you HONESTLY believe a guy could be a backup for 10 years in this league while possessing some kind of talent that "nobody has ever noticed before"?

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 02:13 PM
(As I have sai several times)

why would anybody think Carl would let Herm throw away a season by developing a QB?

He's got tickets to sell, and prices to raise.

He'll wait for the team to bury itself.

It amazes me that a group of intelligent Chiefs fans like the ones on this board can be so blind to this.

They're not just blind to it.

Most of them SUPPORT it.

Carl will do exactly what you say, and then defend himself by saying he "did what the fans wanted".

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 02:24 PM
Seriously, do you HONESTLY believe a guy could be a backup for 10 years in this league while possessing some kind of talent that "nobody has ever noticed before"?


Kind of the facts that people are overlooking...

FAX
07-02-2007, 02:27 PM
Kind of the facts that people are overlooking...

True. But what about his intangibles?

FAX

bogie
07-02-2007, 02:29 PM
(As I have sai several times)

why would anybody think Carl would let Herm throw away a season by developing a QB?

He's got tickets to sell, and prices to raise.

He'll wait for the team to bury itself.

It amazes me that a group of intelligent Chiefs fans like the ones on this board can be so blind to this.

I don't think you have to throw away a season to develope a team.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 02:29 PM
True. But what about his intangibles?

FAX


True, I heard he can tie his shoes with his johnson...

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 02:30 PM
I don't think you have to throw away a season to develope a team.


Starting Croyle doesnt mean that the season is throwing away...


See SD last year....

bogie
07-02-2007, 02:33 PM
Starting Croyle doesnt mean that the season is throwing away...


See SD last year....

It does if Croyle sucks and you start him just because he's younger knowing he sucks. Some of you more intelligent folks have said start Croyle even if he sucks.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 02:35 PM
It does if Croyle sucks and you start him just because he's younger knowing he sucks. Some of you more intelligent folks have said start Croyle even if he sucks.

You don't know if he sucks UNTIL YOU PLAY HIM.

Plenty of great QB's looked like shit in TC/preseason, and vice versa.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 02:50 PM
You don't know if he sucks UNTIL YOU PLAY HIM.

Plenty of great QB's looked like shit in TC/preseason, and vice versa.


IF I remember correctly. The last 3 years or so Huard looked like complete garbage in the TC and preseason... He had the worst passer rating in Pre-season like 3-4 years running...

So Huard fans... How do you know unless you give Croyle a shot?

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 02:51 PM
It's obvious you thinkt his team has a chance in 2007. I don't. Simple as that.

I'm concerned about the future of this team, and in my opinion, no future good comes from starting an old, career-backup QB for any amount of time.
Very obvious. I want to qualify that -- I don't think they have a chance to go all the way, but I do think they have a chance to get playoff experience, and I'm all for that. High picks in 2008, low picks, whatever. You can build a team with low picks if you play your cards right, and guess what? Under the Herm era, they've fared pretty well.

I'm thinking about the future as well, and I don't want to run the risk of Ryan Leafing this kid. Best way to see what we got is to save him the road assaults and gear him up in Arrowhead. He'll get his day on the road, and hopefully by then he'll show up.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 02:52 PM
The SCRIGAFOCs?

Good luck recruiting for that deal, Mr. Direckshun.

Really.
It's not even my position, Mr. FAX. But I've decided to pick up the gauntlet.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 02:53 PM
Very obvious. I want to qualify that -- I don't think they have a chance to go all the way, but I do think they have a chance to get playoff experience, and I'm all for that. High picks in 2008, low picks, whatever. You can build a team with low picks if you play your cards right, and guess what? Under the Herm era, they've fared pretty well.

I'm thinking about the future as well, and I don't want to run the risk of Ryan Leafing this kid. Best way to see what we got is to save him the road assaults and gear him up in Arrowhead. He'll get his day on the road, and hopefully by then he'll show up.

Good thing SD didnt play Rivers last year, They might of Leafed him as well... Denver has no problem leafing QB's.... Nor does 32 other teams in the NFL....

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 02:54 PM
Seriously? What does it prove to start Huard for the first 4 games of the season?
...prove?

I'm not out to make an existential statement about the aligning of the stars.

I'm for building this team around Croyle, and keeping our Hope diamond out of the muck for the first four weeks. We can bring him in when we have the velvet cover of Arrowhead to protect his incredible value, and even then there isn't that much of a difference between 12 games and 16 games -- plus any postseason we may pick up.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 02:56 PM
Good thing SD didnt play Rivers last year, They might of Leafed him as well... Denver has no problem leafing QB's.... Nor does 32 other teams in the NFL....
1. I'm in favor of playing Croyle, just not right away.

2. Who were their first four games against, Cutler and Rivers?

3. Even if Cutler and Rivers played stiff competition in their first four weeks, that doesn't mean I advocate doing it in this situation, with a weaker OL and first-year receivers.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 03:00 PM
Very obvious. I want to qualify that -- I don't think they have a chance to go all the way, but I do think they have a chance to get playoff experience, and I'm all for that.

Let me get this straight. You acknowledge that this team has very little to no chance of making the Super Bowl. You acknowledge that Croyle is the future. Yet you'd still start Huard in the name of "gaining playoff experience"?

I'm sorry, that makes zero sense. Furthermore, what if said "playoff experience" was similar to last year's games. It's highly possible that such "playoff experience" actually hurts as much as helps. It's certainly demoralizing.

High picks in 2008, low picks, whatever. You can build a team with low picks if you play your cards right, and guess what? Under the Herm era, they've fared pretty well.

I absolutely agree. But that doesn't justify starting Huard in any way.

I'm thinking about the future as well, and I don't want to run the risk of Ryan Leafing this kid. Best way to see what we got is to save him the road assaults and gear him up in Arrowhead. He'll get his day on the road, and hopefully by then he'll show up.

Get real. Ryan Leafed himself. He came in with the wrong attitude and got beat up right away. There's not an ounce of comparison between the two. They're night and day different coming out of college, physically, mentally, and emotionally. Their upbringing was completely different. And furthermore, Croyle has already been in the league a year. HE'S NOT A ROOKIE.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 03:03 PM
1. I'm in favor of playing Croyle, just not right away.

And you won't be in favor of it when Huard wins a couple of games.

And then you won't be in favor of it when we're 7-4 and still *POSSIBLY* in the playoff hunt.

And then you won't be in favor of it when we're 9-6 and a playoff berth is on the line.

And you won't be in favor of it when we back into the playoffs and lose to Indy or New England.

And then it's NEXT offseason and we're right here, talking about the SAME DAMN THING.

OnTheWarpath58
07-02-2007, 03:03 PM
2. Who were their first four games against, Cutler and Rivers?

Cutler:

Seattle - Loss

@ SD - Loss

@Arizona - Win

Cincinatti - Win



Rivers:

@Oakland - Win

Tennessee - Win

@Baltimore - Loss

Pittsburgh - Win

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 03:06 PM
Let me get this straight. You acknowledge that this team has very little to no chance of making the Super Bowl. You acknowledge that Croyle is the future. Yet you'd still start Huard in the name of "gaining playoff experience"?

I'm sorry, that makes zero sense.
I'll say!

Primarily because that's not what I'm saying. I acknowledge this team is not a title contender. That however does not make a playoff run worthless, especially if it means a playoff appearance. But that doesn't have anything to do with why I want Huard over Croyle for 4 weeks. That was just a qualification I was making on my belief in the Chiefs' competence this year. That's all.

The jist of my actual argument is that Croyle is the future. You don't want to risk that future by dumping him behind a patchwork line trying to gel with rookie receivers trying to get their feet wet with Shawn Merriman and Tommie Harris knocking him down every other play. I get the feeling that's too much all at once and one of our wheels is going to fly off. That wheel could very much be Croyle, so you put in Huard as a scarecrow for the first 4.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 03:07 PM
And you won't be in favor of it when Huard wins a couple of games.

And then you won't be in favor of it when we're 7-4 and still *POSSIBLY* in the playoff hunt.

And then you won't be in favor of it when we're 9-6 and a playoff berth is on the line.

And you won't be in favor of it when we back into the playoffs and lose to Indy or New England.

And then it's NEXT offseason and we're right here, talking about the SAME DAMN THING.


Its almost like Carl has a spell over the city and its fans.....

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 03:08 PM
Cutler:

Seattle - Loss

@ SD - Loss

@Arizona - Win

Cincinatti - Win

Rivers:

@Oakland - Win

Tennessee - Win

@Baltimore - Loss

Pittsburgh - Win
Not for Cutler, but I'll give it up for Rivers.

Even though Croyle has a slew of WRs with zero experience and worse OL that hasn't had hardly any quality gelling time.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 03:08 PM
I'll say!

Primarily because that's not what I'm saying. I acknowledge this team is not a title contender. That however does not make a playoff run worthless, especially if it means a playoff appearance. But that doesn't have anything to do with why I want Huard over Croyle for 4 weeks. That was just a qualification I was making on my belief in the Chiefs' competence this year. That's all.

The jist of my actual argument is that Croyle is the future. You don't want to risk that future by dumping him behind a patchwork line trying to gel with rookie receivers trying to get their feet wet with Shawn Merriman and Tommie Harris knocking him down every other play. I get the feeling that's too much all at once and one of our wheels is going to fly off. That wheel could very much be Croyle, so you put in Huard as a scarecrow for the first 4.


Playoff appearances are worthless, when you are one and done....

So playing this hypothetical game. what if Huard is 0-4, or 3-1. you going to make that change?

FAX
07-02-2007, 03:09 PM
It's not even my position, Mr. FAX. But I've decided to pick up the gauntlet.

In that case, I'm with you on this, Mr. Direckshun.

You may count me as a SCRIGAFOCer and darn proud of it.

FAX

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 03:09 PM
And you won't be in favor of it when Huard wins a couple of games.

And then you won't be in favor of it when we're 7-4 and still *POSSIBLY* in the playoff hunt.

And then you won't be in favor of it when we're 9-6 and a playoff berth is on the line.

And you won't be in favor of it when we back into the playoffs and lose to Indy or New England.

And then it's NEXT offseason and we're right here, talking about the SAME DAMN THING.
I'm going to have to cut you off after the first line, Senator.

Huard would have to go 4-0 to start the season for me to support him remaining -- because then I'd be convinced we're title contenders. 3-1 would make me think twice, but short of 4-0, I'm bringing in Croyle week 4.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 03:10 PM
The jist of my actual argument is that Croyle is the future. You don't want to risk that future by dumping him behind a patchwork line trying to gel with rookie receivers trying to get their feet wet with Shawn Merriman and Tommie Harris knocking him down every other play. I get the feeling that's too much all at once and one of our wheels is going to fly off. That wheel could very much be Croyle, so you put in Huard as a scarecrow for the first 4.

If that's too much all at once, then it's safe to say Croyle is NOT the future. I'd rather know that earlier rather than later myself.

Part of being an NFL QB is overcoming adversity.

Which Croyle won't have the opportunity to do, because you want to put him in a plastic bubble the first 4 weeks of the season.

RustShack
07-02-2007, 03:11 PM
I'm just kind of wondering what makes you guys think Croyle sucks so much? Hes got everything a QB needs to be a great player, exept size. I don't see that hurting him too much though, as long as he dosn't get hurt he CAN be good.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 03:12 PM
Playoff appearances are worthless, when you are one and done....

So playing this hypothetical game. what if Huard is 0-4, or 3-1. you going to make that change?
I know it's after the fact so I won't rag on you for it, but I'd support Huard if he went 4-0. 3-1, and I'd think twice, but short of 4-0, Croyle's the man.

I don't think playoff appearances are worthless when you're rebuilding. If we're gearing this team up for a playoff run, then it'd be valuable for them to have experience in the playoffs.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 03:12 PM
I'm going to have to cut you off after the first line, Senator.

Huard would have to go 4-0 to start the season for me to support him remaining -- because then I'd be convinced we're title contenders. 3-1 would make me think twice, but short of 4-0, I'm bringing in Croyle week 4.

ROFL

So you're willing to watch the fabric of the team and it's fanbase be torn to shreds in the name of protecting Croyle from adversity.

If this team were 3-1 under Huard and we started Croyle, Brodie would WISH he was just getting knocked around by Merriman and Harris.

Because the boo's at Arrowhead will be BRUTAL.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 03:14 PM
I don't think playoff appearances are worthless when you're rebuilding. If we're gearing this team up for a playoff run, then it'd be valuable for them to have experience in the playoffs.

You're assuming that starting Huard the first 4 games equals a playoff berth while starting Croyle does not. I say hogwash.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 03:14 PM
If that's too much all at once, then it's safe to say Croyle is NOT the future. I'd rather know that earlier rather than later myself.

Part of being an NFL QB is overcoming adversity.

Which Croyle won't have the opportunity to do, because you want to put him in a plastic bubble the first 4 weeks of the season.
Croyle will have the opportunity to do, because he's facing a badass defense his first day. And he'll hit the road in the last 4 games of the year to try to make some noise there.

I have a lot of faith in Croyle. I'm not a doubter. But we're cursed to have such a tough opening month yet we're blessed to have a surely veteran backup who can absorb the punishment and god forbid pick a game off. Take advantage of the factors in your favor and wait to pull the trigger in week 5.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 03:16 PM
You're assuming that starting Huard the first 4 games equals a playoff berth while starting Croyle does not. I say hogwash.
Well, yes, I am saying that it's more likely.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 03:17 PM
ROFL

So you're willing to watch the fabric of the team and it's fanbase be torn to shreds in the name of protecting Croyle from adversity.

If this team were 3-1 under Huard and we started Croyle, Brodie would WISH he was just getting knocked around by Merriman and Harris.

Because the boo's at Arrowhead will be BRUTAL.
Then he's not fit to be an NFL QB?

Whose argument is eating itself?

OnTheWarpath58
07-02-2007, 03:17 PM
I'm wondering why people think the first four games are so ridiculously difficult.

Houston?

Minnesota had a good run defense but a HORRIBLE pass defense, and we're playing at Arrowhead. The Vikes Offense is even more questionable than ours. 10 points could win that game for us.

Chicago will be tough, but when Wrecks Grossman is taking snaps on the other side, that helps.

Sandy Eggo on the road? Toughest game of the year, IMO, with the trip to Indy being 1a.



2-2 should not be a problem, IMO.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 03:19 PM
I'm wondering why people think the first four games are so ridiculously difficult.

Houston?

Minnesota had a good run defense but a HORRIBLE pass defense, and we're playing at Arrowhead. The Vikes Offense is even more questionable than ours. 10 points could win that game for us.

Chicago will be tough, but when Wrecks Grossman is taking snaps on the other side, that helps.

Sandy Eggo on the road? Toughest game of the year, IMO, with the trip to Indy being 1a.

2-2 should not be a problem, IMO.
I think 2-2 is a possibility too.

I'm concerned about those defenses. Houston's got a young, mean DL and a couple good LBs, but that's not the game I'm scared of. Minnesota's got a nasty defense (although I'm wondering how much they lost in Nap Harris), and of course Chicago and Sandy Eggo are top 5 units.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 03:23 PM
Then he's not fit to be an NFL QB?

Whose argument is eating itself?

That's got nothing to do with Croyle.

You bench a QB that's 3-1 and you have a legitimate threat to your team chemsitry on your hands.

Besides, my argument is that Huard should not start, regardless of who the other options are. It just so happens that the alternative is Croyle.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 03:24 PM
Well, yes, I am saying that it's more likely.

Well, all I can say is that there's precious little evidence to suggest that you're right.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 03:25 PM
Croyle will have the opportunity to do, because he's facing a badass defense his first day. And he'll hit the road in the last 4 games of the year to try to make some noise there.

I have a lot of faith in Croyle. I'm not a doubter. But we're cursed to have such a tough opening month yet we're blessed to have a surely veteran backup who can absorb the punishment and god forbid pick a game off. Take advantage of the factors in your favor and wait to pull the trigger in week 5.

That's the mentality that's lead to almost 2 decades with no playoff wins.

Hydrae
07-02-2007, 03:43 PM
Those of you who feel Huard is simply a career backup ever hear of a man name Rich Gannon? Seems he was a career back up for 10 years or so and then won a Super Bowl and MVP.

I am not saying I think Huard is Gannon. I am saying that I am willing to let the coaches do their job and start the person who has the best chance to win each game.

ct
07-02-2007, 03:45 PM
Those of you who feel Huard is simply a career backup ever hear of a man name Rich Gannon? Seems he was a career back up for 10 years or so and then won a Super Bowl and MVP.

I am not saying I think Huard is Gannon. I am saying that I am willing to let the coaches do their job and start the person who has the best chance to win each game.

And yet it was the coaches who chose Grbac over Gannon.

Hydrae
07-02-2007, 03:50 PM
And yet it was the coaches who chose Grbac over Gannon.

True enough but a different set of coaches. Besides, wasn't part of that decision based on the idea that Gannon was a backup and not the future? :shrug:

sedated
07-02-2007, 03:53 PM
And yet it was the coaches who chose Grbac over Gannon.

and Green over Huard

luv
07-02-2007, 03:58 PM
and Green over Huard
I would have put Green back in as well. BUT I would have pulled him back out when he wasn't getting the job done.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 04:13 PM
That's got nothing to do with Croyle.

You bench a QB that's 3-1 and you have a legitimate threat to your team chemsitry on your hands.
Well that's a fair argument.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 04:14 PM
That's the mentality that's lead to almost 2 decades with no playoff wins.
Not really. Know why?

Someone? Anybody? Guy in the back?

Because the Chiefs haven't seriously tried to develop a young QB in almost 2 decades.

Hydrae
07-02-2007, 04:27 PM
Just out of curiousity, is this the only thing DJ had to say? This thread started out being about his interview and immediately took a sharp left into the QB discussion.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 05:27 PM
Not really. Know why?

Someone? Anybody? Guy in the back?

Because the Chiefs haven't seriously tried to develop a young QB in almost 2 decades.


This is our best shot in how many years? Herm willing to take the pressure off the QB with his "buttsex offense" , willing to build a stout defense and a strong running game to protect his young QB...

If it doenst happen now.. Then it is true, Carl only cares about one thing. That is the fan favorite "one and done" playoff bids and butts in the seats.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 05:28 PM
Just out of curiousity, is this the only thing DJ had to say? This thread started out being about his interview and immediately took a sharp left into the QB discussion.

:shrug: This thread went south faster than Paris Hiltons nasty jail panties...

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 06:52 PM
Not really. Know why?

Someone? Anybody? Guy in the back?

Because the Chiefs haven't seriously tried to develop a young QB in almost 2 decades.

We haven't tried to develop a young QB in two decades for the same reason that we haven't won a playoff game.

This team, and to a large part it's fanbase too, is afraid to take the risks involved. 9-7 is much safer.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 06:53 PM
Those of you who feel Huard is simply a career backup ever hear of a man name Rich Gannon? Seems he was a career back up for 10 years or so and then won a Super Bowl and MVP.

I am not saying I think Huard is Gannon. I am saying that I am willing to let the coaches do their job and start the person who has the best chance to win each game.

Gannon didn't win a Super Bowl.

In fact, he turned in the worst performance ever for a starting Super Bowl QB...

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 06:55 PM
Huard has twice the chance of winning in Houston (a very winnable game) than Croyle does.

Then you're off to Chicago.

I can see why you chose to delete this...

Hydrae
07-02-2007, 07:21 PM
Gannon didn't win a Super Bowl.

In fact, he turned in the worst performance ever for a starting Super Bowl QB...



:banghead: I knew that. He did win the MVP that year though.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 07:24 PM
I can see why you chose to delete this...
Because it was a poor argument.

Please do not abuse your mod powers to gain leverage in a debate. It's petty.

keg in kc
07-02-2007, 07:29 PM
Quarterbacks are blooming later, it's a trend the last 10 years. Gannon. Trent Green. Jake Delhomme. It's not all that unusual for a guy who's been a career backup to suddenly 'get it'. My theory is that the game (offense and defense both) has become so complicated that it takes years to really learn it at the QB position. I think you can see that in the time that it takes for most young QBs to develop, too, lately, the high draft picks, I mean.

Anywho, you start the guy who gives you the best chance to win. Hopefully that's Croyle, and he becomes something.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 07:34 PM
We haven't tried to develop a young QB in two decades for the same reason that we haven't won a playoff game.

This team, and to a large part it's fanbase too, is afraid to take the risks involved. 9-7 is much safer.
A large part of every fanbase is afraid to take risks. Don't dump the Chiefs' cautions on the fans.

Jesus, now I'm personally responsible for dragging down the franchise. The guilt is unbearable.

Caution, by the way, is not always a vice. If utilizing a healthy degree of caution appropriately eases our QBotF into his role, you shouldn't abandon that course of action simply out of impatience.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 07:35 PM
Quarterbacks are blooming later, it's a trend the last 10 years. Gannon. Trent Green. Jake Delhomme. It's not all that unusual for a guy who's been a career backup to suddenly 'get it'. My theory is that the game (offense and defense both) has become so complicated that it takes years to really learn it at the QB position. I think you can see that in the time that it takes for most young QBs to develop, too, lately, the high draft picks, I mean.

Anywho, you start the guy who gives you the best chance to win. Hopefully that's Croyle, and he becomes something.

well according to Herm this offense is simple because Herm said himself that he is stupid...

so if Croyle can figure it out, like the other 31 teams DC have... Then we are in a world of hurt...

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 08:08 PM
Because it was a poor argument.

Please do not abuse your mod powers to gain leverage in a debate. It's petty.

Almost as petty as editing your own opinion because you're afraid to be had.

htismaqe
07-02-2007, 08:11 PM
A large part of every fanbase is afraid to take risks. Don't dump the Chiefs' cautions on the fans.

Jesus, now I'm personally responsible for dragging down the franchise. The guilt is unbearable.

Caution, by the way, is not always a vice. If utilizing a healthy degree of caution appropriately eases our QBotF into his role, you shouldn't abandon that course of action simply out of impatience.

One of the BIG reasons the Chiefs front office won't take risks is because they enjoy sold out stadiums EVERY SUNDAY. And that's on the fans. Sorry, but it's the plain truth.

If Chiefs fans weren't so content with being an also-ran every year, this team might actually be more aggressive. But they won't because they know that 9-7 sells tickets.

And yes, in this case caution IS a vice. They've been cautious virtually every year since Carl arrived in 1989. They haven't won a playoff game in FIFTEEN YEARS.

It's certainly admirable that you wouldn't abandon caution out of impatience. However, this team is PAST impatience and into "deperation".

It's time to make a change, NOW.

luv
07-02-2007, 08:15 PM
One of the BIG reasons the Chiefs front office won't take risks is because they enjoy sold out stadiums EVERY SUNDAY. And that's on the fans. Sorry, but it's the plain truth.

If Chiefs fans weren't so content with being an also-ran every year, this team might actually be more aggressive. But they won't because they know that 9-7 sells tickets.

And yes, in this case caution IS a vice. They've been cautious virtually every year since Carl arrived in 1989. They haven't won a playoff game in FIFTEEN YEARS.

It's certainly admirable that you wouldn't abandon caution out of impatience. However, this team is PAST impatience and into "deperation".

It's time to make a change, NOW.
Aren't a lot of people giving up their season tickets because of the things NOT changing? I think they'll start losing a lot more ticket sales unless changes are made. Something's gotta give. The games may not be as exciting to watch this year, but that's not going to stop me from wanting to go and root them on.

Marcellus
07-02-2007, 08:20 PM
Personally I want to see preseason (I know its just preseason) before I have an opinion on this. I simply haven't seen enough of Croyle to have any idea on whether he is better than Huard.

I want Croyle to be the man but he may as well be from mars right now from what I have seen of him.

He barely played preseason last year because he got hurt.

Preseason or not, if Brody struggles and Huard doesn't, we should start Huard if Croyle isn't ready.
If Croyle looks ready, play him.

I am rooting for Croyle but I don't want himto play if he is not ready. If he stinks up meaningless preseason games, he likely won't do well during real action. Pure speculation but it is my opinion.

I also think it depends greatly on whether LJ is in the line up opening day or holding out. No way Croyle plays if LJ isn't playing.

Reerun_KC
07-02-2007, 08:23 PM
Personally I want to see preseason (I know its just preseason) before I have an opinion on this. I simply haven't seen enough of Croyle to have any idea on whether he is better than Huard.

I want Croyle to be the man but he may as well be from mars right now from what I have seen of him.

He barely played preseason last year because he got hurt.

Preseason or not, if Brody struggles and Huard doesn't, we should start Huard if Croyle isn't ready.
If Croyle looks ready, play him.

I am rooting for Croyle but I don't want himto play if he is not ready. If he stinks up meaningless preseason games, he likely won't do well during real action. Pure speculation but it is my opinion.

I also think it depends greatly on whether LJ is in the line up opening day or holding out. No way Croyle plays if LJ isn't playing.

Have you watched any of the Chiefs pre-season games the last 3 or 4 years? Huard was absolutley pathetic in all those pre-seasons... People here bashing him and wishing the Chiefs would cut him...

Now everyone is wanting to "crown his ass?" well he is what we thought he is, so if you want to go ahead and crown em, then crown his ass...

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 08:33 PM
Almost as petty as editing your own opinion because you're afraid to be had.
Almost being the key word there.

I deleted a post of mine that I disliked before folks like yourself could respond.

You abused mod powers to dig up a post I deliberately deleted to hold it against me.

Almost is the key word. I ask that you refrain from doing that in the future with my posts.

Marcellus
07-02-2007, 08:42 PM
Have you watched any of the Chiefs pre-season games the last 3 or 4 years? Huard was absolutley pathetic in all those pre-seasons... People here bashing him and wishing the Chiefs would cut him...

Now everyone is wanting to "crown his ass?" well he is what we thought he is, so if you want to go ahead and crown em, then crown his ass...


Never said anything about crowning anyone, I just want to see who plays better. If it is close,start Croyle, if there is a big descepancy with Huard being the better, he should start.

Croyle is expected to be given the best "shot" at starting. If he doesn't take advantage, he shouldn't start. Personally I hope he makes the best of it but he hasn't done anything yet,thats why I want to see some extensive preseason playing time.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 08:51 PM
One of the BIG reasons the Chiefs front office won't take risks is because they enjoy sold out stadiums EVERY SUNDAY. And that's on the fans. Sorry, but it's the plain truth.

If Chiefs fans weren't so content with being an also-ran every year, this team might actually be more aggressive. But they won't because they know that 9-7 sells tickets.

And yes, in this case caution IS a vice. They've been cautious virtually every year since Carl arrived in 1989. They haven't won a playoff game in FIFTEEN YEARS.

It's certainly admirable that you wouldn't abandon caution out of impatience. However, this team is PAST impatience and into "deperation".

It's time to make a change, NOW.
Ridiculous. Blaming the fans for a mediocre personnel decisions.

Well, wait a minute. It's starting to make sense to me now. And you know who I blame for the Browns sucking decades at a time? Their fans. If the Dawg Pound wasn't so content with 5-11 records and Top 10 picks year in and year out, I bet their front office would whip right into shape. To respectfully steal your expression, that's on the fans.

Oh, that's going too far, you'd say. The Browns are steered by an incompetent front office, where our front office is capable of steering us to a Super Bowl if only they weren't so damned certain 9-7 would cut it. Well that's a damn fine argument there, and I hotly anticipate you making it.

If you're going to build a winning franchise, I simply don't think you act out of that desperation you describe. You act intelligently and you don't panic with your procedures -- you save the hail marys for the football field.

And even if you do get to the point where you are desperate, giving Croyle 12 games instead of 16, plus any postseason experience that might occur, doesn't really put a dent in your plans.

keg in kc
07-02-2007, 08:56 PM
He makes a valid and logical argument, like it or not. People complain *a lot* about Peterson, but they keep filling the stands every year, which, along with merchandise sales, is the only measurement that matters. Talk radio? Worthless. Internet sites and messageboards? Pointless. The wallet is what matters in the end, and as long as the sell-outs continue, as long as chiefs gear flies off the shelves, the message the fans are sending ownership year-after-year is that the status quo is fine. Kansas City has always had the power to voice its displeasure.

So far, after 13 seasons without a meaningful win, we have not done it.

Short Leash Hootie
07-02-2007, 09:09 PM
Maybe the Question should be? What has Huard ever done to warrant a starting position?
11 TD's
1 INT
4 4th Quarter Comebacks

...

FAX
07-02-2007, 09:23 PM
11 TD's
1 INT
4 4th Quarter Comebacks

...

Well enumerated, Mr. Hootie. I'm not one with an interest in the Huard vs. Croyle debate, because I believe that the quarterback with the best showing in camp and pre-season should get the start.

But, you would have to admit that Huard was one of the luckiest damn quarterbacks of all times last year. He had an amazing number of bail-out catches during the season - not to mention near-fumbles and blocked passes.

Still, Downfield Damon may be able to take Herm's team forward as long as the completion angel is still sitting on his shoulder pads.

FAX

blueballs
07-02-2007, 09:34 PM
Green would not take a pay cut
asked to be traded instead
let it ****ing go already

RustShack
07-02-2007, 11:32 PM
I missed the interview, did he say anything about how the D is going to improve? I think lineing up next to Harris and Edwards will help lead to a break out year, especially if the Defencive Line is improved like it should be.

Direckshun
07-02-2007, 11:50 PM
But, you would have to admit that Huard was one of the luckiest damn quarterbacks of all times last year. He had an amazing number of bail-out catches during the season - not to mention near-fumbles and blocked passes.
I pretty much believe the same thing.

I remember against the Dolphins we were backed inside our own 5 and Damon throws the ball right into the chest of Jason Taylor. Had Jason not been so surprised that Huard passed the ball as if he was a check-down option on his own 3-yard-line, it would have been a pick-6.

Logical
07-03-2007, 12:05 AM
Might not be a bad idea to throw Huard in there for first four games.

Texans have a good DL. Bears, Vikings, Chargers... all great Ds.

Of course, if you bring in Croyle week 5, then he faces the Jags.

I say you throw him in Game 1 and let him learn. You've got to start him somewhere.

I agree, we are not likely to win more than 1 of the first four games even with Huard, Croyle might as well be getting experience.

Logical
07-03-2007, 12:07 AM
Croyle was a smoke screen
to dump Green and his price tag

Now that was funny, finally something of yours I understand.

Count Zarth
07-03-2007, 07:08 AM
I agree, we are not likely to win more than 1 of the first four games even with Huard, Croyle might as well be getting experience.

Wait...how in the world do we lose more than 2? We'll beat Minnesota and Houston SUCKS.

Reerun_KC
07-03-2007, 07:12 AM
11 TD's
1 INT
4 4th Quarter Comebacks

...


Let me notify Canton for Mr. Huard...

Lets not forget the 9 fumbles in 254 passing attempts.

Dr. Van Halen
07-03-2007, 07:31 AM
I agree, we are not likely to win more than 1 of the first four games even with Huard, Croyle might as well be getting experience.

Wait, just how bad do you think we will be next season? I think we have a realistic shot at being 3-1 after the first four games. I think we'll lose at San Diego, but Chicago has all kinds of problems. I think LJ and a play-action offense will do well against them, especially without Tank.

We will beat Minnesota in our home opener, and Houston is pretty bad.

We have a pretty friendly schedule for a team that made the playoffs.

Reerun_KC
07-03-2007, 07:43 AM
Wait, just how bad do you think we will be next season? I think we have a realistic shot at being 3-1 after the first four games. I think we'll lose at San Diego, but Chicago has all kinds of problems. I think LJ and a play-action offense will do well against them, especially without Tank.

We will beat Minnesota in our home opener, and Houston is pretty bad.

We have a pretty friendly schedule for a team that made the playoffs.


And just imagine how much confidence Croyle will have after beating a couple of teams on the road?

I am starting to wonder if DV's coddling ever left this message board?

Reerun_KC
07-03-2007, 07:45 AM
We have a pretty friendly schedule for a team that was humiliated in the playoffs.

FYP :LOL:

Messier
07-03-2007, 08:00 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Dr. Van Halen
We have a pretty friendly schedule for a team that didn't know it was making the playoffs until the day after the last game, that was humiliated in the playoffs by the team that went on to humiliate the Ravens before winning the Super Bowl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FYP


FYFP

Dr. Van Halen
07-03-2007, 08:17 AM
And just imagine how much confidence Croyle will have after beating a couple of teams on the road?

I am starting to wonder if DV's coddling ever left this message board?

Do you think our team is going to be awful? Like 4-12 awful? Look at our schedule.

Reerun_KC
07-03-2007, 08:31 AM
Do you think our team is going to be awful? Like 4-12 awful? Look at our schedule.


So what if it is? Big deal! At least Croyle played the whole year and we got some experience at QB now...

Most likely 6-10 or 7-9.... Regardless of who is playing QB.

Man Carl has KC fans brained washed that 9-7 is only a backup QB away...

ROFL

58-4ever
07-03-2007, 08:35 AM
A heated July 3rd QB controversy. I like it.

Short Leash Hootie
07-03-2007, 08:37 AM
Wait, just how bad do you think we will be next season? I think we have a realistic shot at being 3-1 after the first four games. I think we'll lose at San Diego, but Chicago has all kinds of problems. I think LJ and a play-action offense will do well against them, especially without Tank.

We will beat Minnesota in our home opener, and Houston is pretty bad.

We have a pretty friendly schedule for a team that made the playoffs.
Chicago has all sorts of problems?

Name them.

Rex Grossman?

Seems like they did fine with him last season.

Short Leash Hootie
07-03-2007, 08:38 AM
oh, and, I think Briggs is simply a system LB'er...I don't think they'll miss a beat without him in the lineup.

Dr. Van Halen
07-03-2007, 08:57 AM
Chicago has all sorts of problems?

Name them.

Rex Grossman?

Seems like they did fine with him last season.

They got rid of team MVP Thomas Jones. That leaves Benson (who is good, but inexperienced)? Adrian Peterson? Briggs is likely to hold out. They got rid of Tank Johnson, one of their best d-lineman. They have a new defensive coordinator (although this is really Smith's defense). They still have Rex Grossman at QB. Adam Archuletta might start at SS.

So, yeah, they have all sorts of problems. I like the Bears, and I think they'll cruise through their crappy division again this year, but I think the Chiefs have a shot against them.

Chief Faithful
07-03-2007, 09:12 AM
You don't know if he sucks UNTIL YOU PLAY HIM.

Plenty of great QB's looked like shit in TC/preseason, and vice versa.

A great example is Huard who looked like crap last preseason, but did well when given a chance to play.

htismaqe
07-03-2007, 11:29 AM
Ridiculous. Blaming the fans for a mediocre personnel decisions.

Well, wait a minute. It's starting to make sense to me now. And you know who I blame for the Browns sucking decades at a time? Their fans. If the Dawg Pound wasn't so content with 5-11 records and Top 10 picks year in and year out, I bet their front office would whip right into shape. To respectfully steal your expression, that's on the fans.

Oh, that's going too far, you'd say. The Browns are steered by an incompetent front office, where our front office is capable of steering us to a Super Bowl if only they weren't so damned certain 9-7 would cut it. Well that's a damn fine argument there, and I hotly anticipate you making it.

If you're going to build a winning franchise, I simply don't think you act out of that desperation you describe. You act intelligently and you don't panic with your procedures -- you save the hail marys for the football field.

And even if you do get to the point where you are desperate, giving Croyle 12 games instead of 16, plus any postseason experience that might occur, doesn't really put a dent in your plans.

Cleveland is a perennial 4-12 team.

If the Browns and their fans were insistent that being 9-7 every year means they're "this" close, then I could see your comparison.

As it stands, your comparison is absolutely absurd.

By the way, if you're going to BUILD a winning franchise, you actually have to dig a hole and pour the foundation at some point. Putting yet another band-aid on the situation doesn't help anything.

bringbackmarty
07-03-2007, 11:56 AM
Injuries can happen at any time. At least two of Croyle's injuries were NOT CONTACT-RELATED.

If his injury risk is SO high that you can't line him up and play football on any given Sunday because the opponent might be "too tough" then you have no business playing him at all.

Cut him, play Huard, and draft a QB next year.

He's either ready to play or he isn't. Simple as that. If you're adjusting your roster based on who you're playing, they've already beat you.
adjusting the roster based on who you are playing, and who is injured seems to work well for Bill Belichek. He had linebackers playing safety and went deeper into the playoffs than we've been in 15 years.
If Croyle sucks, don't play him. Herm's job is to win games while he is coach, not afer he is gone. It doesn't matter how you win.

You Play to WIn The Game fool!

htismaqe
07-03-2007, 12:07 PM
adjusting the roster based on who you are playing, and who is injured seems to work well for Bill Belichek. He had linebackers playing safety and went deeper into the playoffs than we've been in 15 years.
If Croyle sucks, don't play him. Herm's job is to win games while he is coach, not afer he is gone. It doesn't matter how you win.

You Play to WIn The Game fool!

ROFL

How in the hell do you equate situational personnel substitutions, on defense, with the QUARTERBACK POSITION?

Does Belichek put in a different QB during the playoffs?