PDA

View Full Version : AP: Huard named starter -some quotes I've not seen


blueballs
08-25-2007, 09:31 PM
Huard beats out Croyle, to start for Chiefs
Associated Press

Updated: August 25, 2007, 6:21 PM ET
Comment
Email
Print


Huard
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Damon Huard, who has spent his career backing up some of the NFL's top quarterbacks, is finally No. 1. Coach Herm Edwards said Saturday the 11-year veteran will start for the Kansas City Chiefs.

Huard hadn't started a game since 2000 but went 5-3 last season after Trent Green was injured in the season opener. After Green demanded a trade to Miami this spring because he thought coaches planned to hand the job to Brodie Croyle, Huard spent the summer battling the second-year player from Alabama for the job.

Croyle apparently played himself out of contention by throwing an interception in each of three preseason games. Given a big opportunity Thursday night against New Orleans while Huard sat out with a calf injury, he hit only five of 17 passes for 45 yards as the Chiefs lost 30-7 and dropped to 0-3.

In making the announcement, Edwards was careful to say that he was confident the 24-year-old Croyle would one day be the Chiefs' starting quarterback.

"Brodie Croyle in my mind is going to be a good quarterback in this organization -- no doubt about it," Edwards said.

Opening with their first two games on the road, at Houston and Chicago, apparently weighed in favor of the more experienced Huard, who gained the respect of teammates in his eight starts a year ago.

"I just think we've exposed Brodie where we know what he is a lot more than we did last year. We know what Damon is because he has a history," Edwards said. "When you weigh those things, you go into the opener and say, `Hey, we've got to try to win the game.' In my opinion, this gives us the best chance."

Huard backed up Dan Marino in Miami and Tom Brady in New England before coming to Kansas City in 2004. He was one of the league's biggest surprises last year when Green sustained a severe concussion in the season opener, winning five of his eight starts while throwing for 1,684 yards. Most impressively, he threw only one interception while hitting 11 touchdown passes for a 98.0 quarterback rating, second in the league only to Peyton Manning's 101.0.

"He's a guy who's weathered a lot of storms," Edwards said. "And I go back to what he did last year for us. He came off the bench and performed very, very well. He managed the game. Didn't turn the ball over a lot. That is very important, especially on the road."

Huard was getting treatment on his calf injury Saturday and was not available for comment.

Croyle, a third-round pick in 2005, said he had his chance to seize the job against the Saints.

"I think they were sitting there kind of waiting for me to go do it, and I didn't do it," he said. "Therefore, they don't feel I'm ready to go. And we'll just wait our turn."

Croyle said he and Huard were both told about the decision Saturday morning before practice. Huard practiced very little and may not play on Thursday night when the Chiefs wrap up their preseason at St. Louis.

"Obviously, I wanted to be the starter," Croyle said. "It didn't work out that way. But we'll get our shot at some point and when we do, we'll make the most of it."

Edwards also said running back Larry Johnson, who ended a 25-day holdout this week, may not play against the Rams on Thursday night.

Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press

blueballs
08-25-2007, 09:33 PM
Opening with their first two games on the road, at Houston and Chicago, apparently weighed in favor of the more experienced Huard, who gained the respect of teammates in his eight starts a year ago.

OnTheWarpath58
08-25-2007, 09:37 PM
No Huard on Thursday night?

Oh goodie.

Almost a month without playing before the opener in Houston.

Sounds like a great plan.....



:banghead:

Guru
08-25-2007, 09:45 PM
No Huard on Thursday night?

Oh goodie.

Almost a month without playing before the opener in Houston.

Sounds like a great plan.....



:banghead:
Simple logic. If it makes sense, don't do it. New mantra.

the Talking Can
08-25-2007, 09:48 PM
Herm can suck it

OnTheWarpath58
08-25-2007, 09:49 PM
Simple logic. If it makes sense, don't do it. New mantra.

No shit.

Let's start the guy who has attempted 9 passes in the PS.

Makes perfect sense to me.....


:rolleyes:

OnTheWarpath58
08-25-2007, 09:50 PM
Herm can suck it

I'll be very interested to see how Hard Knocks covers this.

Herm and the entire coaching staff wanted Croyle to be the starter.

Carl's fingerprints are all over this. I'm not buying that this was entirely Herm's decision, or even that he had ANY part in this.

Guru
08-25-2007, 10:05 PM
No shit.

Let's start the guy who has attempted 9 passes in the PS.

Makes perfect sense to me.....


:rolleyes:
Got a real brain trust going on at One Arrowhead Drive this year. :banghead:

OnTheWarpath58
08-25-2007, 10:13 PM
This quote pretty much sums it up:

“Brodie’s grown a lot with his ability to play a lot. He’s played a lot in the pre-season which is good for him because we need to get him playing. The more he plays the more experience he gains. Every time he comes out of the huddle and goes through the experience of playing in a game he grows from that on the professional level. Brodie Croyle, to my mind, is going to be a good quarterback for this organization, no doubt about it.”[/B]

"We need to get him playing?"

Then why are we sitting him?

"The more he plays the more experience he gains."

No shit, sherlock. And the LESS he plays, the LESS experience he gains.

"...he grows from that on the professional level."

So why are you stunting his growth?

"...is going to be a good quarterback for this organization, no doubt about it.”

You're so sure of that, yet you won't take the risk to be proven right.

Sad. Pathetic and sad.

DJay23
08-25-2007, 10:16 PM
I like how Brodie uses the royal, "we" when talk about himself.

"But we'll get our shot at some point and when we do, we'll make the most of it."

the Talking Can
08-25-2007, 10:23 PM
Look, the "win now" philosophy mandates a short term world view.

That's why we always veer from great offense/bad defense to great defense/bad offense. We make decisions based on "now"...based on "winning now."

If you always have to "win now" then you can not do anything risky, because the payoffs for those risks are always in the future.

Carl has never even tried to develop a true QBOTF for precisely this reason. He only cares about the appearance of "winning now" even though the reality of it is zero playoff wins in 13 years.

And the fans are the same. They want 9-7, a smidge of hope, and no risk. They don't care about building a real championship team.

In hindsight, I feel stupid for believing this franchise would do anything different. Our history makes it clear that Croyle never had a chance.

9-7

Bob Dole
08-25-2007, 10:45 PM
We can only hope that Huard is put on a short leash, and Herm won't hesitate to yank him from the game if he's not getting it done.

(Yes...Bob Dole is somewhat delusional.)

digi2fish
08-25-2007, 10:45 PM
The logic is
Herm tends to start injured QB.

BigRock
08-25-2007, 10:54 PM
We can only hope that Huard is put on a short leash, and Herm won't hesitate to yank him from the game if he's not getting it done.

(Yes...Bob Dole is somewhat delusional.)
It's not delusional. Herm benched old man Vinnie to start Chad Pennington about 4 weeks into the season when Vinnie wasn't getting it done, and he never looked back. People keep acting like this means Huard (barring injury) will be the guy all year, but that's certainly no guarantee.

Bob Dole
08-25-2007, 10:56 PM
It's not delusional. Herm benched old man Vinnie to start Chad Pennington about 4 weeks into the season when Vinnie wasn't getting it done, and he never looked back. People keep acting like this means Huard (barring injury) will be the guy all year, but that's certainly no guarantee.

Bob Dole was thinking more of Herm's refusal to pull Trent in our final game last season.

greg63
08-25-2007, 11:02 PM
"I think they were sitting there kind of waiting for me to go do it, and I didn't do it," he said. "Therefore, they don't feel I'm ready to go. And we'll just wait our turn."

"Obviously, I wanted to be the starter," Croyle said. "It didn't work out that way. But we'll get our shot at some point and when we do, we'll make the most of it."

Who is this "our" and "we" people he makes mention of?

MadMax
08-26-2007, 12:01 AM
Look, the "win now" philosophy mandates a short term world view.

That's why we always veer from great offense/bad defense to great defense/bad offense. We make decisions based on "now"...based on "winning now."

If you always have to "win now" then you can not do anything risky, because the payoffs for those risks are always in the future.

Carl has never even tried to develop a true QBOTF for precisely this reason. He only cares about the appearance of "winning now" even though the reality of it is zero playoff wins in 13 years.

And the fans are the same. They want 9-7, a smidge of hope, and no risk. They don't care about building a real championship team.

In hindsight, I feel stupid for believing this franchise would do anything different. Our history makes it clear that Croyle never had a chance.

9-7



I have to agree wholeheartedly, same ol same ol. Get's old dont it. 38 years and still waiting.. :( :banghead: :banghead: :deevee:

MadMax
08-26-2007, 12:03 AM
This quote pretty much sums it up:

“Brodie’s grown a lot with his ability to play a lot. He’s played a lot in the pre-season which is good for him because we need to get him playing. The more he plays the more experience he gains. Every time he comes out of the huddle and goes through the experience of playing in a game he grows from that on the professional level. Brodie Croyle, to my mind, is going to be a good quarterback for this organization, no doubt about it.”[/B]

"We need to get him playing?"

Then why are we sitting him?

"The more he plays the more experience he gains."

No shit, sherlock. And the LESS he plays, the LESS experience he gains.

"...he grows from that on the professional level."

So why are you stunting his growth?

"...is going to be a good quarterback for this organization, no doubt about it.”

You're so sure of that, yet you won't take the risk to be proven right.

Sad. Pathetic and sad.



After hearing Carl in the booth Thursday methinks Carl dictated the decision???? Yessir shakin it boss

MadMax
08-26-2007, 12:05 AM
No shit.

Let's start the guy who has attempted 9 passes in the PS.

Makes perfect sense to me.....


:rolleyes:



Gotta rest that " rocket " arm...

Extra Point
08-26-2007, 12:08 AM
Thank God for my kid and high school football!!!

ChiefFripp
08-26-2007, 06:39 AM
I bet Mrs. Croyle could convince Carl and Herm to start Brodie.

htismaqe
08-26-2007, 07:07 AM
It's not delusional. Herm benched old man Vinnie to start Chad Pennington about 4 weeks into the season when Vinnie wasn't getting it done, and he never looked back. People keep acting like this means Huard (barring injury) will be the guy all year, but that's certainly no guarantee.

Old man Vinnie wasn't "getting it done", as you say.

I'm 100% certain we'll be 1-3 or 2-2, Huard will have 2 TD's and 1 INT, and that will be JUST enough to justify starting him the rest of the year. Because we're not "out of it" just yet...

penchief
08-26-2007, 08:17 AM
What will make it even more interesting is if Croyle has a "lights out" performance against the Rams. I know Herm wouldn't change back unless he just saw something that was overwhelming. But it might give some fans a little more comfort concerning our QBOTF.

htismaqe
08-26-2007, 08:23 AM
What will make it even more interesting is if Croyle has a "lights out" performance against the Rams. I know Herm wouldn't change back unless he just saw something that was overwhelming. But it might give some fans a little more comfort concerning our QBOTF.

Won't give me any comfort AT ALL.

It will further reinforce how chickenshit this head coach is.

jettio
08-26-2007, 08:34 AM
Look, the "win now" philosophy mandates a short term world view.

That's why we always veer from great offense/bad defense to great defense/bad offense. We make decisions based on "now"...based on "winning now."

If you always have to "win now" then you can not do anything risky, because the payoffs for those risks are always in the future.

Carl has never even tried to develop a true QBOTF for precisely this reason. He only cares about the appearance of "winning now" even though the reality of it is zero playoff wins in 13 years.

And the fans are the same. They want 9-7, a smidge of hope, and no risk. They don't care about building a real championship team.

In hindsight, I feel stupid for believing this franchise would do anything different. Our history makes it clear that Croyle never had a chance.

9-7

Each of Croyle's three INTs were amazingly poor throws and decisions. Maybe you have not seen it, but one of them against the Dolphins was a throw of the back foot floater that the DB fair caught in the end zone, there was not even any pass rush to force a hurried throw and IIRC it was a first down in the red zone play.

C'mon, can't you see that Croyle made enough mistakes to not take the job that was his for the taking.

Too many people around here have bought into some theory that a QB can only develop by making enough awful plays in real games that they use up their life quota of awful plays and all of a sudden become great.

That did not work for Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf and others.

On the other hand, Trent Green developed himself in practice that by the time he got on the field for the Redskins, he played as good as could be expected for the talent around him. Jake Delhomme, Brad Johnson, and Marc Bulger all developed their games enough on the practice field that they made a lot more good plays than bad plays once they became starters.

If Croyle is going to be a good NFL QB you have to hope that he can still do that after he lost the starting job that was ready for the taking.

penchief
08-26-2007, 08:35 AM
Won't give me any comfort AT ALL.

It will further reinforce how chickenshit this head coach is.

I think Herm is looking at the future. Croyle's teammates want to win first and foremost. When they can go to battle knowing that Brodie is their best chance, that's when Herm will pull the trigger. For Herm, I think he thinks it's just a matter of time. And I agree.

We just had five seasons of players who were handed jobs they didn't have to earn. The one thing that Herm can do to change the culture of a soft team is stick to playing the best players.

I think Herm's making Brodie earn it. That's only going to make him better. Like I just asked on the DV thread, "Why serve the meal if the entree isn't ready?"

htismaqe
08-26-2007, 08:37 AM
I think Herm is looking at the future. Croyle's teammates want to win first and foremost. When they can go to battle knowing that Brodie is their best chance, that's when Herm will pull the trigger.

We just had five seasons of players who were handed jobs they didn't have to earn. The one thing that Herm can do to change the culture on this team is stick to playing the best players.

I think Herm's making Brodie earn it. That's only going to make him better. Like I just asked on the DV thread, "Why serve the meal if the entree isn't ready?"

Of course they want to win. They're professionals. They don't want to admit that this team isn't going to win shit.

As for why we should play Brodie now, even if he isn't ready - two words.

Damon Huard.

I don't want to see another 34-year old QB under center for the Chiefs. Ever. It didn't work any of the other 500 times we did it the last 20 years and it won't work now.

penchief
08-26-2007, 08:43 AM
Of course they want to win. They're professionals. They don't want to admit that this team isn't going to win shit.

As for why we should play Brodie now, even if he isn't ready - two words.

Damon Huard.

I don't want to see another 34-year old QB under center for the Chiefs. Ever. It didn't work any of the other 500 times we did it the last 20 years and it won't work now.

I've wanted Croyle to be the starter as bad as you or anyone else. But I accept what Herm is doing. I think Brodie could have had a mediocre game against NO and Herm would have named him the starter. But you can't reward a guy for the kind of game that Croyle had.

I look at the whole thing as a critical building block in the development of our QBOTF. He's got to raise his play a notch. Nothing wrong with that. Espically for a guy that a lot of us expect big things from.

htismaqe
08-26-2007, 08:46 AM
I've wanted Croyle to be the starter as bad as you or anyone else. But I accept what Herm is doing. I think Brodie could have had a mediocre game against NO and Herm would have named him the starter. But you can't reward a guy for the kind of game that Croyle had.

I look at the whole thing as a critical building block in the development of our QBOTF. He's got to raise his play a notch. Nothing wrong with that. Espically for a guy that a lot of us expect big things from.

What about the rest of the guys that botched that game? Croyle didn't drop 4 passes, he didn't run the wrong routes, he didn't let Will Smith tee off on him down after down after down.

I'm done "accepting" what this team is doing. It doesn't work. We know it doesn't work, because we've done it all before.

There was HOPE that we were going to FINALLY do something different. But that's too risky.

MahiMike
08-26-2007, 09:17 AM
Herm can suck it

He does.

BigRock
08-26-2007, 10:05 AM
Old man Vinnie wasn't "getting it done", as you say.
Actually, I said he wasn't getting it done.

BigMeatballDave
08-26-2007, 11:57 AM
Look, the "win now" philosophy mandates a short term world view.

That's why we always veer from great offense/bad defense to great defense/bad offense. We make decisions based on "now"...based on "winning now."

If you always have to "win now" then you can not do anything risky, because the payoffs for those risks are always in the future.

Carl has never even tried to develop a true QBOTF for precisely this reason. He only cares about the appearance of "winning now" even though the reality of it is zero playoff wins in 13 years.

And the fans are the same. They want 9-7, a smidge of hope, and no risk. They don't care about building a real championship team.

In hindsight, I feel stupid for believing this franchise would do anything different. Our history makes it clear that Croyle never had a chance.

9-7Well said. This should be printed in the Star...
:clap:

BigMeatballDave
08-26-2007, 12:01 PM
That did not work for Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf and others.

EVEN THESE GUYS GOT MORE THAN 5 QUARTERS OF PRESEASON PLAY! Dumbass...

88TG88
08-26-2007, 12:05 PM
I'll be very interested to see how Hard Knocks covers this.

Herm and the entire coaching staff wanted Croyle to be the starter.

Carl's fingerprints are all over this. I'm not buying that this was entirely Herm's decision, or even that he had ANY part in this.
I'm interested as well

TEX
08-26-2007, 12:13 PM
I think Herm is looking at the future. Croyle's teammates want to win first and foremost. When they can go to battle knowing that Brodie is their best chance, that's when Herm will pull the trigger. For Herm, I think he thinks it's just a matter of time. And I agree.

We just had five seasons of players who were handed jobs they didn't have to earn. The one thing that Herm can do to change the culture of a soft team is stick to playing the best players.

I think Herm's making Brodie earn it. That's only going to make him better. Like I just asked on the DV thread, "Why serve the meal if the entree isn't ready?"

What's he doing with Medlock? Did he "earn" anything? He flat out $UCKS BALLS and it will cost us some games this year. Not to bring anyone else in to "compete" is a contradiction to Herm's philosophy. But that's what you get with that guy- sooooo much doubletalk. :shake:

DaneMcCloud
08-26-2007, 12:18 PM
Each of Croyle's three INTs were amazingly poor throws and decisions. Maybe you have not seen it, but one of them against the Dolphins was a throw of the back foot floater that the DB fair caught in the end zone, there was not even any pass rush to force a hurried throw and IIRC it was a first down in the red zone play.

C'mon, can't you see that Croyle made enough mistakes to not take the job that was his for the taking.

Too many people around here have bought into some theory that a QB can only develop by making enough awful plays in real games that they use up their life quota of awful plays and all of a sudden become great.

That did not work for Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf and others.

On the other hand, Trent Green developed himself in practice that by the time he got on the field for the Redskins, he played as good as could be expected for the talent around him. Jake Delhomme, Brad Johnson, and Marc Bulger all developed their games enough on the practice field that they made a lot more good plays than bad plays once they became starters.

If Croyle is going to be a good NFL QB you have to hope that he can still do that after he lost the starting job that was ready for the taking.

Go root for another NFL team. You make far too much sense to actually be a Chiefs fan.

jettio
08-26-2007, 12:51 PM
EVEN THESE GUYS GOT MORE THAN 5 QUARTERS OF PRESEASON PLAY! Dumbass...

You must have been reading different headlines. I thought that Croyle failed to earn the starting job for now. I did not see any headlines that he was being tossed on the NFL scrapheap.

Croyle's development as an NFL QB does not depend on his being granted the starting job before he earns it. He can practice so that the next time he is called upon, he will make good plays instead of bad ones.

jettio
08-26-2007, 01:00 PM
Go root for another NFL team. You make far too much sense to actually be a Chiefs fan.

Thanks, you must not have read my recent post about Huard's Super Bowl credentials. I throw a couple of those out there to keep my Chiefs fan privileges.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 01:03 PM
You must have been reading different headlines. I thought that Croyle failed to earn the starting job for now. I did not see any headlines that he was being tossed on the NFL scrapheap.

Croyle's development as an NFL QB does not depend on his being granted the starting job before he earns it. He can practice so that the next time he is called upon, he will make good plays instead of bad ones.

PRACTICE? ARE YOU KIDDING?

Ask any current or former QB:

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for GAME EXPERIENCE.

He's not going to magically get better by riding the pine....for 1 game, for 6 games, for 1 year.

He'll get better by PLAYING.

So the organization is stalling that growth for every game Croyle doesn't start. Which puts us that much farther from either being a TRUE CONTENDER with Croyle, or realizing we need to draft another QBOTF.

6-10 and learning about your future is better than 8-8 and learning NOTHING.

patteeu
08-26-2007, 01:15 PM
Each of Croyle's three INTs were amazingly poor throws and decisions. Maybe you have not seen it, but one of them against the Dolphins was a throw of the back foot floater that the DB fair caught in the end zone, there was not even any pass rush to force a hurried throw and IIRC it was a first down in the red zone play.

C'mon, can't you see that Croyle made enough mistakes to not take the job that was his for the taking.

Too many people around here have bought into some theory that a QB can only develop by making enough awful plays in real games that they use up their life quota of awful plays and all of a sudden become great.

That did not work for Cade McNown, Akili Smith, Ryan Leaf and others.

On the other hand, Trent Green developed himself in practice that by the time he got on the field for the Redskins, he played as good as could be expected for the talent around him. Jake Delhomme, Brad Johnson, and Marc Bulger all developed their games enough on the practice field that they made a lot more good plays than bad plays once they became starters.

If Croyle is going to be a good NFL QB you have to hope that he can still do that after he lost the starting job that was ready for the taking.

That's a pretty convincing argument, IMO. Good post. :thumb:

jettio
08-26-2007, 01:22 PM
PRACTICE? ARE YOU KIDDING?

Ask any current or former QB:

There is NO SUBSTITUTE for GAME EXPERIENCE.

He's not going to magically get better by riding the pine....for 1 game, for 6 games, for 1 year.

He'll get better by PLAYING.

So the organization is stalling that growth for every game Croyle doesn't start. Which puts us that much farther from either being a TRUE CONTENDER with Croyle, or realizing we need to draft another QBOTF.

6-10 and learning about your future is better than 8-8 and learning NOTHING.

He had a head start to win the position and he did not play well enough to earn it. He needs to work hard and earn the position.

That boy needs to get a Johnny Unitas crew cut, display more leadership, study more and practice more. If he is going to take the field with the first team like he did in the Saints game, he has to lead the team and that means making sure they are playing in sync.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 01:31 PM
He had a head start to win the position and he did not play well enough to earn it. He needs to work hard and earn the position.

That boy needs to get a Johnny Unitas crew cut, display more leadership, study more and practice more. If he is going to take the field with the first team like he did in the Saints game, he has to lead the team and that means making sure they are playing in sync.

You have to be ****ing kidding me.

He had a head start? He played 5 quarters of football, running a vanilla offense, (or in the case of the Saints game, no offense, since we didn't bother to GAMEPLAN) with the coaches pulling personnel out from under him.

I hope you people remember these ridiculous arguments when the OL is getting Huard killed and the WR's are dropping perfect passes that would extend a drive.

When it happens, and it will, make sure the blame goes in the appropriate place:

Huard's lap. No where else.

Tribal Warfare
08-26-2007, 01:33 PM
LINK????????

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 01:35 PM
LINK????????

Who are you asking and what are you referring to?

Tribal Warfare
08-26-2007, 01:40 PM
Who are you asking and what are you referring to?


for the story, I don't get what the deal is not providing links to news stories lately. We use chew people out for the absence of proof of reference especially during Corey Dillon affair a few years back, because it would clarify that people aren't pulling this shit out their ass.

RedThat
08-26-2007, 01:40 PM
Look, the "win now" philosophy mandates a short term world view.

That's why we always veer from great offense/bad defense to great defense/bad offense. We make decisions based on "now"...based on "winning now."

If you always have to "win now" then you can not do anything risky, because the payoffs for those risks are always in the future.

Carl has never even tried to develop a true QBOTF for precisely this reason. He only cares about the appearance of "winning now" even though the reality of it is zero playoff wins in 13 years.

And the fans are the same. They want 9-7, a smidge of hope, and no risk. They don't care about building a real championship team.

In hindsight, I feel stupid for believing this franchise would do anything different. Our history makes it clear that Croyle never had a chance.

9-7

The Bottomline is, the Chiefs have just sucked at drafting over the years.

they've bombed like 2,3, or even 4 drafts. You just simply can't do that if you want to build a winning team.

Mediocdre or not, there lies the truth as to why they don't have a championship contender. Gives me some good drafts overall from top to bottom. Draft well consistently, and matters should be taken of.

DomerNKC
08-26-2007, 01:42 PM
if you are not going to start Croyle, then cut him. Develop the young man, or move on. Hell, i don't know if he is any good or not, but i would like to find out. Anybody can carry the clipboard, and Huard is definately not the future.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 01:42 PM
for the story, I don't get what the deal is not providing links to news stories lately. We use chew people out for the absence of proof of reference especially during Corey Dillon affair a few years back, because it would clarify that people aren't pulling this shit out their ass.

Oh, a link for the article in the thread starter?

Yeah, that's BS.

But I can vouch for the quotes, I've seen them in another article.

Try the Herm Q&A 8/25 on kcchiefs.com.

TEX
08-26-2007, 01:44 PM
You have to be ****ing kidding me.

He had a head start? He played 5 quarters of football, running a vanilla offense, (or in the case of the Saints game, no offense, since we didn't bother to GAMEPLAN) with the coaches pulling personnel out from under him.

I hope you people remember these ridiculous arguments when the OL is getting Huard killed and the WR's are dropping perfect passes that would extend a drive.

When it happens, and it will, make sure the blame goes in the appropriate place:

Huard's lap. No where else.

He had a head start because everyone in the organization was going to give him the benefit of the doubt. All Croyal had to do was play well enough to "not lose" the starting job and he didn't do it. If you can't see that, then you're in denile. He's clearly not ready and for that matter neither is the team. To throw him out there with that twisted $HIT PILE the Chiefs call an offense would be suicide. He won't learn a damn thing because he'll revert back to his bad habits and use them as safety nets. It's already happening because he's getting worse as his playing time increases. In the long run, this is the right move. I bet he plays this season when the O-line gets stable and the WR's learn to catch - in other words, he'll play when he has teh best opportunity to succeed and I'm all for that. If you're really in his corner - you should try to see it that way too.

TEX
08-26-2007, 01:48 PM
if you are not going to start Croyle, then cut him. Develop the young man, or move on. Hell, i don't know if he is any good or not, but i would like to find out. Anybody can carry the clipboard, and Huard is definately not the future.

Who in the world says that to develop a young QB you have to do it at the beginin of the QB's 2nd year???? And if not then, cut him. That's crazy. :rolleyes:

the Talking Can
08-26-2007, 01:49 PM
The Bottomline is, the Chiefs have just sucked at drafting over the years.

they've bombed like 2,3, or even 4 drafts. You just simply can't do that if you want to build a winning team.

Mediocdre or not, there lies the truth as to why they don't have a championship contender. Gives me some good drafts overall from top to bottom. Draft well consistently, and matters should be taken of.

so was Croyle a good draft pick or a bad draft pick?


the bottom line is that Carl and the fans want 9-7...

TEX
08-26-2007, 01:51 PM
The Bottomline is, the Chiefs have just sucked at drafting over the years.

they've bombed like 2,3, or even 4 drafts. You just simply can't do that if you want to build a winning team.

Mediocdre or not, there lies the truth as to why they don't have a championship contender. Gives me some good drafts overall from top to bottom. Draft well consistently, and matters should be taken of.

Ding...ding...ding!
That's exactly why the Bolts were able to start Rivers in his 3RD YEAR. They have given him the best chance to succeed. The future is still there for Brodie. Man, some of you crack me up.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 01:54 PM
Who in the world says that to develop a young QB you have to do it at the beginin of the QB's 2nd year???? And if not then, cut him. That's crazy. :rolleyes:

You're right: That is crazy.

But it's also crazy not to get him some experience with a full playbook when the games count, when it's only going to help the organization in the long run.

He's not backing up Manning, Palmer, Bulger, etc.

He's backing up a career backup.

There's no reason not to give him ALL of the snaps.

The OL is what it is. What make anyone think it will get better? Who's to sy it doesn't get worse? Same with the WR's. Then what happens? He sits another year?

the Talking Can
08-26-2007, 01:57 PM
Ding...ding...ding!
That's exactly why the Bolts were able to start Rivers in his 3RD YEAR. They have given him the best chance to succeed. The future is still there for Brodie. Man, some of you crack me up.

so you would sit Philip Rivers for 3 years behind Damon Huard?

because that the reality of our situation...not Drew Brees...Damon Huard...

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 01:58 PM
Ding...ding...ding!
That's exactly why the Bolts were able to start Rivers in his 3RD YEAR. They have given him the best chance to succeed. The future is still there for Brodie. Man, some of you crack me up.

Rivers was playing behind a damn good QB. Had Brees not been there, Rivers would have started.

They had the LUXURY of waiting. They had a kick-ass QB.

We don't. We have a game manager with a knack for fumbling.

We're not winning this year REGARDLESS.

Starting Croyle for 16 games is not going to ruin him.

Did any of you actually se what he had to work with at Alabama?

Apparently not.

LOCOChief
08-26-2007, 02:01 PM
Look, the "win now" philosophy mandates a short term world view.

That's why we always veer from great offense/bad defense to great defense/bad offense. We make decisions based on "now"...based on "winning now."

If you always have to "win now" then you can not do anything risky, because the payoffs for those risks are always in the future.

Carl has never even tried to develop a true QBOTF for precisely this reason. He only cares about the appearance of "winning now" even though the reality of it is zero playoff wins in 13 years.

And the fans are the same. They want 9-7, a smidge of hope, and no risk. They don't care about building a real championship team.

In hindsight, I feel stupid for believing this franchise would do anything different. Our history makes it clear that Croyle never had a chance.

9-7

Brilliant post, allthough I do think Croyle will get to start this season at some point, there have been flash's with brodie that I don't think we've ever seen with Huard.

LOCOChief
08-26-2007, 02:07 PM
Did any of you actually se what he had to work with at Alabama?

Apparently not.

I don't think most on this site have. I have and that's why I'm such a big advocate for him. He's going to be pretty special, He's way better than Brady Quinn IMO and bowns fan want to give that kid a shot. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

TEX
08-26-2007, 02:07 PM
Rivers was playing behind a damn good QB. Had Brees not been there, Rivers would have started.

They had the LUXURY of waiting. They had a kick-ass QB.

We don't. We have a game manager with a knack for fumbling.

We're not winning this year REGARDLESS.

Starting Croyle for 16 games is not going to ruin him.

Did any of you actually se what he had to work with at Alabama?

Apparently not.


Yep. And how many games did he get under his belt? 20 something - right? I don't want the same thing to happen to Brodie that heppend to David Carr.

KurtCobain
08-26-2007, 02:09 PM
Has Huard even started a full season worth of games? I dont think so. How old is he? 34? How bad is our line? Bad. I doubt a 34 year old guy who is used to sitting on his ass watching games is going to be able to come out and play a full season. So he will get tired or injured and Brody will get his shot to earn some experience points. Plus it might help him watching a bad QB play. Then he'll learn how NOT to play from Huard.

EyePod
08-26-2007, 02:11 PM
This is a lot like Arizona, Denver, and Dallas last season. All three had older veteran QB's start the season off and switched over to the young QB. I think Matt Leinart has a chance to be good, Romo would have been if it weren't for that botched field goal, and Cutler can blow some major Donkey Dick. With Dwayne Bowe, I'm leaning towards us being most like Arizona (I know we dont have a 1/2 like Fitz/Boldin, but still, we're halfway there). So having Croyle with a great RB and a better WR core is a real positive (as long as we kill Sammie Parker... he's really hurting us). Next big improvement will be O-Line, so everyone should look foward to next year's draft. And on a side note, is anyone else THRILLED with Tank Tyler. I think he is such a better in game player than in practices/classroom. I'd rather that. Sorry to ramble...

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 02:13 PM
Yep. And how many games did he get under his belt? 20 something - right? I don't want the same thing to happen to Brodie that heppend to David Carr.

Everyone wants to use Carr as the example.

Has anyone ever thought that maybe the problem with David Carr was...

David Carr?

IMO, the kid didn't have the ATTITUDE to play QB in the NFL.

Brodie has faced adversity at every level. Now all of a sudden you expect him to wilt from it?

Using the OL as an excuse not to play him is chickenshit.

He'll be playing behind the same OL in Week 6 was he would have in Week 1.

Only he'll be 5 games worth of experience short.

EyePod
08-26-2007, 02:13 PM
I don't think most on this site have. I have and that's why I'm such a big advocate for him. He's going to be pretty special, He's way better than Brady Quinn IMO and bowns fan want to give that kid a shot. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Hell, even ESPN wants to give him a shot... **** Brady... Brodie RULES!! (Almost as much as O'Doyle)

O'Doyle Rules! O'Doyle Rules! O'Doyle Rules! O'Doyle Rules! O'Doyle Rules!

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 02:17 PM
This is a lot like Arizona, Denver, and Dallas last season. All three had older veteran QB's start the season off and switched over to the young QB. I think Matt Leinart has a chance to be good, Romo would have been if it weren't for that botched field goal, and Cutler can blow some major Donkey Dick. With Dwayne Bowe, I'm leaning towards us being most like Arizona (I know we dont have a 1/2 like Fitz/Boldin, but still, we're halfway there). So having Croyle with a great RB and a better WR core is a real positive (as long as we kill Sammie Parker... he's really hurting us). Next big improvement will be O-Line, so everyone should look foward to next year's draft. And on a side note, is anyone else THRILLED with Tank Tyler. I think he is such a better in game player than in practices/classroom. I'd rather that. Sorry to ramble...

And since 2 of those teams didn't make the playoffs, and the other was a one-and-done, wouldn't you think those teams would be in even BETTER shape THIS year had they PLAYED their young QB's from the beginning?

Is it worth an extra 2 wins to have to wait on Croyle for 6-8 games, or worse, the year?

EyePod
08-26-2007, 02:26 PM
And since 2 of those teams didn't make the playoffs, and the other was a one-and-done, wouldn't you think those teams would be in even BETTER shape THIS year had they PLAYED their young QB's from the beginning?

Is it worth an extra 2 wins to have to wait on Croyle for 6-8 games, or worse, the year?

I agree with you. And I don't think that having Huard in will give us a definite two wins, especially with us playing Chicago. I think it would be so helpful to have Croyle in against that kind of defense.

blueballs
08-26-2007, 02:34 PM
They have invested a 1st round pick and money in Dwayne Bowe
without starting yet another thread
which QB is best for his learning curve

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 02:35 PM
They have invested a 1st round pick and money
in Dwayne Bowe
without starting yet another thread
which QB is best for his learning curve


I'd say the QB who can actually get him the ball downfield, but that's just me.

But he should get pretty good at running slants and other 5 yard routes with Huard at the helm.

ChiefsCountry
08-26-2007, 02:36 PM
They have invested a 1st round pick and money in Dwayne Bowe
without starting yet another thread
which QB is best for his learning curve

I say the QB that will be throwing to him for the next 10 years.

kcirnamffoh
08-26-2007, 03:19 PM
To OnTheWarpath58:

I hear what you are saying and I feel your pain. Yes, how is a young QB expected to get any better standing on the SL? And what's the point starting him later when you could just take your lumps and start him now? All good questions.

Try this out for size. Despite this franchises mediocrity they have for the most kept the fans on the edges of their seats for at least through the first three quarters of every season. This is a commercial business. They are profit driven and will make their decisions based on that. If a team comes out of the gate 0-3 or 1-4 the fan enthusiasm declines and the franchise loses money. I hate it, too, but it is what it is. I don't spend money on them so its easy for me to say.

Secondly, Edwards might be using this to send a message to Croyle. He did look pretty bad on some plays. Not something even a great prospect really should look like. He seemed to have totally lost either focus or respect for the pro level into thinking he could simply out perform while ignoring some basic fundamentals. If he was handed the starting spot, you never know, his cockyness might not have allowed him to progress. This might be Edwards way of knocking him down a couple notches to let him stew on it a bit. He'll get his chance, Huard won't last.

Hell, I'd like to see Printers get a shot. I find him interesting. That was a very good pass he threw to Bowe that should have resulted in a touchdown. Printers was robbed.

FringeNC
08-26-2007, 03:24 PM
With Huard as QB, implementing Herm's "you play NOT to LOSE the game" philosophy, the Chiefs may very well be the most boring team in the league to watch.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 03:27 PM
To OnTheWarpath58:

I hear what you are saying and I feel your pain. Yes, how is a young QB expected to get any better standing on the SL? And what's the point starting him later when you could just take your lumps and start him now? All good questions.

Try this out for size. Despite this franchises mediocrity they have for the most kept the fans on the edges of their seats for at least through the first three quarters of every season. This is a commercial business. They are profit driven and will make their decisions based on that. If a team comes out of the gate 0-3 or 1-4 the fan enthusiasm declines and the franchise loses money. I hate it, too, but it is what it is. I don't spend money on them so its easy for me to say.

Secondly, Edwards might be using this to send a message to Croyle. He did look pretty bad on some plays. Not something even a great prospect really should look like. He seemed to have totally lost either focus or respect for the pro level into thinking he could simply out perform while ignoring some basic fundamentals. If he was handed the starting spot, you never know, his cockyness might not have allowed him to progress. This might be Edwards way of knocking him down a couple notches to let him stew on it a bit. He'll get his chance, Huard won't last.

Hell, I'd like to see Printers get a shot. I find him interesting. That was a very good pass he threw to Bowe that should have resulted in a touchdown. Printers was robbed.

A slow start doesn't hurt the financials nearly as much as you think.

75,000 of 79,000 tickets per game have already been purchased by Season Ticket holders before a game is ever played. Same goes with parking. The organization has made their money whether fans show or not.

The one aspect that could be hurt is concessions. If the fewer fans that show, the lower the sales, theoretically. But concession isn't gonna help or hurt the bottom line THAT MUCH.

The only message being sent is to the fans:

"We're not willing to take the risk involved in starting a young QB, future gains be damned."

BigMeatballDave
08-26-2007, 03:34 PM
Yep. And how many games did he get under his belt? 20 something - right? I don't want the same thing to happen to Brodie that heppend to David Carr.OMG You are COMPLETELY missing the point. You and Hootie are like Svitek. WHIFF! It just flies right past you...

kcirnamffoh
08-26-2007, 03:35 PM
A slow start doesn't hurt the financials nearly as much as you think.

75,000 of 79,000 tickets per game have already been purchased by Season Ticket holders before a game is ever played. Same goes with parking. The organization has made their money whether fans show or not.

The one aspect that could be hurt is concessions. If the fewer fans that show, the lower the sales, theoretically. But concession isn't gonna help or hurt the bottom line THAT MUCH.

The only message being sent is to the fans:

"We're not willing to take the risk involved in starting a young QB, future gains be damned."

Its not just butts in the seats that brings in revenue. That's not even the most it. Merchandise sales decline, their appeal to TV audiences declines thus hurts their saleability. There are other marketing avenues that stand a chance of not maximizing with a slow start. Ticket sales are far from being a team's only source of revenue.

BigMeatballDave
08-26-2007, 03:38 PM
Ding...ding...ding!
That's exactly why the Bolts were able to start Rivers in his 3RD YEAR. They have given him the best chance to succeed. The future is still there for Brodie. Man, some of you crack me up.Dumb...dumb...dumb...

Remember, we have DAMON HUARD as our started. Unless you are sooo delusional to the point to believe that Huard is as good as Brees.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 03:39 PM
Its not just butts in the seats that brings in revenue. That's not even the most it. Merchandise sales decline, their appeal to TV audiences declines thus hurts their saleability. There are other marketing avenues that stand a chance of not maximizing with a slow start. Ticket sales are far from being a team's only source of revenue.

I didn't say that.

My point is that the majority of the revenue, and the most important to the bottom line (Tickets, TV, Radio) has already been collected.

BigMeatballDave
08-26-2007, 03:41 PM
He had a head start because everyone in the organization was going to give him the benefit of the doubt. All Croyal had to do was play well enough to "not lose" the starting job and he didn't do it. If you can't see that, then you're in denile. He's clearly not ready and for that matter neither is the team. To throw him out there with that twisted $HIT PILE the Chiefs call an offense would be suicide. He won't learn a damn thing because he'll revert back to his bad habits and use them as safety nets. It's already happening because he's getting worse as his playing time increases. In the long run, this is the right move. I bet he plays this season when the O-line gets stable and the WR's learn to catch - in other words, he'll play when he has teh best opportunity to succeed and I'm all for that. If you're really in his corner - you should try to see it that way too.
:banghead:

BigMeatballDave
08-26-2007, 03:45 PM
Croyle's development as an NFL QB does not depend on his being granted the starting job before he earns it. So, what did Huard do to earn it this preseason?

kcirnamffoh
08-26-2007, 03:49 PM
I didn't say that.

My point is that the majority of the revenue, and the most important to the bottom line (Tickets, TV, Radio) has already been collected.

You may be right. But I find it hard to believe that an 0-3 or 1-4 start can not be detrimental to a team's bottom line in some shape or fashion and I just don't mean playoff implications. Although, not making the playoffs does effect a team's profit making capability. I don't believe a football franchise's work is all done before the season starts. There is plenty of doe still to be made and a bad start doesn't make that any easier.

I don't really like it either. We'll see.

PastorMikH
08-26-2007, 03:58 PM
What a waste.

Waste of precious time in the development of a young QB that has potential to be a stud.

Waste of precious time in the twilight of several aging veteran's careers who will no struggle through this season with a backup, then have to struggle another season with Croyle's learning curve, another draft pick's learning curve, or some washed up veteran from someplace else coming in and trying to learn the system.

Waste of fans who are growing weary of mediocre seasons.



FWIW, though both Huard and Croyle had a tough pre-season, Croyle still had a better overall QB rating that Huard. I can expect a rookie to come in and struggle, but an 11 year veteran that knows he's got a legit shot at starting should have looked much, much sharper than he did.

We should cut Croyle now and let him get on with a team that will let him play. He's got potential, but he'll just sit on the bench here because our HC is too stinking conservative to let him play. Grow a pair Herm!



Oh well, who will be available that can we pick with the 20th pick in '08 draft?

PastorMikH
08-26-2007, 03:59 PM
So, what did Huard do to earn it this preseason?



Put up a QB rating of 29.63???

the Talking Can
08-26-2007, 04:00 PM
So, what did Huard do to earn it this preseason?

led the team on a TD drive?

PastorMikH
08-26-2007, 04:01 PM
led the team on a TD drive?




I must have missed a game.

;)

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 04:01 PM
What a waste.

Waste of precious time in the development of a young QB that has potential to be a stud.

Waste of precious time in the twilight of several aging veteran's careers who will now struggle through this season with a backup, then have to struggle another season with Croyle's learning curve, another draft pick's learning curve, or some washed up veteran from someplace else coming in and trying to learn the system.

Waste of fans who are growing weary of mediocre seasons.

FWIW, though both Huard and Croyle had a tough pre-season, Croyle still had a better overall QB rating that Huard. I can expect a rookie to come in and struggle, but an 11 year veteran that knows he's got a legit shot at starting should have looked much, much sharper than he did.

We should cut Croyle now and let him get on with a team that will let him play. He's got potential, but he'll just sit on the bench here because our HC is too stinking conservative to let him play. Grow a pair Herm!



Oh well, who will be available that can we pick with the 20th pick in '08 draft?

Great points, Pastor.

PastorMikH
08-26-2007, 04:02 PM
I can tolerate a rookie making mistakes. I cannot tolerate an 11 year veteran that looked worse than the rookie getting the starting nod.

OnTheWarpath58
08-26-2007, 04:03 PM
So, what did Huard do to earn it this preseason?

Gained fewer 1st downs in 2 games than Croyle did on 1 drive?

the Talking Can
08-26-2007, 04:04 PM
I must have missed a game.

;)

you and Herm and Carl....

KCJohnny
08-26-2007, 04:51 PM
Look at the big picture:

1. Several vets on this team are up in age and represent a legitimate "win now" posture: Gonzales, Waters, Dunn, Donnie Edwards, Surtain, Law, Kennison, etc.. To rebuild behind a young QB is probably a squandering of their substantial (and diminishing with age) talent;

2. Hermyball (keep the score down, try to win in the 4th quarter) is a natural fit for a polished ball-handler like Huard. In Hermyball, one turnover can blow the game.

3. Our chances for winning in the 4th QTR took a serious nose-dive when Tynes was (inexplicably) dumped and Medlock hired.

4. Huard's preseaon numbers are meaningless. He was given the R2P2 offense (run, run, pass, punt) to run and is obviously not as mobile with a sore calf. He has proven his mettle in the regular season.

5. The presence of Larry Johnson in the backfield demands respect from defenses. The better play-action QB has a real chance to make some big plays. Damon is no DeBerg, but Croyle's ball fakes looked weak to me.

6. The passing game has the potential to be potent if Solari can figure out how to get mismatches for Kris Wilson and get touches for Dwayne Bowe. Those weapons will not be as potent without a mature signal caller to make the right reads. Huard has proven he can do that (11 TDs, 1 INT last season).

Just some thoughts. If Mike Solari hasn't made significant progress in his game-planning, none of this matters. He demonstrated that he is not a playoff caliber coordinator in the final game of the 2006 season at Indy. We still have significant vulnerability at OLT. Herm is doing the only thing he can do by starting Damon Huard. Huard can lead the team to the post season again this year if Solari maximizes the proven weapons (TG, LJ, EK) and optimizes the emerging weapons (KW, DB).

KCJ

RedThat
08-26-2007, 05:01 PM
so was Croyle a good draft pick or a bad draft pick?


the bottom line is that Carl and the fans want 9-7...

I don't know? It's too early to tell. Sometimes, you can't really determine whether a guy is a good or bad pick after 1 or 2 years in the league? But, It's clear to say he is not ready to play.

He can possibly be one of those developmental type of QB's you will see play down the road? It just takes some time to develop certain QB's. He happens to be one of them.

*I am still going to stick with what I say, the Chiefs have sucked at drafting over the years. That is clearly why they are not a championship contender.

Oxford
08-26-2007, 05:11 PM
Just some thoughts. If Mike Solari hasn't made significant progress in his game-planning, none of this matters. He demonstrated that he is not a playoff caliber coordinator in the final game of the 2006 season at Indy. We still have significant vulnerability at OLT. Herm is doing the only thing he can do by starting Damon Huard. Huard can lead the team to the post season again this year if Solari maximizes the proven weapons (TG, LJ, EK) and optimizes the emerging weapons (KW, DB).

I agree totally with this. The Chiefs fanbase appreciates a solid defense which we may have this year. To keep the games sold out (for blackout rules), tickets must be sold. So that means there must be fans willing to walkup and buy a ticket. Training a young qb to start the season with a weak OL, on the road with your starting running back not having played is not a recipe for success. So I think Huard is the safer choice, but Brodie plays through out the year. If the Chiefs fall out of contention, then you will see Brodie. Just be patient, no one thought Trent would go down in game 1 last year either. Lots of unexpected things can happen.

penchief
08-27-2007, 06:38 PM
What's he doing with Medlock? Did he "earn" anything? He flat out $UCKS BALLS and it will cost us some games this year. Not to bring anyone else in to "compete" is a contradiction to Herm's philosophy. But that's what you get with that guy- sooooo much doubletalk. :shake:

I have to agree with you on this point. The only thing I can think of is that Herm has the Parcells Philosophy when it comes to kickers (mediocre kickers can be found on the street corner). :shrug:

Other than that, I think Edward's has been pretty true to creating competition. Lot's of people that we all recognize as having been subpar have been replaced and the performance level at those positions has improved. I think that is a true indicator, if you ask me.