PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs How patient will YOU be with Brodie Croyle?


Pages : 1 [2] 3

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:36 PM
Well, I think he should have shown more "flashes" of brilliance. You know, something were you say "Wow!".

There's times where I've said to myself, "That was a nice drive" or "That's how it's supposed to be done" but never "Wow!".

Again, I hope I'm very wrong.

Like I said to mic, you must not have been watching.

Chicago: Comes in late, gets blasted on the first play, then proceeds to move the team 55 yards in 5 plays, including a perfect throw down the sideline to Webb. Marched right down the field, only to have Bennett fumble on the 14 yard line.

Jacksonville: Completes a 70 yard drive in a pouring rain in under two minutes, against a defense foaming at the mouth for a shutout. A 35 yarder to Bowe was the highlight, other than the TD throw as he getting drilled in the mouth.

Indianapolis: Executes a 77 yard, game tying drive in his first start, on the road, against the defending champs. The throw to Bowe for the TD couldn't have been placed better. Didn't turn the ball over.

If you didn't say "wow" for any of those moments, you have no reason to watch this season - you must get no joy from the game.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:40 PM
Like I said to mic, you must not have been watching.

Chicago: Comes in late, gets blasted on the first play, then proceeds to move the team 55 yards in 5 plays, including a perfect throw down the sideline to Webb. Marched right down the field, only to have Bennett fumble on the 14 yard line.

Jacksonville: Completes a 70 yard drive in a pouring rain in under two minutes, against a defense foaming at the mouth for a shutout. A 35 yarder to Bowe was the highlight, other than the TD throw as he getting drilled in the mouth.

Indianapolis: Executes a 77 yard, game tying drive in his first start, on the road, against the defending champs. The throw to Bowe for the TD couldn't have been placed better. Didn't turn the ball over.

If you didn't say "wow" for any of those moments, you have no reason to watch this season - you must get no joy from the game.

Give me a break.

That's what a starting QB is supposed to do. That doesn't mean that I have to go "Wow".

A few successful drives isn't enough for me to wet my pants.

If he can do that over the course of a season, then we've got something to talk about.

But there's been a gillion schlubs in this league to lead a few scoring drives.

That alone doesn't make them special.

Count Zarth
07-22-2008, 07:43 PM
Like I said to mic, you must not have been watching.

Chicago: Comes in late, gets blasted on the first play, then proceeds to move the team 55 yards in 5 plays, including a perfect throw down the sideline to Webb. Marched right down the field, only to have Bennett fumble on the 14 yard line.

Jacksonville: Completes a 70 yard drive in a pouring rain in under two minutes, against a defense foaming at the mouth for a shutout. A 35 yarder to Bowe was the highlight, other than the TD throw as he getting drilled in the mouth.

Indianapolis: Executes a 77 yard, game tying drive in his first start, on the road, against the defending champs. The throw to Bowe for the TD couldn't have been placed better. Didn't turn the ball over.

If you didn't say "wow" for any of those moments, you have no reason to watch this season - you must get no joy from the game.

See if you can find the thread with those gifs I posted.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:44 PM
Well let's get one thing straight: I never stated that Croyle should be jettisoned. I did question throwing him in behind such a questionable offensive line (both this year and last year) and I do think he'd benefit from another year on the sideline (and another year to bulk up), much like Aaron Rodgers.

While playing him is all fine and dandy, the Chiefs ARE running a very real risk that he just may not be ready to start in the NFL and that by forcing him to play, they may ruin him. Many of the successful QB's that you have mentioned in this very thread (Bulger, Green, Warner, etc.) all rode the pine for years while learning the game.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with sitting and learning for a few years, especially when you've got an injury prone QB who's playing behind one of the worst offensive lines in the NFL. But the Chiefs are taking the opposite approach.

All we can do is observe and hope they're right.

Did you watch him play at Alabama?

If that didn't ruin the kid, nothing will. We're talking about a born leader, not some ****ing pussy like David Carr.

Of the QB you mentioned, not one of them was held back to learn.

Rodgers sat behind one of the greatest QB's of all time.

Injuries held Green back, IIRC. Once healthy, he started 15/16 games for the Redskins.

Bulger and Warner were considered camp arms for several teams before getting their shots - and had Green not gotten hurt in STL, the NFL would have likely never been witness to one of the best stories in the game.

TRR
07-22-2008, 07:45 PM
Give me a break.

If he can do that over the course of a season, then we've got something to talk about.

Again that is my point. He hasn't even received a HALF a season to show what he can do....

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:46 PM
Give me a break.

That's what a starting QB is supposed to do. That doesn't mean that I have to go "Wow".

A few successful drives isn't enough for me to wet my pants.

If he can do that over the course of a season, then we've got something to talk about.

But there's been a gillion schlubs in this league to lead a few scoring drives.

That alone doesn't make them special.

Sure, if the guy has been in the league for 5 years.

For a guy in his first real action, those are impressive moments. It validates that he has the ability the team thought he had when they drafted him. There's a spark.

Boy, Brady and Roethlisberger have really spoiled some ****ing people.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:48 PM
See if you can find the thread with those gifs I posted.

I looked, and decided not to bother. Waste of time.

Both he and mic think the kid has to throw for 3000 ****ing yards and 25 TD's in his first year to validate his existence.

Sad, however typical this fan base.

Impatience rules.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:50 PM
Did you watch him play at Alabama?

If that didn't ruin the kid, nothing will. We're talking about a born leader, not some ****ing pussy like David Carr.

Of the QB you mentioned, not one of them was held back to learn.

Rodgers sat behind one of the greatest QB's of all time.

Injuries held Green back, IIRC. Once healthy, he started 15/16 games for the Redskins.

Bulger and Warner were considered camp arms for several teams before getting their shots - and had Green not gotten hurt in STL, the NFL would have likely never been witness to one of the best stories in the game.

Yes, I watched him at Alabama. And I was very happy when the Chiefs chose him in the 3rd round.

But, that does not mean that the kid doesn't have a lot to learn. And I question if he could be learning more on the sidelines, behind a veteran QB (not named Huard), learning a new system and how to be a professional.

Throwing him to the wolves isn't likely to prove anything. Other than he's injury prone.

And FTR, they were all QB's that you mentioned and all of them bounced from team to team to team before finally becoming a starter (with the exception of Rodgers).

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:52 PM
Sure, if the guy has been in the league for 5 years.

For a guy in his first real action, those are impressive moments. It validates that he has the ability the team thought he had when they drafted him. There's a spark.

Boy, Brady and Roethlisberger have really spoiled some ****ing people.

Wow, I think you've completely and utterly misunderstood everything I've posted on this topic.

I guess I'm done trying to make my point.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:54 PM
Yes, I watched him at Alabama. And I was very happy when the Chiefs chose him in the 3rd round.

But, that does not mean that the kid doesn't have a lot to learn. And I question if he could be learning more on the sidelines, behind a veteran QB (not named Huard), learning a new system and how to be a professional.

Throwing him to the wolves isn't likely to prove anything. Other than he's injury prone.

And FTR, they were all QB's that you mentioned and all of them bounced from team to team to team before finally becoming a starter (with the exception of Rodgers).

And why did they bounce from team to team?

No one gave them a chance to PLAY. They were viewed as nothing more than late round picks or UDFA's.

And look what happened when they finally got that chance.

And I'll post this AGAIN:

(paraphrasing) "Practice is no substitute for live, regular season, game action."

Kurt Warner told me that at a charity function, and I'm going to have to side with the SB MVP on this one...

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:57 PM
And why did they bounce from team to team?

No one gave them a chance to PLAY. They were viewed as nothing more than late round picks or UDFA's.

And look what happened when they finally got that chance.

And I'll post this AGAIN:

(paraphrasing) "Practice is no substitute for live, regular season, game action."

Kurt Warner told me that at a charity function, and I'm going to have to side with the SB MVP on this one...

Yeah, and Bill Parcells said that if Tony Romo had been forced to play in either of his first two seasons, he'd be out of the league.

There is no one right or wrong way to develop as a player.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:59 PM
Wow, I think you've completely and utterly misunderstood everything I've posted on this topic.

I guess I'm done trying to make my point.

You've had multiple points, one being that you're not impressed with a single thing Croyle did in the 2007 season.

I, and many other beg to differ.

Seriously, if you can't get excited about the way he played in Indy, the perfect TD pass to Bowe, the other drives/plays I mentioned - and see a glimps here and there of what the kid is capable of, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Hell, it's almost a full year later, and I still enjoy seeing that 35 yarder to Webb in Chicago.

Count Zarth
07-22-2008, 08:06 PM
I looked, and decided not to bother. Waste of time.

Both he and mic think the kid has to throw for 3000 ****ing yards and 25 TD's in his first year to validate his existence.

Sad, however typical this fan base.

Impatience rules.

We'll I think 3,000 yards would be a nice goal. That's less than 200 per game. I'd like to see 15-18 TDs and 6 or 7 wins from Brodie this year. Anything more is gravy.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 08:13 PM
We'll I think 3,000 yards would be a nice goal. That's less than 200 per game. I'd like to see 15-18 TDs and 6 or 7 wins from Brodie this year. Anything more is gravy.

Seeing as how less than half of all starters last year threw for over 3,000, (15/32) I think that's unrealistic to expect out of a first full year starter.

FAX
07-22-2008, 08:13 PM
Heck of a job, Mr. OnTheWarpath58. Heck of a job.

You ruled this debate. Of course, the Warner quote was a little overused and one has to remember that's the same guy who married a certifiably brainsick woman with tendencies toward non-specific hatred and potentially indiscriminate violence, but that can be overlooked, I guess.

FAX

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 08:16 PM
Heck of a job, Mr. OnTheWarpath58. Heck of a job.

You ruled this debate. Of course, the Warner quote was a little overused and one has to remember that's the same guy who married a certifiably brainsick woman with tendencies toward non-specific hatred and potentially indiscriminate violence, but that can be overlooked, I guess.

FAX

Ah, I used it twice. Dude IS a Super Bowl MVP. Plus, it brings back good memories. He's a really good guy - got to talk to him one-on-one for a good 20 minutes.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 08:22 PM
You've had multiple points, one being that you're not impressed with a single thing Croyle did in the 2007 season.

I, and many other beg to differ.

Seriously, if you can't get excited about the way he played in Indy, the perfect TD pass to Bowe, the other drives/plays I mentioned - and see a glimps here and there of what the kid is capable of, then I truly feel sorry for you.

Hell, it's almost a full year later, and I still enjoy seeing that 35 yarder to Webb in Chicago.

I see something special. I think he's gonna light it up at some point in his career. Hopefully sooner than later.

Count Zarth
07-22-2008, 08:23 PM
Seeing as how less than half of all starters last year threw for over 3,000, (15/32) I think that's unrealistic to expect out of a first full year starter.

Well, I think my goals for Brodie are average. The 15/32 would mean 3K is about average. Course we may end up with a killer defense and a great running game, so that would probably affect his numbers. I see something special. I think he's gonna light it up at some point in his career. Hopefully sooner than later.

I see a kid who's smart as a whip with a rocket for an arm and decent mobility. And a hard worker. Only question is the injury thing.

Chiefnj2
07-22-2008, 08:25 PM
It isn't like a light suddenly went on with Eli. The TEAM started playing with him and not against him. Tiki was a bit of a divisive figure and Plaxico and Shockey together were complete a-holes to Manning. A number of problems that plagued Eli were the same ones that plagues Trent his first season in KC - receivers/te's that don't know where they are supposed to be on the field.

gagesmom314
07-22-2008, 08:26 PM
I say give him another year but they need to stick with him for the year. Look at Farve...they told him when he first started that it was his team and he needed to own it. They put their trust in him and let him make the mistakes the first few seasons that he needed to learn to become a better quarterback. Give Croyle the chance to make his own mistakes and learn from it. But don't pull him after two games and put someone else in and then flip flop them all season and screw with them. How does that build confidence. If they are truly serious about rebuilding they need to give him his own shot at this. Sure the fans are going to be pissed for the seasons that we don't win while he is learning but if they think he is going to be great give him the chance to become great.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 08:29 PM
Well, I think my goals for Brodie are average. The 15/32 would mean 3K is about average. Course we may end up with a killer defense and a great running game, so that would probably affect his numbers.

I see a kid who's smart as a whip with a rocket for an arm and decent mobility. And a hard worker. Only question is the injury thing.

I'd be very happy with the 2,500 yards that Garrard accumulated, and a 50/50 TD/INT ratio.

I don't expect him to be better than half of the league in his first year starting.

Count Zarth
07-22-2008, 08:57 PM
I'd be very happy with the 2,500 yards that Garrard accumulated, and a 50/50 TD/INT ratio.

I don't expect him to be better than half of the league in his first year starting.

Garrard missed three games due to injury. Course, so could Brodie.

ChiefsCountry
07-22-2008, 09:24 PM
If Herm didnt ball up like a pussy in the RCA Dome and gave him a chance for a game winning drive, Brodie's first win would have been against Peyton Manning and the Colts. I think 6 wins is the benchmark for Brodie this year.

little jacob
07-22-2008, 09:28 PM
i dont count last year against him much... no one could qb a team behind that line.

just want him to be better at midseason and better than that at the end.

depends on how much help he has from the rest of the offense.

Fish
07-22-2008, 09:29 PM
If Herm didnt ball up like a pussy in the RCA Dome and gave him a chance for a game winning drive, Brodie's first win would have been against Peyton Manning and the Colts. I think 6 wins is the benchmark for Brodie this year.

Horseshit.... the defense pissed down their leg that game. Brodie had that game, and all the defense had to do was make a stop. They blew it.

That one was far from Brodie's fault.

charlyfreak
07-23-2008, 06:14 AM
i think i will punch him in the face after his first interception........

unless he really sucks,he will get the full year......i think that is fair.....

by the way,thigpen,has a lot of potential as well....

charlyfreak
07-23-2008, 06:15 AM
i dont count last year against him much... no one could qb a team behind that line.

just want him to be better at midseason and better than that at the end.

depends on how much help he has from the rest of the offense.



also,without lj-------

boogblaster
07-23-2008, 07:19 AM
I think the Chiefs will be a better team this year .. Croyle will also be improved ...

Coogs
07-23-2008, 09:29 AM
Like I said to mic, you must not have been watching.

Chicago: Comes in late, gets blasted on the first play, then proceeds to move the team 55 yards in 5 plays, including a perfect throw down the sideline to Webb. Marched right down the field, only to have Bennett fumble on the 14 yard line.

Jacksonville: Completes a 70 yard drive in a pouring rain in under two minutes, against a defense foaming at the mouth for a shutout. A 35 yarder to Bowe was the highlight, other than the TD throw as he getting drilled in the mouth.

Indianapolis: Executes a 77 yard, game tying drive in his first start, on the road, against the defending champs. The throw to Bowe for the TD couldn't have been placed better. Didn't turn the ball over.

If you didn't say "wow" for any of those moments, you have no reason to watch this season - you must get no joy from the game.


I'm a little late to the party here, but a couple of more to add to your list.

Against Oakland Croyle led us on a long drive in the 4th quarter to put us in position to tie/win. Rayner had just missed a 30 yard FG, so Herm elected to go for it on 4th and 1. We didn't make it, and the defense couldn't stop the Raiders who ran out the clock.

And in week 15 against the Titans, the Titans came out after the half and drove right down the field to score a FG and pull within one at 14-13. Croyle led a marvolus drive down the field converting on several 3rd and 6 type plays to put us in scoring range. IIRC, we settled for a FG and a 17-13 lead (could be wrong on that fact). The drive lasted nearly 8 minutes. And our well rested defense came out and promptly gave up a TD to the juggernaut Titan offense in 2 or 3 plays.

milkman
07-23-2008, 09:57 AM
So far, I haven't seen mic jones provide one single exaample of a QB who overcame as many obstacles as Croyle faced last year.

None of the QBs he named were behind historically bad offensive lines.

And to Dane, to say that 58% number is overwhelming is an embellishment.
If I was told I had a 40% chance of winning the lottery, I'd be investing in the lottery.

FAX
07-23-2008, 09:57 AM
Great post, Mr. Coogs. Thanks for the memories.

FAX

Coogs
07-23-2008, 10:05 AM
And even one more. Even though it was an ugly damn game against the Jets, Croyle led us down the field by completing 6-8 for 81 yards and a TD to tie the game late.

And FWIW, I am glad we lost all of those games. Our talent pool is much better off because of those losses and drafting higher in each round. But I also saw enough positive things from Croyle to believe he has what it takes to lead us to victories.... even if we are trailing late in the game and need the score to pull the game out.

FAX
07-23-2008, 10:06 AM
Dang, Mr. Coogs. More!!! We want more!!!

FAX

Coogs
07-23-2008, 10:10 AM
Dang, Mr. Coogs. More!!! We want more!!!

FAX

:shrug:

Sorry FAX! OTW58 covered the rest. I'm all out of ammo.

FAX
07-23-2008, 10:11 AM
I remember that one time when Croyle was under pressure and had to get rid of the rock and he threw the ball so hard it moved faster than the spin of base atomic particles which modified its molecular structure in flight and allowed it to pass right through Jeff Fisher's head to land harmlessly somewhere in Nebraska.

FAX

Fish
07-23-2008, 10:13 AM
And even one more. Even though it was an ugly damn game against the Jets, Croyle led us down the field by completing 6-8 for 81 yards and a TD to tie the game late.

And FWIW, I am glad we lost all of those games. Our talent pool is much better off because of those losses and drafting higher in each round. But I also saw enough positive things from Croyle to believe he has what it takes to lead us to victories.... even if we are trailing late in the game and need the score to pull the game out.

QFMF'nT

The 0 wins part doesn't bother me one bit. To the point that I think it's a small positive for Croyle that he didn't let the pressure get to him chasing his first NFL win, and start tossing INTs in frustration.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 10:14 AM
So far, I haven't seen mic jones provide one single exaample of a QB who overcame as many obstacles as Croyle faced last year. None of the QBs he named were behind historically bad offensive lines.

I've already given one. Tom Brady.
He had inferior pass-catchers and was sacked 41 times in his first season as a starter. That should indicate how well protected he was.

Coogs
07-23-2008, 10:15 AM
I remember that one time when Croyle was under pressure and had to get rid of the rock and he threw the ball so hard it moved faster than the spin of base atomic particles which modified its molecular structure in flight and allowed it to pass right through Jeff Fisher's head to land harmlessly somewhere in Nebraska.

FAX

He had one of those against the Jets too. But our RB of the moment had a helmet on which deflected the ball safely away. :D

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 10:15 AM
I've already given one. Tom Brady.
He had inferior pass-catchers and was sacked 41 times in his first season as a starter. That should indicate how well protected he was.

This just in: "Tom Brady is better than Brodie Croyle"

Shocking news.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 10:15 AM
Yeah, Manning and Aikman sure overcame adversity in their first years starting, to the tune of 4-32.

I could've sworn that Peyton Manning broke the single-season rookie record for TD passes.

Fish
07-23-2008, 10:19 AM
I've already given one. Tom Brady.
He had inferior pass-catchers and was sacked 41 times in his first season as a starter. That should indicate how well protected he was.

:shake:

That's a terrible example and you know it. Brady was never intended to be the QBOTF. He was a fluke.

Fish
07-23-2008, 10:26 AM
I could've sworn that Peyton Manning broke the single-season rookie record for TD passes.

And lead the league in INTs too! Which eclipsed his single-season rookie record for TD passes.

He wasn't quite shitting gold yet, it was more like gold-plated nickel at that point.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 10:27 AM
This just in: "Tom Brady is better than Brodie Croyle"

Shocking news.

Tom Brady had the requisite skills. He showed that in year one despite not being in an ideal situation there in New England.

Fish
07-23-2008, 10:33 AM
Tom Brady had the requisite skills. He showed that in year one despite not being in an ideal situation there in New England.

Because of injury to Bledsoe. Brady would have been still holding the clipboard that year if not for the injury. He wasn't overtaking Bledsoe otherwise. The Pats had just signed Bledsoe to a a "record" ten-year, $103 million contract.

Do you really think they had Brady in mind before the injury?

Micjones
07-23-2008, 10:38 AM
:shake:

That's a terrible example and you know it. Brady was never intended to be the QBOTF. He was a fluke.

And Brodie Croyle was?
If it hadn't been for an injury Trent Green would probably still be our signal caller. Croyle's our only hope because we have nothing else in the cupboard.

Gimme a break.

It's a great example of a QB being successful in a situation that wasn't exactly conducive to success.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 10:39 AM
Tom Brady had the requisite skills. He showed that in year one despite not being in an ideal situation there in New England.

No one knew that Brady is what he is. YES, you are correct. Brady did things that NO ONE has done.

He's the best QB in league. He's a freak of football nature, and is by no means a measuring stick for a young QB.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 10:41 AM
Because of injury to Bledsoe. Brady would have been still holding the clipboard that year if not for the injury. He wasn't overtaking Bledsoe otherwise. The Pats had just signed Bledsoe to a a "record" ten-year, $103 million contract.

Does that in any way change the fact that he's a stud QB?
He got the opportunity because of an injury but that in no way diminishes who he is.

Do you really think they had Brady in mind before the injury?

I'm not sure why it matters.

If anything, that's even more reason for them to have been less patient with the guy. The situation was much more pressurized because of it. And guess what? He answered the bell.

The guy you're man-crushing on needed to play well in a pre-season game to lock the starting gig down and he came out and laid an egg.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 10:42 AM
No one knew that Brady is what he is. YES, you are correct. Brady did things that NO ONE has done.

He's the best QB in league. He's a freak of football nature, and is by no means a measuring stick for a young QB.

That's funny...

Everyone's so quick to bring up Troy Aikman, John Elway, and Peyton Manning's names when we talk about how Croyle should be handled.

The minute that I prove that Brady wasn't silver-spooned...
And that he EARNED the right to more playing time...
He shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath?

Convenient.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 10:43 AM
And lead the league in INTs too! Which eclipsed his single-season rookie record for TD passes.

He broke a single-season record for TD's!!! He could've thrown 10 more interceptions and still have shown the Colts enough to remain their starter.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 10:45 AM
That's funny...

Everyone's so quick to bring up Troy Aikman, John Elway, and Peyton Manning's names when we talk about how Croyle should be handled.

The minute that I prove that Brady wasn't silver-spooned...
And that he EARNED the right to more playing time...
He shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath?

Convenient.

Maybe, you should check my posts, because I haven't been throwing names around.

A QB doesn't have to be one of the best ever to be given a chance to succeed.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 10:48 AM
He broke a single-season record for TD's!!! He could've thrown 10 more interceptions and still have shown the Colts enough to remain their starter.

So unless you're Peyton Manning, or Tom Bradyesque, you should be shit canned?

Good lord, who do you want our QB to be?

Got someone in mind?

Micjones
07-23-2008, 10:53 AM
So unless you're Peyton Manning, or Tom Bradyesque, you should be shit canned?

Hardly.
Just flash for me. That's really all I'm asking for. 1-2 big games.
Prove you deserve 16 games to be evaluated.
In my humble opinion, he hasn't.

Fish
07-23-2008, 10:54 AM
And Brodie Croyle was?
If it hadn't been for an injury Trent Green would probably still be our signal caller. Croyle's our only hope because we have nothing else in the cupboard.

Gimme a break.

It's a great example of a QB being successful in a situation that wasn't exactly conducive to success.

Yes, Brodie Croyle was signed with the intent of being the QBOTF. The head coach and GM have said as much.

Trent Green was 36 and coming up on the end of his contract when Brodie was signed.

Drew Bledsoe was 29 and had just signed a 10-year contract that at the time was a record deal.

You tell me which team was looking forward toward a QBOTF in those situations. You think NE had high hopes for Brady in 01?

Brady was a fluke.

Chiefnj2
07-23-2008, 10:55 AM
Hardly.
Just flash for me. That's really all I'm asking for. 1-2 big games.
Prove you deserve 16 games to be evaluated.
In my humble opinion, he hasn't.

What about the examples Coogs cited? You weren't blown away by one good drive against the mighty New York J-E-T-S, JETS, JETS, JETS?

Rausch
07-23-2008, 10:58 AM
I want him to win.

When do you quit wanting your guy to win?...

milkman
07-23-2008, 10:59 AM
A QB that plays on a SB team in no way compares to the situation that Croyle was thrust in.

Fish
07-23-2008, 11:03 AM
Does that in any way change the fact that he's a stud QB?
He got the opportunity because of an injury but that in no way diminishes who he is.

Exactly! His story is not the ideal way of grooming a QB. It's not the norm for how it happens. That's the point.



I'm not sure why it matters.


It matters because you're insistent on saying a QB shouldn't be given more than 6 games unless hes drafted top 10, or he tears the league up right away. And you're trying to use Brady as an example of that.

And I don't see you listing all these other QB's who have done the same.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 11:03 AM
Hardly.
Just flash for me. That's really all I'm asking for. 1-2 big games.
Prove you deserve 16 games to be evaluated.
In my humble opinion, he hasn't.

I don't know who you were watching. The guy flashed. More than once.

Rausch
07-23-2008, 11:05 AM
A QB that plays on a SB team in no way compares to the situation that Croyle was thrust in.

Unless that team was Brady's first year with the Pats.

No line, very little running game, above average defense.

FAX
07-23-2008, 11:14 AM
I want him to win.

When do you quit wanting your guy to win?...

That's sort of where I'm coming from, Mr. Rausch. Well ... that and the kitchen. You know, there's a time and a place for blind homerism. And this is it. Even the mysterious and inscrutable Chan has indicated on several occasions that Croyle has the tools necessary to develop into a franchise quarterback.

While it is certainly true that Croyle may fail due to any number of factors; Injury, Poor Coaching, Wacky Pass Syndrome, etc., he's the most prepared young QB we have at this point and our team's success, both now and in the foreseeable future, hinges on how well he performs. That's why I've started the "Brodie's Bros" fan club and encourage all Chiefs fans, regardless of age, race, religious affiliation, and illegal drug preference to join me in convincing ourselves that he's the man.

I say, give him some pass protection and an effective run game and let 'er rip.

FAX

milkman
07-23-2008, 11:16 AM
Unless that team was Brady's first year with the Pats.

No line, very little running game, above average defense.

And we are still talking about a SB team in the Patriots and one of the worst teams in the league in the Chiefs.

There can not be any comparison.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:17 AM
Yes, Brodie Croyle was signed with the intent on being the QBOTF.

You've made this paramount to all else.
I'm still not sure why it matters.

Brady was a fluke.

Don't kid yourself. He's a sure-fire Hall of Famer.
And TEN times the QB that Croyle is.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:18 AM
What about the examples Coogs cited? You weren't blown away by one good drive against the mighty New York J-E-T-S, JETS, JETS, JETS?

Drives? Drives?
How about an entire game?

FAX
07-23-2008, 11:18 AM
After this year, he'll only be nine times the QB that Croyle is, Mr. Micjones.

FAX

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:19 AM
I want him to win.

When do you quit wanting your guy to win?...

I'm certainly not rooting against him.

FAX
07-23-2008, 11:19 AM
Drives? Drives?
How about an entire game?

There's an old Hebrew saying that goes something like; "Inconsistency is the hallmark of an inexperienced quarterback."

FAX

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:21 AM
A QB that plays on a SB team in no way compares to the situation that Croyle was thrust in.

The operative word is "team".
You can't throw out what Brady accomplished because the TEAM won the Superbowl.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:21 AM
I don't know who you were watching. The guy flashed. More than once.

Sure. He had DRIVES.
:rolleyes:

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 11:23 AM
The operative word is "team".
You can't throw out what Brady accomplished because the TEAM won the Superbowl.

And, Croyle can't be held solely responsible, for losing his first six starts.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:23 AM
There's an old Hebrew saying that goes something like; "Inconsistency is the hallmark of an inexperienced quarterback."

FAX

I'm fine with inconsistency.
What I have a problem with is the fact that there was no big game.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:24 AM
And, Croyle can't be held solely responsible, for losing his first six starts.

Agreed.

I never said a word about the fact that we lost in each of his starts.
I'm not as interested in that as some posters.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 11:24 AM
There's an old Hebrew saying that goes something like; "Inconsistency is the hallmark of an inexperienced quarterback."

FAX

QFT

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 11:25 AM
Good lord, who do you want our QB to be?

Got someone in mind?

**clears throat**

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:26 AM
**clears throat**

Hadn't really thought about who I'd like our QB to be, but I wouldn't mind a Brady Quinn.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 11:28 AM
Hadn't really thought about who I'd like our QB to be, but I wouldn't mind a Brady Quinn.

You mean a guy who can't beat out a 6th rounder.

He's a first rounder he must be a lot better.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 11:28 AM
That said, if Brodie bombs, I think we should go after Quinn.

FAX
07-23-2008, 11:29 AM
I'm fine with inconsistency.
What I have a problem with is the fact that there was no 2-3 TD game to go alone with the game where he threw 4 picks.

That would have been nice.

I'm pretty sure that our idiotic playcalling and utter risk aversion had something to do with our scoring tendencies. We weren't exactly flinging the ol' rock around the ball park last year. I also know that you are a very intelligent person, Mr. Micjones, and you are well aware that it's darn difficult to perform well as a quarterback in the NFL behind arguably the worst line in the league and fielding a rushing threat that featured negative yards. I'm still holding a spot for you in Brodie's Bros.

FAX

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:31 AM
You mean a guy who can't beat out a 6th rounder.

Quinn heldout of camp for 11 days last year.
He lost lots of valuable time in camp.
Don't trouble yourself with any additional analysis of the situation though.
Carry on...

He's a first rounder he must be a lot better.

I never said that.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:32 AM
That would have been nice.

I'm pretty sure that our idiotic playcalling and utter risk aversion had something to do with our scoring tendencies. We weren't exactly flinging the ol' rock around the ball park last year. I also know that you are a very intelligent person, Mr. Micjones, and you are well aware that it's darn difficult to perform well as a quarterback in the NFL behind arguably the worst line in the league and fielding a rushing threat that featured negative yards. I'm still holding a spot for you in Brodie's Bros.

FAX

How was Damon Huard able to produce with the same assortment of weapons in the game against Detroit? A game where Brodie Croyle looked like he'd been woken up and told to play QB?

Fish
07-23-2008, 11:33 AM
You've made this paramount to all else.
I'm still not sure why it matters.



Don't kid yourself. He's a sure-fire Hall of Famer.
And TEN times the QB that Croyle is.

Paramount to all else? What do you mean by that? I'm not doubting in the least that Brady will be in the HOF.

We're talking about how much time it will take to fully evaluate Brodie. You're saying "Look at Brady, he didn't need more than 6 games. Brodie hasn't shown anything in 6 games, so we should move on."

You pointed to Brady as an example. Now you're saying it doesn't matter....

milkman
07-23-2008, 11:37 AM
The operative word is "team".
You can't throw out what Brady accomplished because the TEAM won the Superbowl.

But the fact is that Brady was surrounded by a good team, and an inexperience QB will take more sacks than a vet QB.

Those 41 sacks were as much a result of Brady's inexperience as a bad O-Line, and in watching those games, you would have not only seen the "Flashes" that you were looking for, but you would have also seen a QB who oftentimes took sacks because he held onto the ball for to long.

Brady's protection wasn't nearly as bad as you want to make it to be.
That O-Line wasn't great, but it wasn't as bad as you are trying to make it out to be.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:37 AM
We're talking about how much time it will take to fully evaluate Brodie. You're saying "Look at Brady, he didn't need more than 6 games. Brodie hasn't shown anything in 6 games, so we should move on."

You pointed to Brady as an example. Now you're saying it doesn't matter....

The team's idea of what they both would be is immaterial to me.

My point, simply, is that 6 games is enough time to have shown that you deserve more development time. I've proven that with Tom Brady as my example. He was not surrounded with lots of offensive talent and was not protected very well by his line. Somehow... He still managed to overcome that and prove that he was special.

You make it seem that opportunity will make Croyle.
You're wrong. Only having the requisite skills will matter in the end.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:39 AM
But the fact is that Brady was surrounded by a good team, and an inexperience QB will take more sacks than a vet QB.

The team was much better defensively than they were on Brady's side of the ball. Make no mistake.

Those 41 sacks were as much a result of Brady's inexperience as a bad O-Line, and in watching those games, you would have not only seen the "Flashes" that you were looking for, but you would have also seen a QB who oftentimes took sacks because he held onto the ball for to long.

*Taking notes*

Brady sacked 41 times... Because of his inexperience.
Croyle sacked? Poor offensive line.

Gotcha.
:rolleyes:

Brady's protection wasn't nearly as bad as you want to make it to be.
That O-Line wasn't great, but it wasn't as bad as you are trying to make it out to be.

He was sacked 41 times.
That's more than twice a game.

milkman
07-23-2008, 11:40 AM
A further example of inexperience playing a role in sacks, take a look at Ben Rothlisberger.

His first season as a starter, he was sacked 30 times, against 295 pass attempts, and that Steeler line was a good one.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:41 AM
A further example of inexperience playing a role in sacks, take a look at Ben Rothlisberger.

His first season as a starter, he was sacked 30 times, against 295 pass attempts, and that Steeler line was a good one.

But in Croyle's case... His being sacked had nothing to do with his play.
It was the offensive line?

You smell that?

milkman
07-23-2008, 11:42 AM
The team was much better defensively than they were on Brady's side of the ball. Make no mistake.



*Taking notes*

Brady sacked 41 times... Because of his inexperience.
Croyle sacked? Poor offensive line.

Gotcha.
:rolleyes:



He was sacked 41 times.
That's more than twice a game.

As I said, if you watched any of those games, you saw that Brady did have protection, but he held onto the ball to long.
watching Chiefs games, you know that Croyle rarely had time.

Stats never tell the whole story.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:44 AM
As I said, if you watched any of those games, you saw that Brady did have protection, but he held onto the ball to long.
watching Chiefs games, you know that Croyle rarely had time.

Stats never tell the whole story.

But fans uninterested in facing the truth do?

In the Detroit game I mentioned earlier...
Croyle wasn't sacked at all and he got yanked.
Huard? Got sacked 4 times and still managed to put 300 yards and 2 scores on the board.

Hmm...

milkman
07-23-2008, 11:45 AM
But in Croyle's case... His being sacked had nothing to do with his play.
It was the offensive line?

You smell that?

For years, people were saying they wanted to get a shot at bringing David Carr to the Chiefs, citing his O-Line as the reason that he never developed.

I said the fact that he never learned to read a defense is the reason he took so many sacks.

Last year, with much the same O-Line and a new QB, the Texans gave up something like half the sacks that they's given up the year before with Carr.

You go ahead and throw stats out there.

Fish
07-23-2008, 11:46 AM
The team's idea of what they both would be is immaterial to me.

Obviously.

My point, simply, is that 6 games is enough time to have shown that you deserve more development time. I've proven that with Tom Brady as my example. He was not surrounded with lots of offensive talent and was not protected very well by his line. Somehow... He still managed to overcome that and prove that he was special.

You make it seem that opportunity will make Croyle.
You're wrong. Only having the requisite skills will matter in the end.

And you seem to be in the minority with that. His head coach disagrees with you. His new OC disagrees with you. The last 10 pages of this thread disagree with you. You didn't prove anything with Brady as an example, because it's a horrible example. And if that were the normal way of grooming a QBOTF, you would have a list of other QBs besides Brady. You started off saying you could name 4, but that didn't transpire, and you're stuck on Brady. If it's so obvious in the first 6 games, then were are all the other great QBs who made it obvious they were great by start #6?

And I'm not saying Croyle will be great. Opportunity most certainly will not make him. You seem enamored to put anyone who disagrees with you into Croyle's bed. I'm not. I think he might have it, but it's too early to tell. He deserves more time.

milkman
07-23-2008, 11:47 AM
But fans uninterested in facing the truth do?

In the Detroit game I mentioned earlier...
Croyle wasn't sacked at all and he got yanked.
Huard? Got sacked 4 times and still managed to put 300 yards and 2 scores on the board.

Hmm...

I'm not arguing that Croyle will ever amount to anything.

I'm arguing that your arguments are flawed.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:47 AM
As I said, if you watched any of those games, you saw that Brady did have protection, but he held onto the ball to long.
watching Chiefs games, you know that Croyle rarely had time.

Stats never tell the whole story.

Incidentally, the previous signal caller (just 1 year prior) was sacked 45 times.

;)

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:48 AM
For years, people were saying they wanted to get a shot at bringing David Carr to the Chiefs, citing his O-Line as the reason that he never developed.

I said the fact that he never learned to read a defense is the reason he took so many sacks.

Last year, with much the same O-Line and a new QB, the Texans gave up something like half the sacks that they's given up the year before with Carr.

You go ahead and throw stats out there.

If Brady had continued to have a "problem" with holding on to the ball too long... I might agree with you.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:48 AM
I'm not arguing that Croyle will ever amount to anything.

I'm arguing that your arguments are flawed.

That's typically what people do when their own arguments fail them.

Fish
07-23-2008, 11:49 AM
But in Croyle's case... His being sacked had nothing to do with his play.
It was the offensive line?

You smell that?

Nobody is saying that Croyle is playing perfect. Just that he needs more time, and hopefully will improve along with the rest of the young team. You act like we're trying to get Brodie in the HOF already when all we're saying is he needs more time before we make a decision.

FAX
07-23-2008, 11:50 AM
How was Damon Huard able to produce with the same assortment of weapons in the game against Detroit? A game where Brodie Croyle looked like he'd been woken up and told to play QB?

Great question. I'll take five stabs.

First off, Downfield is a completely different person. He's more experienced and had no problem taking the 2 yarder to the flanker as his first option. That isn't exactly Croyle's game. Second off, our line seemed to play a tad better in the first part of the season. Injuries?, fatigue?, who knows? .. but their play seemed to drop off as the season wore on. Third off, Downfield had LJ in the backfield. Granted, he sucked too, but teams were still somewhat respectful of his power ass runs in those games. Fourth off, the team hadn't yet quit on Hermoine. Fifth off, while Downfield was the starter, we didn't exactly ignite the lamp of boundless joy, either.

FAX

milkman
07-23-2008, 11:52 AM
Incidentally, the previous signal caller (just 1 year prior) was sacked 45 times.

;)

Incidentally, when people were talking in the years before that about that statue being one of the best in the game, I was saying that he was overrated.

Chiefnj2
07-23-2008, 11:53 AM
Great question. I'll take five stabs.

First off, Downfield is a completely different person. He's more experienced and had no problem taking the 2 yarder to the flanker as his first option. That isn't exactly Croyle's game.
FAX

Actually that was Croyle's game. Didn't Croyle have the lowest (or one of the lowest) yards per completion?

milkman
07-23-2008, 11:54 AM
That's typically what people do when their own arguments fail them.

My argument hasn't failed.

You have just failed to acknowledge that you might be wrong.

Tell me about how Ben Rothlisberger played behind a bad O-Line his first year.

FAX
07-23-2008, 11:56 AM
Actually that was Croyle's game. Didn't Croyle have the lowest (or one of the lowest) yards per completion?

I worded that very poorly, Mr. Chiefnj2. My apologies. I am submitting the argument that it wasn't his game in college. I'm not sure he even knew what a dump off pass was when he was drafted. At Alabama, he was more of a 40 yards on a zip line kind of guy.

FAX

Micjones
07-23-2008, 11:56 AM
And you seem to be in the minority with that. His head coach disagrees with you.

I'll sleep much more comfortably now.
We're talking about Herman Edwards Fish. Herman Edwards...

His new OC disagrees with you.

What other choice does he have, but to go along with the wishes of his HC?

The last 10 pages of this thread disagree with you.

You might want to re-read it. Several posters said this man-crushing is sickening. Croyle is being coddled by many of you and I'm far from the only person who has said that. Nice try though...

You didn't prove anything with Brady as an example, because it's a horrible example.

Of course. When all else fails.
Jedi mind tricks.

It was a great example that is very well documented.

And if that were the normal way of grooming a QBOTF, you would have a list of other QBs besides Brady.

It's the NFL. There are a number of different factors in play.
Tom Brady is a stud regardless of how he became one.
In the end... He had the talent. And he's proven it time and again.
Hate it or love it. You can't even argue the fact.

You started off saying you could name 4, but that didn't transpire, and you're stuck on Brady.

I named 4 QB's who proved in 6 games that they could do something to warrant more consideration. That was the initial topic of the thread.

It switched somewhere in the middle once some of you figured out that QB's have and do flash in 6 games.

Then it became an issue of how well equipped Croyle is. And I said if it's a matter of having MORE weapons (though he had weapons last year)...Then he'll fail anyway because he doesn't have a great offensive team to support him. Furthermore, that might beg the question of whether or not it's really him or the sum total of the talent on offense.

Are there 4 out there who have succeeded despite not having ideal offensive situations? I'm sure there are. That'll take some time to research, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. Brodie Croyle is not the only QB to have had to deal with a daunting task on offense. Please stop with that nonsense.

blueballs
07-23-2008, 12:00 PM
HuTard had been beatin to a pulp
rested two games played one rested two games
came in for Croyle in Det -they both got the Carr treatment

milkman
07-23-2008, 12:01 PM
I'll sleep much more comfortably now.
We're talking about Herman Edwards Fish. Herman Edwards...



What other choice does he have, but to go along with the wishes of his HC?



You might want to re-read it. Several posters said this man-crushing is sickening. Croyle is being coddled by many of you and I'm far from the only person who has said that. Nice try though...



Of course. When all else fails.
Jedi mind tricks.

It was a great example that is very well documented.



It's the NFL. There are a number of different factors in play.
Tom Brady is a stud regardless of how he became one.
In the end... He had the talent. And he's proven it time and again.
Hate it or love it. You can't even argue the fact.



I named 4 QB's who proved in 6 games that they could do something to warrant more consideration. That was the initial topic of the thread.

It switched somewhere in the middle once some of you figured out that QB's have and do flash in 6 games.

Then it became an issue of how well equipped Croyle is.
Are there 4 out there who have succeeded despite not having ideal offensive situations? I'm sure there are. That'll take some time to research, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. Brodie Croyle is not the only QB to have had to deal with a daunting task on offense. Please stop with that nonsense.

You named 4 QBs, but not one of them played behind a line as bad as the Chiefs had, and on teams as bad as the Chiefs overall.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 12:02 PM
My argument hasn't failed.

You have just failed to acknowledge that you might be wrong.

Tell me about how Ben Rothlisberger played behind a bad O-Line his first year.

This is so stupid.
You're insistent that in Brady's case that he simply held on to the ball too long...to the tune of 41 sacks. Despite the fact that his predecessor was dumped 45 times just 1 year prior.

But in Croyle's case his decision-making had nothing at all to do with his being sacked...

I mean really...

Chiefnj2
07-23-2008, 12:02 PM
I worded that very poorly, Mr. Chiefnj2. My apologies. I am submitting the argument that it wasn't his game in college. I'm not sure he even knew what a dump off pass was when he was drafted. At Alabama, he was more of a 40 yards on a zip line kind of guy.

FAX

Croyle was able to demonstrate in college that he could hurl the ball downfield even with a horrendous OL. That's not an option in the NFL. Plus, Hermione loves the short ball.

blueballs
07-23-2008, 12:02 PM
in retrospect maybe I've been too hard on huard

Micjones
07-23-2008, 12:03 PM
You named 4 QBs, but not one of them played behind a line as bad as the Chiefs had, and on teams as bad as the Chiefs overall.

Tom Brady did.
41 sacks.

And don't tell me it was just him.
His very veteran predecessor was dumped 45 times the year before.

milkman
07-23-2008, 12:05 PM
Tom Brady did.
41 sacks.

And don't tell me it was just him.
His very veteran predecessor was dumped 45 times the year before.

I ask again.

Tell me how bad the Pitssburgh line was in Rothlisberger's first year as a starter when he had 30 sacks in 295 pass attempts?

Fish
07-23-2008, 12:05 PM
I'll sleep much more comfortably now.
We're talking about Herman Edwards Fish. Herman Edwards...



What other choice does he have, but to go along with the wishes of his HC?



You might want to re-read it. Several posters said this man-crushing is sickening. Croyle is being coddled by many of you and I'm far from the only person who has said that. Nice try though...



Of course. When all else fails.
Jedi mind tricks.

It was a great example that is very well documented.



It's the NFL. There are a number of different factors in play.
Tom Brady is a stud regardless of how he became one.
In the end... He had the talent. And he's proven it time and again.
Hate it or love it. You can't even argue the fact.



I named 4 QB's who proved in 6 games that they could do something to warrant more consideration. That was the initial topic of the thread.

It switched somewhere in the middle once some of you figured out that QB's have and do flash in 6 games.

Then it became an issue of how well equipped Croyle is.
Are there 4 out there who have succeeded despite not having ideal offensive situations? I'm sure there are. That'll take some time to research, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. Brodie Croyle is not the only QB to have had to deal with a daunting task on offense. Please stop with that nonsense.

So 4 QBs(who's stats have already been questioned in this thread) in the recent history of the NFL prove your method of evaluating NFL QBs? And the best example you have is Tom Brady for grooming a QBOTF?

Riiiiiiiight. Crystal clear.

Shall we start listing great QBs who for some reason or another didn't blossom until after 6 games? Do you believe the size of that list will be comparable to your list of 4?

FAX
07-23-2008, 12:11 PM
Croyle was able to demonstrate in college that he could hurl the ball downfield even with a horrendous OL. That's not an option in the NFL. Plus, Hermione loves the short ball.

I know, Mr. Chiefnj2. These are sad, sad facts.

My point is simply this; Croyle is probably missing that part of his brain that says, "Don't look deep first."

FAX

bogey
07-23-2008, 12:11 PM
Haven't read the thread. Here's my take. If he's bad because he's screwing up, re-think it after 1/2 the season. If he's bad because he's getting no support, give him a season and a 1/2. I really think you football experts will be able to tell after 1/2 the season whether the problem lies with him, or his support staff.

FAX
07-23-2008, 12:12 PM
I really think you football experts will be able to tell after 1/2 the season whether the problem lies with him, or his support staff.

I'm not so sure about that, Mr. bogey.

FAX

milkman
07-23-2008, 12:15 PM
Tom Brady did.
41 sacks.

And don't tell me it was just him.
His very veteran predecessor was dumped 45 times the year before.

You're right that Brady didn't have a lot of weapons.

Drew Bledsoe was a mediocre QB on a pretty good team for years.
Almost everyone was saying how good he was, though.
As soon as he lost those weapons, the real Bledsoe came to play, and that sack number is just one of the the things that reflected that.

Fish
07-23-2008, 12:15 PM
You named 4 QBs, but not one of them played behind a line as bad as the Chiefs had, and on teams as bad as the Chiefs overall.

It should be obvious that the 2001 Patriots who were 11-5 and won the AFCE, were just exactly like the 2007 Chiefs who were 4-12.

I mean other than QB, they were practically the same team...

Micjones
07-23-2008, 12:17 PM
So 4 QBs(who's stats have already been questioned in this thread)

You can't argue with the numbers. Or their ability to produce in 6 games.

No, rather what happened was a different objection was raised.
The one about Croyle not having weapons. Which is untrue. He had Bowe and Tony Gonzalez.

The offensive line was horrible, but so was Brady's.

in the recent history of the NFL prove your method of evaluating NFL QBs? And the best example you have is Tom Brady for grooming a QBOTF?

Actually, there are other examples.
I've only provided a few.

Shall we start listing great QBs who for some reason or another didn't blossom until after 6 games? Do you believe the size of that list will be comparable to your list of 4?

Go right ahead. At some point you really should anyway.
I've taken the time out to research.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 12:19 PM
It should be obvious that the 2001 Patriots who were 11-5 and won the AFCE, were just exactly like the 2007 Chiefs who were 4-12.

I mean other than QB, they were practically the same team...

What the team accomplished is immaterial to what weapons he had available to him or how well he was protected.

milkman
07-23-2008, 12:25 PM
I keep asking mic.
Tell me about that terrible O-Line in Pittsburg.

Fish
07-23-2008, 12:28 PM
What the team accomplished is immaterial to what weapons he had available to him or how well he was protected.

Sure.... that's convenient....

Belichick likely had nothing to do with it either.....

Pablo
07-23-2008, 12:30 PM
I haven't read much of this thread.

Is micjones taking on the world, in his me against everyone stance?

Coogs
07-23-2008, 12:31 PM
What about the examples Coogs cited? You weren't blown away by one good drive against the mighty New York J-E-T-S, JETS, JETS, JETS?

I understand your point here nj. But the thing is when the game was one the line... bad as the whole game was for both teams... Croyle led the team down the field for the touchdown and the tie. That is something you look for in a franchise QB. Great QB's do that, have less than spectaular days but lead their teams on game saving drives, even against other bad football teams.

Fortunatly, our defense gave up the FG for the loss and we now have Dorsey AND Albert instead of Albert and someone else.

FAX
07-23-2008, 12:32 PM
I haven't read much of this thread.

Is micjones taking on the world, in his me against everyone stance?

Pretty much, Mr. GonzoRox88. It's quite impressive, to be honest. He would be holding his own, too, if it weren't for that one pesky little problem that the facts don't really support his argument.

FAX

Buehler445
07-23-2008, 12:33 PM
Yes.Posted via Mobile Device

Pablo
07-23-2008, 12:34 PM
Pretty much, Mr. GonzoRox88. It's quite impressive, to be honest. He would be holding his own, too, if it weren't for that one pesky little problem that the facts don't really support his argument.

FAXI don't think that's stopped him before.

I wanted to read this thread, but I'm sure it's been re-hashed enough already..all last season we had this debate. I doubt much has changed since then.

FAX
07-23-2008, 12:36 PM
I wanted to read this thread, but I'm sure it's been re-hashed enough already..all last season we had this debate. I doubt much has changed since then.

Yep. It's like that old Polish proverb; "Same ol', same ol'".

My greatest wish is that Croyle will put an end to this debate in game one and light up the enemy for about 40.

FAX

blueballs
07-23-2008, 12:41 PM
Big Ben -PaymeAton Payton and Terrific Tom never have bad games either

Micjones
07-23-2008, 12:46 PM
Sure.... that's convenient....

Belichick likely had nothing to do with it either.....

Are you going to argue that Brady had lots of offensive weapons that year?
I can quickly disprove that argument.

Go ahead, knock yourself out.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 12:48 PM
I haven't read much of this thread.

Is micjones taking on the world, in his me against everyone stance?

I'm not the only person who thinks Croyle should be out.
So, no...

Chiefnj2
07-23-2008, 12:50 PM
I understand your point here nj. But the thing is when the game was one the line... bad as the whole game was for both teams... Croyle led the team down the field for the touchdown and the tie. That is something you look for in a franchise QB. Great QB's do that, have less than spectaular days but lead their teams on game saving drives, even against other bad football teams.

Fortunatly, our defense gave up the FG for the loss and we now have Dorsey AND Albert instead of Albert and someone else.

To be fair, I didn't pay much attention to the games down the stretch. I taped them and watched a lot of them in fast forward on the tivo. I didn't watch Croyle as closely as others but I wasn't really impressed with his play. I know the team sucked (and will continue to suck with Herm leading the way), and the playcalling sucked but I had hoped to see some more of the spark that Mic feels is missing.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 12:50 PM
Pretty much, Mr. GonzoRox88.

You're always inaccurate aren't you Fax?
Do I need to find the posts where other people here at CP think that Croyle's had enough time to have proven himself?

It's quite impressive, to be honest. He would be holding his own, too, if it weren't for that one pesky little problem that the facts don't really support his argument.

Sure they do. And at least I've taken time out to present some data.
You guys are just spouting.

I've already proven that Brady performed well under similar duress.
That can't be argued. His O-Line sucked goat dick. And he damn sure wasn't throwing to Terrell Owens.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 12:53 PM
You're always inaccurate aren't you Fax?
Do I need to find the posts where other people here at CP think that Croyle's had enough time to have proven himself?



Sure they do. And at least I've taken time out to present some data.
You guys are just spouting.

I've already proven that Brady performed well under similar duress.
That can't be argued. His O-Line sucked goat dick. And he damn sure wasn't throwing to Terrell Owens.

So you're saying that if QB doesn't perform on the level of the best QB of this era, he should be canned after 6 games?

Micjones
07-23-2008, 12:55 PM
Ben Roethlisberger's had fabulous protection in Pittsburgh.
He's been sacked 93 times the last two seasons.

Fish
07-23-2008, 12:57 PM
Are you going to argue that Brady had lots of offensive weapons that year?
I can quickly disprove that argument.

Go ahead, knock yourself out.

Troy Brown, David Patten, Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk, Terry Glenn.... yeah what a bunch of bums.

Compare that to Kolby Smith, Tony Gonzalez, Dwayne Bowe, Jeff Webb, Eddie Drummond, etc.

Yeah... go ahead and disprove away.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 12:57 PM
So you're saying that if QB doesn't perform on the level of the best QB of this era, he should be canned after 6 games?

All I've ever said is that he's had ample opportunity to have shown that he deserves more time. 1-2 good games would've been enough for me.

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:00 PM
Troy Brown, David Patten, Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk, Terry Glenn.... yeah what a bunch of bums.

Compare that to Kolby Smith, Tony Gonzalez, Dwayne Bowe, Jeff Webb, Eddie Drummond, etc.

Yeah... go ahead and disprove away.

I'm pretty sure Glenn wasn't on that team and if he was he was on IR, the Pats team that won the bowl was pretty offensively crappy.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 01:02 PM
Troy Brown, David Patten, Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk, Terry Glenn.... yeah what a bunch of bums.

His two best pass-catchers were Brown and Patten.
And lo and behold they were LESS productive than Gonzalez and Bowe were last year.

I've already conceded that he had a more productive running game.
Johnson wasn't as productive as Smith, but he was also injured.
I'd venture to guess that he would've been close if he'd stayed healthy.

Glenn had a whopping 204 yards that year.
Both Samie Parker and Jeff Webb had more receiving yards last season.

Kevin Faulk had an eye-popping 358 all-purpose yards.
Kolby Smith? Try 555.

*Whistling*

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 01:02 PM
I'm pretty sure Glenn wasn't on that team and if he was he was on IR, the Pats team that won the bowl was pretty offensively crappy.

Crappy on paper, yet were always hanging points on people.

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:05 PM
The argument to make with Croyle is, what has he shown? Even if a guy has unflattering stats when you watch, do you see the flashes that make you think he can be the guy, so far with him I haven't seen it.

Mistakes is one thing, but I've yet to see a flash of thinking ok this guy has it. So far all I've seen is the same injury prone frail guy I saw in college that everytime he gets hit you question if that's the game for him.

milkman
07-23-2008, 01:06 PM
Why won't you tell us how bad the Steelers O-Line was in Rothlisberger's first season as a starter?

Coogs
07-23-2008, 01:07 PM
All I've ever said is that he's had ample opportunity to have shown that he deserves more time. 1-2 good games would've been enough for me.

Here is one against Indy in his first start...

Comp 19
Attempts 27
Percent 70.4
Yards 169
YPP 6.3
TD 1
INT 0
Sacks 2
Sack Yds 7
QB Rating 99.2

Raiderhader
07-23-2008, 01:08 PM
His two best pass-catchers were Brown and Patten.
And lo and behold they were LESS productive than Gonzalez and Bowe were last year.

I've already conceded that he had a more productive running game.
Johnson wasn't as productive as Smith, but he was also injured. He would likely have been close had he been healthy.

Glenn had a whopping 204 yards that year.
Both Samie Parker and Jeff Webb had more receiving yards last season.

Kevin Faulk had an eye-popping 358 all-purpose yards.
Kolby Smith? Try 555.

I'm sorry what?
Oh that was just the sound of you shutting the hell up...


You are leaving out one crucial fact: the Pats had a coaching staff who knew how to call a game and make adjustments.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 01:09 PM
Here is one against Indy in his first start...

Comp 19
Attempts 27
Percent 70.4
Yards 169
YPP 6.3
TD 1
INT 0
Sacks 2
Sack Yds 7
QB Rating 99.2

That's not a big game.
It's serviceable. But 169 yards on 19 completions does not make me want to hand the keys over to the guy. I'm sorry.

milkman
07-23-2008, 01:10 PM
The argument to make with Croyle is, what has he shown? Even if a guy has unflattering stats when you watch, do you see the flashes that make you think he can be the guy, so far with him I haven't seen it.

Mistakes is one thing, but I've yet to see a flash of thinking ok this guy has it. So far all I've seen is the same injury prone frail guy I saw in college that everytime he gets hit you question if that's the game for him.

It comes down to this.

If you believe that that Pats O-Line was as bad as the Chiefs O-Line, then you should have expected to see more from Croyle than we saw.

However, if, like me, when watching those two lines and you can see a difference in the overall play of the line, and see that the Chiefs line never gave Croyle the kind of time that Brady got, then there's no way you can expect any young QB to show anything over the course of a full game.

Raiderhader
07-23-2008, 01:10 PM
Here is one against Indy in his first start...

Comp 19
Attempts 27
Percent 70.4
Yards 169
YPP 6.3
TD 1
INT 0
Sacks 2
Sack Yds 7
QB Rating 99.2

I forget who the hell we were playing last year that nearly shut us out at home with Huard under center. Brodie came in late in the game and with time running out threw a TD to avoid the shut out. That'd be another.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 01:10 PM
You are leaving out one crucial fact: the Pats had a coaching staff who knew how to call a game and make adjustments.

Gee, another new argument...
Figures...

FAX
07-23-2008, 01:10 PM
Of course I'm inaccurate, Mr. Micjones. Thanks for noticing. It's a skill set I've worked on for years. I'm what some people in academia refer to as a competent incompetent. It's a viable method and the one I've used to avoid having to do the laundry for many years, so don't knock it.

As for your "proof", I'm not sure you've demonstrated anything other than the fact that you don't think Croyle needs or deserves more PT to develop into anything. And, according to my more or less inaccurate view of things, that isn't "data", that's an opinion. I have respect for you, Mr. Micjones, and consider you to be an highly intelligent person, which is why I honestly don't understand how you can overlook the problems any young, inexperienced quarterback would have behind our o-line, with our lack of a rushing game, and under the tutelage of Herm Edwards and Dick Curl. Plus, how anyone could "accurately" evaluate a quarterback under those circumstances is a mystery, indeed. The bottom line is simply this; it takes time to develop a young quarterback into a consistent, effective contributor and Croyle hasn't had enough time. Let's ask Lenny and see what he has to say about it.

FAX

Micjones
07-23-2008, 01:11 PM
I forget who the hell we were playing last year that nearly shut us out at home with Huard under center. Brodie came in late in the game and with time running out threw a TD to avoid the shut out. That'd be another.

That would be the Jaguars.
And that was a garbage TD.
Nice try though...

Raiderhader
07-23-2008, 01:12 PM
That's not a big game.
It's serviceable. But 169 yards on 19 completions does not make me want to hand the keys over to the guy. I'm sorry.



First start, on the road, against the defending champs and it is "serviceable"?

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:13 PM
It comes down to this.

If you believe that that Pats O-Line was as bad as the Chiefs O-Line, then you should have expected to see more from Croyle than we saw.

However, if, like me, when watching those two lines and you can see a difference in the overall play of the line, and see that the Chiefs line never gave Croyle the kind of time that Brady got, then there's no way you can expect any young QB to show anything over the course of a full game.

I just really don't like using that argument because it leads to it never being his fault and it always being blamed on someone else.

Like right now it's the line, then it'll become LJ sucks we need another RB, then it'll become we need more receivers, I don't want to start that argument because then it will snowball, I've seen it with a friend of mines fan base...

Raiderhader
07-23-2008, 01:13 PM
That would be the Jaguars.
And that was a garbage TD.
Nice try though...


Garbage TD my ass! You think the Jags D didn't want that shut out on the road? You are a f#cking moron if so.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 01:14 PM
As for your "proof", I'm not sure you've demonstrated anything other than the fact that you don't think Croyle needs or deserves more PT to develop into anything. And, according to my more or less inaccurate view of things, that isn't "data", that's an opinion.

I think we both know that I pointed out, rather eloquently, that young QB's have proven that they can flash in a 6-game span.

I think you also know that I've proven that Tom Brady wasn't sitting on an offensive goldmine in his first-season.

If that ISN'T data... Nothing is.

Raiderhader
07-23-2008, 01:15 PM
Gee, another new argument...
Figures...

Actually there is nothing new about it, it has been stated through out the thread and in plenty of other threads discussing the same issue. Try to keep up.

Coogs
07-23-2008, 01:17 PM
That's not a big game.
It's serviceable. But 169 yards on 19 completions does not make me want to hand the keys over to the guy. I'm sorry.

In his first start in the NFL... on the road against the Colts... Two huge 3rd down conversions early in the 4th quarter!?!?!?! :shrug:


Damn dude. You are tough.


We will never know, but what happens with Brady if NE doesn't get the "Tuck Rule" call against the Raiders? And Bledsoe came back into the game the next week against the Steelers at Pittsburgh in a game where NE scored on a punt return and on a defensive turnover as well to win a close one.

Now granted Brady has taken his breaks and ran with them. Maybe Croyles breaks are comming. Let's hope, cause I sure don't want to have to draft a QB early next year when the QB crop looks like crap and other positions of need appear to be strong.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 01:19 PM
Of course I'm inaccurate, Mr. Micjones. Thanks for noticing. It's a skill set I've worked on for years. I'm what some people in academia refer to as a competent incompetent. It's a viable method and the one I've used to avoid having to do the laundry for many years, so don't knock it.

As for your "proof", I'm not sure you've demonstrated anything other than the fact that you don't think Croyle needs or deserves more PT to develop into anything. And, according to my more or less inaccurate view of things, that isn't "data", that's an opinion. I have respect for you, Mr. Micjones, and consider you to be an highly intelligent person, which is why I honestly don't understand how you can overlook the problems any young, inexperienced quarterback would have behind our o-line, with our lack of a rushing game, and under the tutelage of Herm Edwards and Dick Curl. Plus, how anyone could "accurately" evaluate a quarterback under those circumstances is a mystery, indeed. The bottom line is simply this; it takes time to develop a young quarterback into a consistent, effective contributor and Croyle hasn't had enough time. Let's ask Lenny and see what he has to say about it.

FAX

Nothing inaccurate about this post.

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:19 PM
The fact is Croyle is going to get his season, if he shows nothing it'll be time to get another QB, I don't know how this is morphed into a giant argument he gets his year to show what he can do.

After this season we'll all have a pretty damn good idea of what he is.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 01:19 PM
Garbage TD my ass! You think the Jags D didn't want that shut out on the road? You are a f#cking moron if so.

Certainly they would've taken the shutout, but that hardly means he wasn't facing soft ass coverage.

Coogs
07-23-2008, 01:21 PM
The fact is Croyle is going to get his season, if he shows nothing it'll be time to get another QB, I don't know how this is morphed into a giant argument he gets his year to show what he can do.

After this season we'll all have a pretty damn good idea of what he is.

This is very true. But the question was... how patient are you going to be with Croyle?

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:23 PM
This is very true. But the question was... how patient are you going to be with Croyle?

What other choice do we have? You wanna see Huard back out there?

milkman
07-23-2008, 01:24 PM
I just really don't like using that argument because it leads to it never being his fault and it always being blamed on someone else.

Like right now it's the line, then it'll become LJ sucks we need another RB, then it'll become we need more receivers, I don't want to start that argument because then it will snowball, I've seen it with a friend of mines fan base...

Unfortunely, here, in this situation, it has to be part of the argument.

Realically, there's no way that a team with an O-Line as bad as mic is trying to paint that Pats O-Line to be can ever get to a SB.

Tom Brady neber puts up those kind of passing numbers behind a horrid O-Line.

If he never had any time to pass, he would have been nearly as ineffective as Croyle was last year.

Frankly, I have my doubts about Croyle.

I think there's a strong possibility that he never amounts to anything.

But to suggest that what he showed last year is enough to make that determination is simply wrong.

Reerun_KC
07-23-2008, 01:24 PM
Gee, another new argument...
Figures...


Holy Crap dude, you can never ever compare Herm coaching style to Belicheck's style...

Night and day...

Herm could turn Brady into Ryan Leaf....

Reerun_KC
07-23-2008, 01:25 PM
What other choice do we have? You wanna see Huard back out there?
Nope this is sink or swim time with Croyle... We only have two dark years left, might as well keep the youngsters out there...

FAX
07-23-2008, 01:25 PM
Again with the Tom Brady argument. What the heck does Tom Brady have to do with it? Everyone knows he's the exception - not the rule. Certainly, in this discussion, he is not some kind of secret, inescapable, slam dunk debating point.

Besides, for every young QB you may cite who "flashed" in their first 6 games, you can name 5 who didn't. There's also the nagging problem as to how many of those "flashers" had the pleasure of Herm and Dick Curl as coaches. That, in and of itself, should buy you an additional 2 seasons just to figure out what the hell they're saying. Besides, "flashing" is, most certainly, in the eye of the beholder and, even if it were not, very much dependent on variables and factors outside the direct control of the quarterback including supporting personnel, play calling, time in the pocket, quality of the receivers, amount of bed rest, etc. You're better than this, Mr. Micjones. That's why I'm going to give you a full 10 minutes to surrender.

FAX

Raiderhader
07-23-2008, 01:25 PM
Certainly they would've taken the shutout, but that hardly means he wasn't facing soft ass coverage.


You are either completely clueless or are willing to twist anything in any direction just so it supports your beliefs.

Time was running out, the Chiefs were not getting back into the game with a score. Jax could afford to do whatever needed to be done to get their shutout in Arrowhead.

Fish
07-23-2008, 01:26 PM
I think we both know that I pointed out, rather eloquently, that young QB's have proven that they can flash in a 6-game span.

I think you also know that I've proven that Tom Brady wasn't sitting on an offensive goldmine in his first-season.

If that ISN'T data... Nothing is.

You're still hung up on the single example of Tom Brady?

Why don't you try to answer milkman's question regarding Ben? Or does your evaluation process only work with Brady? I've yet to see you discuss any other scenarios...

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:26 PM
The worst part of all this is if the Chiefs are flat awful this year and have a top 3 pick, I don't see any QB's worth that pick in next years draft....we may have to eat another bad year with no QB just due to the bad class.

Pablo
07-23-2008, 01:28 PM
The worst part of all this is if the Chiefs are flat awful this year and have a top 3 pick, I don't see any QB's worth that pick in next years draft....we may have to eat another bad year with no QB just due to the bad class.Pretty much. Unless guys like Stafford, Tebow and Boeckman trip your trigger, there really isn't much out there to shout about.

Oh well...Michael Oher it is. Or Crabtree. Either would work for me. But I'd prefer Oher.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 01:30 PM
You are either completely clueless or are willing to twist anything in any direction just so it supports your beliefs.

Time was running out, the Chiefs were not getting back into the game with a score. Jax could afford to do whatever needed to be done to get their shutout in Arrowhead.

You're right. Teams don't play soft coverage in those situations.
I made that up.

Sorry.

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:30 PM
Pretty much. Unless guys like Stafford, Tebow and Boeckman trip your trigger, there really isn't much out there to shout about.

Oh well...Michael Oher it is. Or Crabtree. Either would work for me. But I'd prefer Oher.

Michael Johnson doesn't strike your fancy.....I don't think Crabtree is going to come out at this point, that may change though.

Coogs
07-23-2008, 01:30 PM
What other choice do we have? You wanna see Huard back out there?


Now, me... I'm going to be very patient. Croyle showed me enough flashes without LJ as his RB and a very marginal WR corp that was led by a rookie to earn that from me.

I want him to succeed. Good players in the draft next April at other positions of need.... but you already know that.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 01:31 PM
You're still hung up on the single example of Tom Brady?

Why don't you try to answer milkman's question regarding Ben? Or does your evaluation process only work with Brady? I've yet to see you discuss any other scenarios...

I already have. Roethlisberger has never been afforded great protection.
Despite that fact... He was able to produce his rookie season.

milkman
07-23-2008, 01:32 PM
I already have. Roethlisberger has never been afforded great protection.
EVER.

That's pure unadulterrated bull.

Rothlisberger has always had good protection.

Pablo
07-23-2008, 01:32 PM
Michael Johnson doesn't strike your fancy.....I don't think Crabtree is going to come out at this point, that may change though.I don't know much about him other than ESPN showing a bit of footage on him a week ago or so. Looked like an absolute beast. I'm sure a D-Line with him and Dorsey, along with Hali would be pretty damn stout.

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:33 PM
Now, me... I'm going to be very patient. Croyle showed me enough flashes without LJ as his RB and a very marginal WR corp that was led by a rookie to earn that from me.

I want him to succeed. Good players in the draft next April at other positions of need.... but you already know that.

I don't think LJ is going to look much better than he did last year....he's declining we need to stop hanging on him like he's going to make a huge difference.

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:33 PM
I don't know much about him other than ESPN showing a bit of footage on him a week ago or so. Looked like an absolute beast. I'm sure a D-Line with him and Dorsey, along with Hali would be pretty damn stout.

He's also 6'7 and has room to grow.....Michael Johnson is someone that I think will get NFL teams drooling great frame, great natural talent, extreme upside.

Coogs
07-23-2008, 01:39 PM
I don't think LJ is going to look much better than he did last year....he's declining we need to stop hanging on him like he's going to make a huge difference.

He may be declining. But none the less, Croyle had a total unkown in Kolby Smith taking the field with him each week. There were 8 defenders in the box for LJ. I don't know for a fact, but I assume Smith didn't face those same 8 in the box on nearly every play as LJ did. And I am anxious to see if Croyle can make teams pay for stacking the box. I think he can. If he does and they back down to 7 in the box, I suspect LJ can still bring it.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 01:39 PM
You're still hung up on the single example of Tom Brady?

I'm sorry.
What was I thinking? Exhibit B.
Joe Montana.

He wasn't gifted with great offensive weapons and didn't have great protection either.

Chiefnj2
07-23-2008, 01:40 PM
The worst part of all this is if the Chiefs are flat awful this year and have a top 3 pick, I don't see any QB's worth that pick in next years draft....we may have to eat another bad year with no QB just due to the bad class.

Which is why the Chiefs should have taken a guy like Brohm or Henne.

Chiefnj2
07-23-2008, 01:41 PM
He may be declining. But none the less, Croyle had a total unkown in Kolby Smith taking the field with him each week. There were 8 defenders in the box for LJ. I don't know for a fact, but I assume Smith didn't face those same 8 in the box on nearly every play as LJ did. And I am anxious to see if Croyle can make teams pay for stacking the box. I think he can. If he does and they back down to 7 in the box, I suspect LJ can still bring it.

Even with a marginally improved OL and LJ, do you really think Croyle can stay healthy and play 12+ games a year?

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:42 PM
Even with a marginally improved OL and LJ, do you really think Croyle can stay healthy and play 12+ games a year?

12? A QB is the position that has to play every week, teams with QB's that can't stay on the field have all sorts of problems.

Coogs
07-23-2008, 01:44 PM
Even with a marginally improved OL and LJ, do you really think Croyle can stay healthy and play 12+ games a year?

:shrug: No one knows for sure. I'm hoping so. He did take some shots last season and bounced right back up. Thing is, the O-line/RB's better not allow those type shots again this season. They are also allowing more roll outs/bootlegs this season like Denver does. Personally, I think Croyle remains standing all season, but I am just guessing at best.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 01:48 PM
The worst part of all this is if the Chiefs are flat awful this year and have a top 3 pick, I don't see any QB's worth that pick in next years draft....we may have to eat another bad year with no QB just due to the bad class.

That's the Exact same thing that was said last season. Some will emerge, and be taken higher than they deserve, and some will mature into quality QBs.

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:50 PM
That's the Exact same thing that was said last season. Some will emerge, and be taken higher than they deserve, and some will mature into quality QBs.

This still ended up being a bad year, Ryan seems alright due to the pro style he played in, right now there isn't even anyone comparable to him.

Reerun_KC
07-23-2008, 01:50 PM
I'm sorry.
What was I thinking? Exhibit B.
Joe Montana.

He wasn't gifted with great offensive weapons and didn't have great protection either.
Bill Walsh > Herm Edwards

End of comparison... Herm cannot and will not scheme an offense to make a young QB successful, he doesnt have the mental compacity.

Fish
07-23-2008, 01:51 PM
I'm sorry.
What was I thinking? Exhibit B.
Joe Montana.

He wasn't gifted with great offensive weapons and didn't have great protection either.

OK.... so it's 2 of the best QBs of all time? Brady and Montana? That should be the blueprint for evaluating young QBs?

You think if a player isn't at a Brady or Montana production level after 6 games, then they should be cut?

And you honestly don't think that's unrealistic?

Reerun_KC
07-23-2008, 01:52 PM
12? A QB is the position that has to play every week, teams with QB's that can't stay on the field have all sorts of problems.
I think QB, all though very important, is the least of the Chiefs concerns this year.

With out an OL, no one will succeed in KC... The Chiefs will go as far as the OL will take them regardless of the QB...

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:52 PM
OK.... so it's 2 of the best QBs of all time? Brady and Montana? That should be the blueprint for evaluating young QBs?

You think if a player isn't at a Brady or Montana production level after 6 games, then they should be cut?

And you honestly don't think that's unrealistic?

I've seen a bunch of people throw those names out when trying to give Croyle comparisons...

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:53 PM
I think QB, all though very important, is the least of the Chiefs concerns this year.

With out an OL, no one will succeed in KC... The Chiefs will go as far as the OL will take them regardless of the QB...

It's going to take more than 1 year to fix the line....right now we basically can say we have 1 guy, after that pretty much everyone else can be or will be replaced.

Fish
07-23-2008, 01:54 PM
I've seen a bunch of people throw those names out when trying to give Croyle comparisons...

A bunch of people are idiots. I've never said Croyle looks like Brady or Montana.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 01:56 PM
I've seen a bunch of people throw those names out when trying to give Croyle comparisons...

Which just proves that QBs are all different, and you don't know whether it will take 6 sarts or 20 to reach teir potential, so you might as well find out if they will, or you could just be running in circles.

WHO THE **** IS THE OTHER OPTION? is what I would like to know.

Mecca
07-23-2008, 01:57 PM
Which just proves that QBs are all different, and you don't know whether it will take 6 sarts or 20 to reach teir potential, so you might as well find out if they will, or you could just be running in circles.

WHO THE **** IS THE OTHER OPTION? is what I would like to know.

He's gonna get his year, I just don't wanna see people after this year if he's awful going "he needs more time!"

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 01:59 PM
He's gonna get his year, I just don't wanna see people after this year if he's awful going "he needs more time!"

I will not be one of those people, and honestly don't think there will be many. If he stinks it up, the fans will turn on him.

Reerun_KC
07-23-2008, 02:07 PM
I will not be one of those people, and honestly don't think there will be many. If he stinks it up, the fans will turn on him.
Um, unless your a savy proven backup vet, KC fans wont have many patience anyway... We have no clue what is like to develop a QB, our fans have all the answers and know a bust when they see one.

Croyle preforms well, he stays (which many people will kill themselves ) but if he stinks it up, he is gone...

How hard it is to complete dump off passes in Herms Feild Goal Extravaganza Offense anyway?

Micjones
07-23-2008, 02:15 PM
For the record...

I am not suggesting Croyle should have reached his potential to this point in his career. Rather what I'm suggesting is that he's had ample time to have shown that he has it.

picasso
07-23-2008, 02:16 PM
What is all of this talk about building?
That isn't even what the NFL is anymore. Teams don't build they don't have the luxury to build. You lose key people after 3 years just like we did. Most of you are talking about "I'll give Croyle 8 games, hell we won't even be competitive this year.". Do you honestly think that the rest of the team shares that thought?
I think we will be competitive this year. As far as building a team around Croyle I think it's pretty damn stupid. He's not that good of a QB. he showed some signs last year but IMO he's not the second coming. He is a stick, lacks toughness, lacks endurance, lacks heart, lacks brains.
He can't hold the jockstrap of Chris Palmer, Rothlisberger, Romo, or Derek Anderson when it comes to thoses qualities and they have very little time on the field as well.
The presssure button on Croyle to excel would be to have a veteran QB on this team, NOT Huard. If we had a McNabb or even a Kurt Warner (who threw for 3400 yards last year and had 27 TDs) we would benefit more and you guys wouldn't be saying this rebuilding crap. I think that's just a cop out for anticipated bad production.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 02:18 PM
OK.... so it's 2 of the best QBs of all time? Brady and Montana? That should be the blueprint for evaluating young QBs?

You think if a player isn't at a Brady or Montana production level after 6 games, then they should be cut?

And you honestly don't think that's unrealistic?

I never said Croyle should be cut.

Or that he should have to become one of the greatest QB's of all time.
I'm just busting up the notion that the greatest QB's succeeded solely because they were given time. No, rather what they did was produce and earn more developmental time.

milkman
07-23-2008, 02:19 PM
What is all of this talk about building?
That isn't even what the NFL is anymore. Teams don't build they don't have the luxury to build. You lose key people after 3 years just like we did. Most of you are talking about "I'll give Croyle 8 games, hell we won't even be competitive this year.". Do you honestly think that the rest of the team shares that thought?
I think we will be competitive this year. As far as building a team around Croyle I think it's pretty damn stupid. He's not that good of a QB. he showed some signs last year but IMO he's not the second coming. He is a stick, lacks toughness, lacks endurance, lacks heart, lacks brains.
He can't hold the jockstrap of Chris Palmer, Rothlisberger, Romo, or Derek Anderson when it comes to thoses qualities and they have very little time on the field as well.
The presssure button on Croyle to excel would be to have a veteran QB on this team, NOT Huard. If we had a McNabb or even a Kurt Warner (who threw for 3400 yards last year and had 27 TDs) we would benefit more and you guys wouldn't be saying this rebuilding crap. I think that's just a cop out for anticipated bad production.

I think you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.

Chiefnj2
07-23-2008, 02:22 PM
Um, unless your a savy proven backup vet, KC fans wont have many patience anyway... We have no clue what is like to develop a QB, our fans have all the answers and know a bust when they see one.

Croyle preforms well, he stays (which many people will kill themselves ) but if he stinks it up, he is gone...

How hard it is to complete dump off passes in Herms Feild Goal Extravaganza Offense anyway?

Do you think fans in other NFL cities are different?

txchiefan
07-23-2008, 02:36 PM
Not every QB is going to show they have "it" in their first 6 games as a starter either. There are QBs both present and past that didn't do well early and didn't show anything till they had more games under their belt either.

Give you 2 names
Hasselbeck while not great, the guy is solid and doubt to many people would complain if Brodie developed into his caliber of player for the next decade.

Past name go look at Fouts and tell me in first 2 years as a starter he showed he had it.

Some guys just take longer than others, one thing for sure, he has a one year audition, and if doesn't show it then the dude is gone.

Fish
07-23-2008, 02:39 PM
I never said Croyle should be cut.

Or that he should have to become one of the greatest QB's of all time.
I'm just busting up the notion that the greatest QB's succeeded solely because they were given time. No, rather what they did was produce and earn more developmental time.

I must have missed the part where anyone said that. Please quote that one so we can further discuss it.

It has been said and repeated that Croyle is not expected to get better just by getting time. And most folks saying he needs more time have made multiple attempts to convey that Croyle might not have what it takes. Myself included. I'm not convinced he'll be an above average starter. But, I do think he deserves more time to prove himself.

And every QB is different. The Brady/Montana path is not the only way. It's not even the most common way. I think that's the point most people are hung up on when debating with you in this thread.

FAX
07-23-2008, 02:39 PM
Bad news, Mr. txchiefan. You have violated a primary ChiefsPlanet rule by displaying a keen sense of logic and common sense in your first post.

Were I you, I would delete that post before Mr. Bob Dole sees it.

FAX

txchiefan
07-23-2008, 02:41 PM
Bad news, Mr. txchiefan. You have violated a primary ChiefsPlanet rule by displaying a keen sense of logic and common sense in your first post.

Were I you, I would delete that post before Mr. Bob Dole sees it.

FAX

Thanks for the warning but I will take my chances, lol.

picasso
07-23-2008, 02:45 PM
I think you have absolutely no clue what the hell you are talking about.

Infusing the team with youth I can understand and its being done. The notion of building an NFL team when key players are with teams less than 3 years in this day and age is ridiculous. You could do that back in the 70's even the 80's but not now. The window is to short, you have to build a season. I am just repeating what I have heard many people say that are in the business. You have to win now.

I think it is stupid to think that our players are sharing the same thoughts that some fans are in saying that this is a building year and that they don't expect to be competitive.

I think your wrong.

Reerun_KC
07-23-2008, 02:45 PM
For the record...

I am not suggesting Croyle should have reached his potential to this point in his career. Rather what I'm suggesting is that he's had ample time to have shown that he has it.
Carl wants to see you in his office.....

You cant have ample time to prove it when your GM forces the Retread never was been down the throat of your coach and coaching staff...

Watch Hard Knocks, everyone wanted Brodie from day one, except Carl.

Carl wins, coaching staff loses, then You and Carl make love...

Pretty simple...

Reerun_KC
07-23-2008, 02:47 PM
Do you think fans in other NFL cities are different?

Actually yes, we are so used to be lemmings to Carl, we have no clue what its like to rebuild a franchise.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 02:53 PM
Infusing the team with youth I can understand and its being done. The notion of building an NFL team when key players are with teams less than 3 years in this day and age is ridiculous. You could do that back in the 70's even the 80's but not now. The window is to short, you have to build a season. I am just repeating what I have heard many people say that are in the business. You have to win now.

I think it is stupid to think that our players are sharing the same thoughts that some fans are in saying that this is a building year and that they don't expect to be competitive.

I think your wrong.

You have to have a "core" of players.

When damn near your entire core is too old, you must rebuild it. That is what is happening whether you realize it or not. Even Tony G has said it.

picasso
07-23-2008, 03:04 PM
You have to have a "core" of players.

When damn near your entire core is too old, you must rebuild it. That is what is happening whether you realize it or not. Even Tony G has said it.

Well sure you do I understand that, I even mention that.
what burns my ass is fans using it as an excuse to not be competitive.
"We're not gonna be shit because we are in a rebuilding year so I will give Croyle the whole year to develop."

Into what? The same shit he was last year?

FAX
07-23-2008, 03:30 PM
You're painting a pretty dark picture of Chiefs fans there, Mr. picasso.

We need some understanding, though. Since, over the last 20 years or so, we haven't actually drafted a lot of actual players we actually intend to develop into actual impact players and starters, this is uncharted territory for us.

FAX

Micjones
07-23-2008, 05:05 PM
Carl wants to see you in his office.....

You cant have ample time to prove it when your GM forces the Retread never was been down the throat of your coach and coaching staff...

Watch Hard Knocks, everyone wanted Brodie from day one, except Carl.

Carl wins, coaching staff loses, then You and Carl make love...

Pretty simple...

Your posts are almost as bad as your attempts at humor.

They rolled out the red carpet for Croyle and even with everyone in his corner he couldn't lock down the starting gig. Some hero...

rad
07-23-2008, 05:18 PM
That's not a big game.
It's serviceable. But 169 yards on 19 completions does not make me want to hand the keys over to the guy. I'm sorry.

You don't think that has more to do with the play calling than Croyle himself? You don't mention completion percentage, which imo is more on the players themselves.

For the record...

I am not suggesting Croyle should have reached his potential to this point in his career. Rather what I'm suggesting is that he's had ample time to have shown that he has it.

You have unreasonable expectations. It seems you won't be happy until the next Johnny U steps on the field for KC. That's fine and all, but why torture yourself? You don't need a great QB to win it all, you need a great TEAM.

rad
07-23-2008, 05:22 PM
Your posts are almost as bad as your attempts at humor.

They rolled out the red carpet for Croyle and even with everyone in his corner he couldn't lock down the starting gig. Some hero...

Who's "they"?

Carl made the call....it's that simple. So the unexperienced kid with a bunch of circus clowns coaching him didn't beat out a well-travelled NFL vet, who'dathunkit.....

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 05:23 PM
Tom Brady had the requisite skills. He showed that in year one despite not being in an ideal situation there in New England.

Ideal situation?

They won the ****ing Super Bowl, for **** sake.

To compare Brady's situation to Croyle's might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on ChiefsPlanet. Let that sink in for a moment...

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 05:30 PM
Who's "they"?

Carl made the call....it's that simple. So the unexperienced kid with a bunch of circus clowns coaching him didn't beat out a well-travelled NFL vet, who'dathunkit.....

It is just silly to compare this to the Pats, and Brady.

KCUnited
07-23-2008, 05:31 PM
Dick Curl

Micjones
07-23-2008, 05:31 PM
Ideal situation?

They won the ****ing Super Bowl, for **** sake.

To compare Brady's situation to Croyle's might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on ChiefsPlanet. Let that sink in for a moment...

I remember this guy once said something about how the commitment a team makes to a First Round pick should be no different than one they make to a Third Round pick. That's gotta be Top 3.

Teams without great offenses never win Superbowls do they OTW?
Got me there...

Micjones
07-23-2008, 05:32 PM
It is just silly to compare this to the Pats, and Brady.

Sure it is.

Even after I proved that Croyle had comparable offensive talent to Brady in his first season as the starter.
:rolleyes:

Micjones
07-23-2008, 05:33 PM
You have unreasonable expectations. It seems you won't be happy until the next Johnny U steps on the field for KC. That's fine and all, but why torture yourself? You don't need a great QB to win it all, you need a great TEAM.

Asking a QB to have 1 big game in 6 is expecting said QB to be Johnny Unitas?
The dramatics never end around here.

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 05:34 PM
That would be the Jaguars.
And that was a garbage TD.
Nice try though...


:LOL:

Yeah, that was garbage.

Did you hear the interview after the game where Mike Peterson, IIRC, dropped about 50 F-bombs because he was pissed they lost the shutout?

I was at the game, in a pouring rain. They were coming after him, and hard. They wanted the shutout.

Garbage TD my ass...

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 05:36 PM
Sure it is.

Even after I proved that Croyle had comparable offensive talent to Brady in his first season as the starter.
:rolleyes:

Dude, we were damn near the worst team in the league.....they won the SB.......you have proven Jack.

Calcountry
07-23-2008, 05:36 PM
Being a Chiefsfan=patience

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 05:37 PM
I think we both know that I pointed out, rather eloquently, that young QB's have proven that they can flash in a 6-game span.

I think you also know that I've proven that Tom Brady wasn't sitting on an offensive goldmine in his first-season.

If that ISN'T data... Nothing is.

How do you prove an OPINION?

It's your opinion that the Brady had a poor supporting cast.

Which is a retarded opinion, considering that supporting cast was good enough to go 11-5, win their division, and a Lombardi Trophy.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 05:38 PM
Did you hear the interview after the game where Mike Peterson, IIRC, dropped about 50 F-bombs because he was pissed they lost the shutout?

I said they wanted the shutout, but that does not mean they weren't playing soft coverage.

I was at the game, in a pouring rain. They were coming after him, and hard. They wanted the shutout.


You were at the game?
Well, I guess that's all that matters.

You're not breaking ground here pal.
I've already conceded that they wanted the shutout.
When are you going to tell the truth about what kind of coverage they were playing?

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 05:38 PM
How do you prove an OPINION?

It's your opinion that the Brady had a poor supporting cast.

Which is a retarded opinion, considering that supporting cast was good enough to go 11-5, win their division, and a Lombardi Trophy.

He seriously thinks he has "proven" some point with this.

Coogs
07-23-2008, 05:39 PM
You don't think that has more to do with the play calling than Croyle himself? You don't mention completion percentage, which imo is more on the players themselves.

rad,

Here were the stats for Croyle vs the Colts that were posted to which he was referring...


Comp 19
Attempts 27
Percent 70.4
Yards 169
YPP 6.3
TD 1
INT 0
Sacks 2
Sack Yds 7
QB Rating 99.2

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 05:40 PM
The patriots had a good enough cast to WIN THE SB. What don't you understand about that?

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 05:40 PM
You're right. Teams don't play soft coverage in those situations.
I made that up.

Sorry.

Teams do, on occasion.

Jacksonville wasn't, and it was obvious to anyone without bias.

You're the ONLY person arguing that they were.

Interesting.

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 05:41 PM
I already have. Roethlisberger has never been afforded great protection.
Despite that fact... He was able to produce his rookie season.

And the hole gets deeper...

Micjones
07-23-2008, 05:42 PM
How do you prove an OPINION?

I'm trying to prove an opinion?
I could've sworn I was trying (and did prove) that 6 games is ample time to show potential. You're a tricky debater aren't you?

It's your opinion that the Brady had a poor supporting cast.

Here's the "I'll play dumb" card.
You're right. He had all-world talent.
Funny thing is... I can (and did) prove that Croyle had comparable weapons. The numbers bear that out. Argue with that...

Which is a retarded opinion, considering that supporting cast was good enough to go 11-5, win their division, and a Lombardi Trophy.

And the fact that they won the Superbowl means they had great offensive talent? I could stop arguing with you now and you'd find a way to keep humiliating yourself.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 05:43 PM
Charlie Wies. Mike Salari.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 05:43 PM
Teams do, on occasion.

Jacksonville wasn't, and it was obvious to anyone without bias.

You're the ONLY person arguing that they were.

Interesting.

No one else has even made mention of what kind of coverage Jacksonville was playing.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 05:44 PM
I'm trying to prove an opinion?
I could've sworn I was trying (and did prove) that 6 games is ample time to show potential. You're a tricky debater aren't you?




It's your opinion that he showed nothing in his first six starts.

It's my opinion that he did.

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 05:45 PM
I'm sorry.
What was I thinking? Exhibit B.
Joe Montana.

He wasn't gifted with great offensive weapons and didn't have great protection either.

Yeah, Dwight Clark and Solomon were pure garbage...

Both All-Pro's in Montana's first year.

Micjones
07-23-2008, 05:47 PM
And the hole gets deeper...

You're right...
Roethlisberger didn't have great protection either, but he produced.
You're telegraphing at this point.

I know which lame argument will follow.
Blah, blah, blah... Better offensive talent...
Blah, blah, blah... Better coaching staff...
Blah, blah... Pittsburgh's HC has better hair.

It's all bullshit.

At the end of the day you continue to make excuses for why Croyle cannot show us a sign that he's capable of being "the guy".

And there's something inherently wrong with me NOT coddling a grown ass professional athlete.

Gotcha.

rad
07-23-2008, 05:47 PM
rad,

Here were the stats for Croyle vs the Colts that were posted to which he was referring...


Comp 19
Attempts 27
Percent 70.4
Yards 169
YPP 6.3
TD 1
INT 0
Sacks 2
Sack Yds 7
QB Rating 99.2

I know, that's what I'm talking about...19/27 is good for a first start on the road.

Coogs
07-23-2008, 05:48 PM
It's your opinion that he showed nothing in his first six starts.

It's my opinion that he did.

I'm with you beach tribe. I even saw enough to make me think we could have a pretty good season this year if the o-line gels quickly. I am much more optimistic this year than I was at this point last season.

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 05:48 PM
I'm trying to prove an opinion?
I could've sworn I was trying (and did prove) that 6 games is ample time to show potential. You're a tricky debater aren't you?



Here's the "I'll play dumb" card.
You're right. He had all-world talent.
Funny thing is... I can (and did) prove that Croyle had comparable weapons. The numbers bear that out. Argue with that...



And the fact that they won the Superbowl means they had great offensive talent? I could stop arguing with you now and you'd find a way to keep humiliating yourself.

ROFLROFLROFL

Wow.

Let's ask the people who's humiliating who...

The opinion your trying to prove is that Brady had comparable weapons to Croyle.

Numbers or not, that's retarded.

You remind me of findthedr. Thinking stats tell the entire story.

Explains a lot...

Micjones
07-23-2008, 05:49 PM
Yeah, Dwight Clark and Solomon were pure garbage...

Both All-Pro's in Montana's first year.

Clark and Solomon were his best pass-catchers.
You may not want to hear this... But Gonzalez and Bowe had about 400 more yards last season than Clark/Solomon did in 1980.

You want me to believe that Croyle had no weapons. That's untrue.

Coogs
07-23-2008, 05:49 PM
I know, that's what I'm talking about...19/27 is good for a first start on the road.


OK, sorry! Totally agree. :toast:

rad
07-23-2008, 05:50 PM
Asking a QB to have 1 big game in 6 is expecting said QB to be Johnny Unitas?

I question your PERCEPTION of a big game, or "flashes"

The dramatics never end around here.

Don't beat yourself up.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 05:53 PM
Clark and Solomon were his best pass-catchers.
You may not want to hear this... But Gonzalez and Bowe had about 400 more yards last season than Clark/Solomon did in 1980.

You want me to believe that Croyle had no weapons. That's untrue.

Damn near the worst running game in the league, and 0 protection, oh yea that's just an excuse.

Why even draft other players high? The QB should be able to take the team on his shoulders. ...In his first game action. Whatever.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 05:54 PM
OK, sorry! Totally agree. :toast:

No No, stop coddling. He showed NOTHING.[micjones/]

Micjones
07-23-2008, 06:02 PM
Wow.

Let's ask the people who's humiliating who...

You need validation sir. I do not.
Again, I am not alone in my evaluation of Croyle. But even if I were...
It would matter not.

The opinion your trying to prove is that Brady had comparable weapons to Croyle.

And despite the fact that the numbers speak for themselves you hand me some bullshit about why they can't be trusted. Spinjob if I've ever heard one.

Stats are official performance records. Sure often times a player's value to the team can't be explained statistically, but how exactly does that apply to the skill position players in New England and Kansas City?

We're not talking about the Jason Dunn's of the world.
We're talking about players whose worth can in large part be determined by their productivity.

You remind me of findthedr. Thinking stats tell the entire story.

Of course they don't. But if you've got a better barometer for offensive talent concerning these two teams I'm all ears.

Oh wait... They won the Superbowl... And the Chiefs were 4-12.
So New England must've been more talented offensively.
BRILLIANT!

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 06:07 PM
I remember this guy once said something about how the commitment a team makes to a First Round pick should be no different than one they make to a Third Round pick. That's gotta be Top 3.

Teams without great offenses never win Superbowls do they OTW?
Got me there...

Yep, just like findthedr. Twisting things around to fit your argument.

I'm saying there NO REASON why KC shouldn't give Croyle another year,or year and a half.

They have NOTHING to lose, and NO ONE waiting in the wings.

And forget winning the Super Bowl, the numbers show you better have a good offense to even GET to the game.

Using the 80 teams that played in Super Bowls 1-40:

The WORST scoring offense to play in a Super Bowl was the 2002 Buccaneers, who won, ranked 18th. 15th is the next closest.

The average ranking for these teams?

5.125.

So yeah, it's pretty safe to say that teams with bad offenses aren't even going to MAKE the game, much less win it. The 2002 Bucs are the exception.

Even that 2000 Ravens were 14th.

And that supposed terrible offense in New England circa 2001 was ranked 6th...

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 06:09 PM
Clark and Solomon were his best pass-catchers.
You may not want to hear this... But Gonzalez and Bowe had about 400 more yards last season than Clark/Solomon did in 1980.

You want me to believe that Croyle had no weapons. That's untrue.

Again, what do YARDS have to do with it?

Aren't points more important when it comes to offense?

They were BOTH All-Pro in 1981. SOMEONE thought they were pretty good...

Coogs
07-23-2008, 06:09 PM
Damn near the worst running game in the league, and 0 protection, oh yea that's just an excuse.

I do hope Gailey gives Croyle a little more rope than Solari gave him. And I have to believe he is going to from what I saw at the open scrimmage at Arrowhead. We showed bootlegs and rollout plays that seemed to fit Croyles game pretty well.

And, if we are designing an offense to fit the strengths of the players, when defenses stack 8 in the box to stop the run, we should be able to exploit that with the play action pass with LJ, Bowe, Gonzo, and Croyle.

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 06:11 PM
You need validation sir. I do not.
Again, I am not alone in my evaluation of Croyle. But even if I were...
It would matter not.



And despite the fact that the numbers speak for themselves you hand me some bullshit about why they can't be trusted. Spinjob if I've ever heard one.

Stats are official performance records. Sure often times a player's value to the team can't be explained statistically, but how exactly does that apply to the skill position players in New England and Kansas City?

We're not talking about the Jason Dunn's of the world.
We're talking about players whose worth can in large part be determined by their productivity.



Of course they don't. But if you've got a better barometer for offensive talent concerning these two teams I'm all ears.

Oh wait... They won the Superbowl... And the Chiefs were 4-12.
So New England must've been more talented offensively.
BRILLIANT!

And the NE offense was ranked 6th in 2001, with all those terrible players, and I think we all know where the Chiefs offense was ranked in 2007. Feel free to tell us how an offense with no talent was ranked 6th in the league, won their Division, and a Super Bowl. We're all ears.

You're so set on yards, when you should be looking MUCH deeper.

But if you did, your argument would fall apart.

Wait, already has...

evolve27
07-23-2008, 06:13 PM
I do hope Gailey gives Croyle a little more rope than Solari gave him. And I have to believe he is going to from what I saw at the open scrimmage at Arrowhead. We showed bootlegs and rollout plays that seemed to fit Croyles game pretty well.

And, if we are designing an offense to fit the strengths of the players, when defenses stack 8 in the box to stop the run, we should be able to exploit that with the play action pass with LJ, Bowe, Gonzo, and Croyle.

Also making adjustments during the game and avoid the 3rd down screen to the WR that Solari effing loved. Actually I think he loved that play on every down. Bring the spread offense back Chan.

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 06:15 PM
You're right...
Roethlisberger didn't have great protection either, but he produced.
You're telegraphing at this point.

I know which lame argument will follow.
Blah, blah, blah... Better offensive talent...
Blah, blah, blah... Better coaching staff...
Blah, blah... Pittsburgh's HC has better hair.

It's all bullshit.

At the end of the day you continue to make excuses for why Croyle cannot show us a sign that he's capable of being "the guy".

And there's something inherently wrong with me NOT coddling a grown ass professional athlete.

Gotcha.

Huh?

You're the only person on planet earth who thinks that Roethlisberger's protection was anything less than stellar.

So, either you've completely lost your mind, know nothing about football, or are willing to say anything in an attempt to save face in an argument you're being destroyed in.

beach tribe
07-23-2008, 06:25 PM
And that supposed terrible offense in New England circa 2001 was ranked 6th...

6th. Not even remotely comparable to the 2007 Chiefs.

What was their running game ranked. I'll bet it was a hell of a loe higher than 29th, or whatever the Chiefs were ranked. Let it go. It''s a silly comparison

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 06:31 PM
6th. Not even remotely comparable to the 2007 Chiefs.

What was their running game ranked. I'll bet it was a hell of a loe higher than 29th, or whatever the Chiefs were ranked. Let it go. It''s a silly comparison

Doesn't matter, considering that it would be based on yardage.

In mic's world, NE had a terrible offense because they didn't rack up a ton of yardage.

They mucst have had a terrible defense as well, because the gave up a lot of yardage, yet were ranked #6 as well in points allowed.

You're absolutely right, the comparison is asinine, except in his head.

NE - 23.2 points per game, ranked 6th.

KC - 14.1 points per game, ranked 31st.

Yep, Brady's situation was JUST LIKE Croyle's...

:rolleyes:

DaneMcCloud
07-23-2008, 07:01 PM
Yep, just like findthedr. Twisting things around to fit your argument.

I'm saying there NO REASON why KC shouldn't give Croyle another year,or year and a half.

Wow, I can think of several.

1. Lack of production. If he has good protection and LJ exceeds 1,400 yards rushing, he "should" have very good numbers. Maybe not Pro Bowl, but he should have something like 18TD with 15INT's, especially with Bowe & Gonzalez. That would be 22 games in which to evaluate him. That should be plenty.

2. Injury. If he loses significant time to injury, it's time to look elsewhere. His injury history is already a major red flag. If he misses time this year, it's clear that he's just not built for the rigors of a 16 game season (let alone 19 game).

3. If the offensive line is dramatically improved, LJ has a good year, Charles & Smith chip in show flashes, the Chiefs should pursue a QB like Derek Anderson that can help them win in 2009. The offense will be young (with the exception of TG, who appears ageless and LJ), the defense will be young and if we're talking about replacing Croyle, the Chiefs will probably be picking in the top ten, if not top five again. With another solid draft, there's no reason that the Chiefs shouldn't be pushing for a playoff spot in 2009. NO reason.

4. If the Chiefs win less than 4 games with Croyle at the helm and his decision making is at the root of the loses, it's time to move on. Some guys just never get it.

Now, am I predicting that he will be an utter failure? No. But if he is or if he shows no signs of progression throughout the season, the Chiefs need to either bring in a veteran starter and/or draft the best available QB in the 2009 draft.

There's no reason to waste a talented team just to develop a QB. Baltimore's done that with Boller and now their defense is on the wrong side of 30. More than likely, they've missed their window.

I'd hate to see the Chiefs do the same.

FAX
07-23-2008, 07:09 PM
Hmmm. I pretty much agree with most of that, Mr. DaneMcCloud.

Clearly, Croyle has to demonstrate the ability to make good decisions (particularly whilst under pressure), leadership (maybe a come-from-behind scoring drive or two), and availability (he can't be injured every other game).

Should he progress in those areas, we ought to be good to go because, when healthy, he certainly has all the physical tools necessary to play the position.

FAX

OnTheWarpath58
07-23-2008, 07:14 PM
Wow, I can think of several.

1. Lack of production. If he has good protection and LJ exceeds 1,400 yards rushing, he "should" have very good numbers. Maybe not Pro Bowl, but he should have something like 18TD with 15INT's, especially with Bowe & Gonzalez. That would be 22 games in which to evaluate him. That should be plenty.

Most QB's don't produce like that in their first year starting. The guys who have more TD's than INT's are few and far between. Again, I think people have been spoiled by Brady and Roethlisberger.

2. Injury. If he loses significant time to injury, it's time to look elsewhere. His injury history is already a major red flag. If he misses time this year, it's clear that he's just not built for the rigors of a 16 game season (let alone 19 game).

You're right, and I'm on board with this.

3. If the offensive line is dramatically improved, LJ has a good year, Charles & Smith chip in show flashes, the Chiefs should pursue a QB like Derek Anderson that can help them win in 2009. The offense will be young (with the exception of TG, who appears ageless and LJ), the defense will be young and if we're talking about replacing Croyle, the Chiefs will probably be picking in the top ten, if not top five again. With another solid draft, there's no reason that the Chiefs shouldn't be pushing for a playoff spot in 2009. NO reason.

IF that were to happen, I'd lean toward agreeing, though I'm not up for giving up picks for a QB. I don't think even the biggest homer on this board could envision the scenario you created coming to fruition.

4. If the Chiefs win less than 4 games with Croyle at the helm and his decision making is at the root of the loses, it's time to move on. Some guys just never get it.

Why do people bag on his decision making? In his 6 starts, he average ONE turnover a game. As I mentioned earlier, Eli Manning's decision making has been questioned for 3+ years. Looks like he finally "got it."

Now, am I predicting that he will be an utter failure? No. But if he is or if he shows no signs of progression throughout the season, the Chiefs need to either bring in a veteran starter and/or draft the best available QB in the 2009 draft.

There's no reason to waste a talented team just to develop a QB. Baltimore's done that with Boller and now their defense is on the wrong side of 30. More than likely, they've missed their window.

I'd hate to see the Chiefs do the same.

As I pointed out earlier, I think we should draft a QB in 2009 regardless of how Croyle performs.

But I have a huge problem with you insinuating that we'd be wasting a talented team. This team needs another 2 drafts like the one they just had before we can even think about them seriously competing, IMO, and unlike many here, I'm willing to wait.