PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2 3

TRR
07-22-2008, 03:18 PM
Nearing training camp, I'm starting to wonder how soon fellow KC fans will start throwing Croyle under the bus. Last season, Croyle struggled, but had no real help to give KC fans an honest look at what he can do. This season, the line should be a bit better, a healthy LJ should give him a legitimate playmaker in the backfield, and an entire offseason of working as the starting QB could only help...

BUT...

I remember how impatient KC fans were with Trent Green. Most were ready to kill him after the 2001 season, and still weren't happy with him after the 2002 season. Even at the end, after Green became one of the great Chiefs QB's in recent memory, fans were quick to rip him apart, and resurrect the name "TrINT".

My question is, (1) how long will you give Croyle to prove himself? Half the season? All season? And (2) what does he need to do to be brought back as the starting QB for the 2009 season?

Thoughts...

noa
07-22-2008, 03:20 PM
I would give him the entire season because we're not competing anyway. But if (read: when) he gets injured again, I think that should definitely factor into the analysis.
I can't say anything stat-wise because we really don't know what is fair to expect having not seen this OL in action. If it is as horrid as last year, I would cut him some slack, but if they give him time and he has a low completion pct and a bad td-to-int ratio, I'd say we should move on.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 03:20 PM
I'm not willing to be all that patient with Croyle.

People keep telling me I should be, but he's had time to have shown something. Honestly... I think I'm willing to be 8 games patient.

BigMeatballDave
07-22-2008, 03:22 PM
I think I'm willing to be 8 games patient.Thats fair as long as the lineplay is better than last season.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 03:23 PM
Thats fair as long as the lineplay is better than last season.

Other successful QB's have had to endure poor offensive lineplay.
Croyle shouldn't be any different. Good QB's overcome adversity.

BigChiefFan
07-22-2008, 03:25 PM
I think eight games will be enough time to see if he's improving. I'll give him the entire season for development, but after 8 games, if he looks like shit, he'll be deserved to be called out. He's a professional, enough of the pandering to a millionaire.

HolyHandgernade
07-22-2008, 03:26 PM
Based on Peterson's tenure, I'd say he has a long rope.

Anyway, that's what I heard.

-HH

TRR
07-22-2008, 03:28 PM
I'm not willing to be all that patient with Croyle.

People keep telling me I should be, but he's had time to have shown something. Honestly... I think I'm willing to be 8 games patient.


No disrespect, but I think that is a little ridiculous. And there is two reasons why...

(1) I don't think any young, inexperienced QB can prove what he is in 8 games. And when I say that, I'm not even considering last season because he had next to nothing to work with.

(2) KC still needs to build around him. The O Line still needs a lot of time to gel. McIntosh is playing a new position along with Albert who is a rookie. Niswanger has only played in a handful of games. Adrian Jones is a RT moving to RG, and he doesn't have too much playing time. KC still doesn't have a legitimate #2 WR that we know of, and it's a new offensive scheme.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 03:28 PM
Hell, the fans threw him under the bus LAST year.

But, to answer your questions:

(1) how long will you give Croyle to prove himself? Half the season? All season?

Another 24 starts, which means all of this year, and half of next.

I know, someone will make a smartass remark that it will take him 5 years to start 24 more games due to his injury history. Ha.

30 starts seems to be the benchmark that most franchises try to use when it comes to the QB position.

2) what does he need to do to be brought back as the starting QB for the 2009 season?

Pretty much answered in #1 - nothing, IMO.

Give him his 30 starts, and go from there. His performance this year will have some say on if/when we draft a QB in 2009 or 2010. Even if he has an average, or even below average year in 2008, the Chiefs aren't going to start a rookie at the QB position in 2009. Croyle will get at least half of the year while the rook learns the playbook.

I'm not concerned with the win total, since there are another 21 guys that attribute to that as well. Had the defense held up their end of the bargain in a few games last year, he'd already have a couple of wins under his belt.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 03:31 PM
No disrespect, but I think that is a little ridiculous. And there is two reasons why...

(1) I don't think any young, inexperienced QB can prove what he is in 8 games. And when I say that, I'm not even considering last season because he had next to nothing to work with.

(2) KC still needs to build around him. The O Line still needs a lot of time to gel. McIntosh is playing a new position along with Albert who is a rookie. Niswanger has only played in a handful of games. Adrian Jones is a RT moving to RG, and he doesn't have too much playing time. KC still doesn't have a legitimate #2 WR that we know of, and it's a new offensive scheme.

Mic lives in a world where getting raped in PreSeason games is the same as getting experience in a game that actually matters in Week 11.

For people to say that Croyle didn't show anything last year didn't watch the games...

BigChiefFan
07-22-2008, 03:31 PM
No disrespect, but I think that is a little ridiculous. And there is two reasons why...

(1) I don't think any young, inexperienced QB can prove what he is in 8 games. And when I say that, I'm not even considering last season because he had next to nothing to work with.

(2) KC still needs to build around him. The O Line still needs a lot of time to gel. McIntosh is playing a new position along with Albert who is a rookie. Niswanger has only played in a handful of games. Adrian Jones is a RT moving to RG, and he doesn't have too much playing time. KC still doesn't have a legitimate #2 WR that we know of, and it's a new offensive scheme.

This will be his THIRD year, if he doesn't show signs of improvement eight games into, he's likely a bust.

blueballs
07-22-2008, 03:33 PM
only the true fans will be in the seats
in such a lean year

eazyb81
07-22-2008, 03:34 PM
I'm willing to give him the entire season. We're not going to contend anyways, so why not let him prove himself one way or the other.

I'm much more interested to see how LJ looks, if Bowe can repeat last year's performance, what the Oline does, how the defense improves with Dorsey in the middle, etc.

Bowser
07-22-2008, 03:35 PM
I'm already on the Tyler Thigpen bandwagon.



I don't know - I'll give the kid half a season to show something, but I won't "throw him under the bus" if he gets as good supporting help around him as he did last year. The line MUST play better, period, for him or anyone on offense to be improved.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 03:35 PM
This will be his THIRD year, if he doesn't show signs of improvement eight games into, he's likely a bust.


He's started SIX games in the NFL. Less than half of a full season.

3 years doesn't mean much compared to the amount of time he's actually spent on the field, in games that count.

This will be Aaron Rodgers' FOURTH year, and by your standards, should be great his first year starting.

Odds are against him, and he has a great TEAM around him. Solid OL play, good WR corp, good coaching.

Croyle has none of that.

TRR
07-22-2008, 03:35 PM
This will be his THIRD year, if he doesn't show signs of improvement eight games into, he's likely a bust.

It's his third season, but he's barely played. Last season was the first year he even got some snaps in practice and in games. He's also been through a couple of O Coordinators as well. Experience is key, and Brodie hasn't gotten it by riding the pine or holding a clipboard in practice.

Deberg_1990
07-22-2008, 03:35 PM
Leftwich will be starting for us by week 8.

Fruit Ninja
07-22-2008, 03:36 PM
3rd quarter of the 2008 season. He has to start being a decent QB by game 12.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 03:37 PM
Leftwich will be starting for us by week 8.

If this dumbass fan base had any say, he would have been starting for us by Week 8 of LAST year...

BigChiefFan
07-22-2008, 03:37 PM
If players like Jake Plummer can be starters, then Croyle doesn't get a free pass from me. Sorry, but he needs to show he can win games, throw more TDs than INTs, and stay healthy. It's called PROFESSIONAL sports, time to take off the kid gloves.

TRR
07-22-2008, 03:39 PM
If players like Jake Plummer can be starters, then Croyle doesn't get a free pass from me. Sorry, but he needs to show he can win games, throw more TDs than INTs, and stay healthy. It's called PROFESSIONAL sports, time to take off the kid gloves.

Then Trent Green should have never been brought back for the 2002 season and beyond if it were up to you....

Micjones
07-22-2008, 03:41 PM
I don't think any young, inexperienced QB can prove what he is in 8 games. And when I say that, I'm not even considering last season because he had next to nothing to work with.

I can quickly name 4 who've done so, recently, in less than 8.

Next to nothing to work with?
He had two pass catchers who totaled more than 2,000 receiving yards.

KC still needs to build around him. The O Line still needs a lot of time to gel. McIntosh is playing a new position along with Albert who is a rookie. Niswanger has only played in a handful of games. Adrian Jones is a RT moving to RG, and he doesn't have too much playing time. KC still doesn't have a legitimate #2 WR that we know of, and it's a new offensive scheme.

And again...
Every young QB has obstacles to overcome.
These are readymade excuses for why he cannot show us something to warrant more development time.

Why hand him the job?

BigChiefFan
07-22-2008, 03:44 PM
It's his third season, but he's barely played. Last season was the first year he even got some snaps in practice and in games. He's also been through a couple of O Coordinators as well. Experience is key, and Brodie hasn't gotten it by riding the pine or holding a clipboard in practice.He played in NINE games, add the eight(this upcoming season) that some think is just and that's seventeen games, PLUS preseason. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out if he's worth a damn or not. His play should dictate that he's improving. That's a full year of experience, plus all of the tutelage of three years-that's ample time.

Quick question how long did Bill Parcells give Cleo Lemon?

Now maybe you'll see this is a business and we shouldn't have to pamper lil Brodie. He either shows signs or improvement or he doesn't.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 03:44 PM
Mic lives in a world where getting raped in PreSeason games is the same as getting experience in a game that actually matters in Week 11.

I live in a world where I realize that players go full bore in the pre-season to avoid injury. If first-team NFL players are giving it their all on the field to protect both themselves and their teammates surely I can evaluate Croyle's play during those games.

But even if you threw out those 3 starts...
Six are enough to have shown us something.
I've proven that before. I'll be glad to rehash that argument.

TRR
07-22-2008, 03:45 PM
I can quickly name 4 who've done so, recently, in less than 8.

Next to nothing to work with?
He had two pass catchers who totaled more than 2,000 receiving yards



And again...
Every young QB has obstacles to overcome.
These are readymade excuses for why he cannot show us something to warrant more development time.

Why hand him the job?

4 QB's out of 32 teams? And the two weapons he had at WR and TE have to have some reflection upon him as well right?

Young QB's have to overcome obstacles, but usually not a third string RB, and an Offensive Line as bad as the one KC fielded in 2007.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 03:46 PM
If players like Jake Plummer can be starters, then Croyle doesn't get a free pass from me. Sorry, but he needs to show he can win games, throw more TDs than INTs, and stay healthy. It's called PROFESSIONAL sports, time to take off the kid gloves.

Exactly.

A professional athlete at the highest level of competition in his sport shouldn't be afforded all of these ready-made excuses.

My God...

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 03:46 PM
The 2008 season. Period.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 03:48 PM
4 QB's out of 32 teams?

I never said there were only four, but carry on.

And the two weapons he had at WR and TE have to have some reflection upon him as well right?

Yeah, Tony Gonzalez is indebted to Brodie Croyle.
:rolleyes:

Young QB's have to overcome obstacles, but usually not a third string RB, and an Offensive Line as bad as the one KC fielded in 2007.

That has happened in the National Football League before believe it or not.
And again, I can prove that other QB's with similar or greater hurdles were able to produce.

rambleonthruthefog
07-22-2008, 03:48 PM
he gets all year unless he is just downright terrible. i don't expect him to be terrible.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 03:52 PM
I can quickly name 4 who've done so, recently, in less than 8.

Out of how many?

You might be able to name 4 who have done it, but I can name a hundred (or more) who haven't.



Next to nothing to work with?
He had two pass catchers who totaled more than 2,000 receiving yards.

And those were the only two offensive weapons on the team. Playing with a patchwork OL and a 3rd string RB.



And again...
Every young QB has obstacles to overcome.
These are readymade excuses for why he cannot show us something to warrant more development time.

Why hand him the job?

If you haven't seen what makes this kid special, you're not willing to see it, or you're not watching the games.

By your standards, QB's like Manning, (Peyton or Eli) Aikman, Elway, etc would have never started their 2nd season.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 03:52 PM
Then Trent Green should have never been brought back for the 2002 season and beyond if it were up to you....

Trent Green had already proven he could produce in the NFL.

blueballs
07-22-2008, 03:53 PM
KC needs a QB of the future
until 2009 there really isn't any alternative
but what's on the payroll other than HUTARD

TRR
07-22-2008, 03:54 PM
I never said there were only four, but carry on.



Yeah, Tony Gonzalez is indebted to Brodie Croyle.
:rolleyes:



That has happened in the National Football League before believe it or not.
And again, I can prove that other QB's with similar or greater hurdles were able to produce.

A young QB with as many obstacles as Croyle had to overcome last season...

*Coming in at game 10 (splitting time in mini camp/training camp/practice with Huard)
*Third string RB
*Terrible O Line
*No #2 WR

...won't have much to offer, and it definitely should not be the measuring stick. Please provide multiple examples of this like you say in the NFL, and I would be willing to listen.

Also keep in mind that Croyle had a couple of decent flashes, like his play at Indianapolis, and in New York late in the season where he managed the game well throwing no picks in 43 attempts.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 03:55 PM
I never said there were only four, but carry on.



Yeah, Tony Gonzalez is indebted to Brodie Croyle.
:rolleyes:



That has happened in the National Football League before believe it or not.
And again, I can prove that other QB's with similar or greater hurdles were able to produce.

Wow, you're really going out of your way to look foolish here, Mic.

You go ahead and name the QB's that have overcome these obstacles in less than 6 starts, then I'll name TEN TIMES that amount that haven't.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 03:57 PM
Out of how many?

Once again, I never said there were only 4 who have shown flashes that warranted more time.

And those were the only two offensive weapons on the team. Playing with a patchwork OL and a 3rd string RB.

However you'd like to spin that... He had two highly reliable pass-catchers.
To say he had nothing to work with is to be disingenuous.

If you haven't seen what makes this kid special, you're not willing to see it, or you're not watching the games.

He might play one hell of a piano for all I know.
He hasn't proven he's special on the football field.
I'm sorry.

But I'm all ears if you'd care to share what makes him special.
One condition...Say nothing about his arm strength.

Don't worry... I'll wait.

By your standards, QB's like Manning, (Peyton or Eli) Aikman, Elway, etc would have never started their 2nd season.

:banghead:

Not this lame argument...again!

Those were #1 overall draft picks.
The way their respective franchises handled them has ZERO bearing on what we do with Croyle.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 03:59 PM
Trent Green had already proven he could produce in the NFL.

Produce what?

He had one good year prior to coming to KC, 1998.

Interestingly enough, in 2001, the year everyone wants to crucify him over, his completion percentage, yardage, yards per attempt and yards per game were all BETTER than in 1998.

StcChief
07-22-2008, 04:03 PM
all year barring glaring errors and injuries. Thigpen? if not 2009 draft....

or maybe by then Brett will be done pouting and wanna play :D

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 04:05 PM
Once again, I never said there were only 4 who have shown flashes that warranted more time.



However you'd like to spin that... He had two highly reliable pass-catchers.
To say he had nothing to work with is to be disingenuous.



He might play one hell of a piano for all I know.
He hasn't proven he's special on the football field.
I'm sorry.

But I'm all ears if you'd care to share what makes him special.
One condition...Say nothing about his arm strength.

Don't worry... I'll wait.



:banghead:

Not this lame argument...again!

Those were #1 overall draft picks.
The way their respective franchises handled them has ZERO bearing on what we do with Croyle.

I don't give a shit if they were picked #1 overall, or were Mr. ****ing Irrelevant.

To say that you've seen everything you need to see out of a young QB in six starts shows your ignorance on the subject.

Hell, I can't think of ONE team who has ever given their QBOTF less than a full season to prove anything.

Since you keep skirting the issue, feel free to enlighten us on ALL the QB's who have been a Brady-like miracle from Day One. It's a tiny fraction of all the QB's who needed 2-3+ years to develop into a quality player.

Quit making it sound like Roethlisberger and Brady are the rules. They are an anomaly, a rarity.

Oh, and I'll wait...

Micjones
07-22-2008, 04:06 PM
A young QB with as many obstacles as Croyle had to overcome last season...

*Coming in at game 10 (splitting time in mini camp/training camp/practice with Huard)
*Third string RB
*Terrible O Line
*No #2 WR

...won't have much to offer, and it definitely should not be the measuring stick. Please provide multiple examples of this like you say in the NFL, and I would be willing to listen.

Also keep in mind that Croyle had a couple of decent flashes, like his play at Indianapolis, and in New York late in the season where he managed the game well throwing no picks in 43 attempts.

Let's start with Tom Brady...
Here are his numbers after just 6 starts.
Tom Brady
10 TD's
5 INT's
1,273 Passing Yards
Game 4, 148.3 QB Rating
Game 6, 124.4 QB Rating

He was dumped 41 times in his first full year as a starter.
He had an all-world offensive line...

TRR
07-22-2008, 04:08 PM
Let's start with Tom Brady...
Here are his numbers after just 6 starts.
Tom Brady
10 TD's
5 INT's
1,273 Passing Yards
Game 4, 148.3 QB Rating
Game 6, 124.4 QB Rating

He was dumped 41 times in his first full year as a starter.
He had an all-world offensive line...

Tom Brady, as well as maybe a couple of more QB's are the exception. NOT THE RULE.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 04:08 PM
Let's start with Tom Brady...
Here are his numbers after just 6 starts.
Tom Brady
10 TD's
5 INT's
1,273 Passing Yards
Game 4, 148.3 QB Rating
Game 6, 124.4 QB Rating

He was dumped 41 times in his first full year as a starter.
He had an all-world offensive line...

Yeah, let's start with the mother of all exceptions in NFL HISTORY...

:rolleyes:

IIRC, Brady had a pretty solid TEAM around him. Didn't they win the SB or something?

B_Ambuehl
07-22-2008, 04:09 PM
I think Herm and Carl et. al already pretty much realize he can't play, but the fact that he hasn't totally proven that yet has worked to their advantage because it allowed them to address other team needs in the draft and they can afford another year of shitty QB play without getting hammered by the fans. They can wait until next year to get a QB.

Fruit Ninja
07-22-2008, 04:09 PM
By your standards, QB's like Manning, (Peyton or Eli) Aikman, Elway, etc would have never started their 2nd season.Except they were all drafted in round 1. The rules are a little different when you get drafted that high.

Chiefnj2
07-22-2008, 04:10 PM
Barring a complete meltdown you give him the entire season.

If after 10 games he has a 50% completion percentage and a 1:2 Td to INT ration, then maybe you sit him down and tell him that if he doesn't improve Thigpen will get the last few starts.

Bowser
07-22-2008, 04:10 PM
You kids settle down, or I'll pull this car over RIGHT HERE!

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 04:11 PM
Except they were all drafted in round 1. The rules are a little different when you get drafted that high.

Why should it be any different with a team who is rebuilding from literally the ground up?

What do we have to lose?

Thinking like this is just one of many reasons this franchise has never developed a QB...

Micjones
07-22-2008, 04:13 PM
I don't give a shit if they were picked #1 overall, or were Mr. ****ing Irrelevant.

The NFL and knowledgeable fans do. There is obviously a bigger commitment afforded to #1's. That can't even be argued. Why you're trying to argue the point is beyond me.

Croyle's draft position factors into my argument.

To say that you've seen everything you need to see out of a young QB in six starts shows your ignorance on the subject.

You might want to re-read the first passage in your response and then be careful about throwing words like "ignorance" around.

Third Round draft picks don't get the kind of time their First Round counterparts do. There's a reason why.

I said I was willing to sit through 8 more games.

But this "opportunity is all Croyle needs" argument is ridiculous.
Either he has it... Or he doesn't. Opportunity does not a QB make.
He needs the requisite skills. PERIOD.

Quit making it sound like Roethlisberger and Brady are the rules. They are an anomaly, a rarity.

How about Tony Romo?
Or David Garrard?
Or Joe Montana?

I could go on...
This is silly. You're making excuses for this kid.
You're telling me he couldn't have shown me 1 big game in 6 NFL starts.
That's a joke.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 04:15 PM
Why should it be any different with a team who is rebuilding from literally the ground up?

That makes no difference.
First Round picks are afforded plenty of opportunity because the commitment is higher. Bottomline. You have to let the Peyton Manning's of the world play. Because of the draft pick you gave up to take him AND because of the contract he was given.

What do we have to lose?

How about time?

Fruit Ninja
07-22-2008, 04:15 PM
Why should it be any different with a team who is rebuilding from literally the ground up?

What do we have to lose?

Thinking like this is just one of many reasons this franchise has never developed a QB...

It shouldnt be, but it is. Coaches/Front offices are more patient. Why? i couldn't even begin to tell you. Thats only something coaches and GM's could tell you.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 04:20 PM
It's rather simple.

*A First Round pick is more valuable.
*A First Round contract is more expensive.

Chiefnj2
07-22-2008, 04:21 PM
First rounders are always given more time - look at Sims/Freeman/Sands.

Mr. Arrowhead
07-22-2008, 04:26 PM
First rounders are always given more time - look at Sims/Freeman/Sands.
Freeman and sands werent first rounders

Mr. Arrowhead
07-22-2008, 04:27 PM
I have been one of Brodies biggest supporters, but i will give him this whole year to prove something, and if he dont then we need to move on.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 04:27 PM
Tom Brady, as well as maybe a couple of more QB's are the exception. NOT THE RULE.

Figures...
:rolleyes:

So is David Garrard, Joe Montana, Tony Romo, Marc Bulger and other QB's who have shown in 6 games they deserve the job...Or at least more time to lock it down.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 04:29 PM
The NFL and knowledgeable fans do. There is obviously a bigger commitment afforded to #1's. That can't even be argued. Why you're trying to argue the point is beyond me.

Croyle's draft position factors into my argument.



You might want to re-read the first passage in your response and then be careful about throwing words like "ignorance" around.

Third Round draft picks don't get the kind of time their First Round counterparts do. There's a reason why.

I said I was willing to sit through 8 more games.

But this "opportunity is all Croyle needs" argument is ridiculous.
Either he has it... Or he doesn't. Opportunity does not a QB make.
He needs the requisite skills. PERIOD.



How about Tony Romo?
Or David Garrard?
Or Joe Montana?

I could go on...
This is silly. You're making excuses for this kid.
You're telling me he couldn't have shown me 1 big game in 6 NFL starts.
That's a joke.


Yeah, he didn't show one big game...

First start, on the road, against the World ****ing Champions.

A 70% completion percentage, a TD, no turnovers, and a QB rating of 99.2

I'm having a hard time understanding why him being a 3rd round picks has jack shit to do with the fact that the Kansas City Chiefs are REBUILDING, and there's absolutely NO DOWNSIDE to playing this kid every snap, of every game, for the next season, at least.

You're so hell bent on riding him out of town base on his draft location.

Again, I don't care if the kid was picked in the 6th round, if the team thinks he can be the QBOTF, then he should get the time to prove it.

How many teams have had it blow up in their face because they gave up on a kid before giving him a chance, only to succeed elsewhere?

Off the top of my head?

Hasselbeck
Bulger
Anderson
Favre
Brees
Warner

And that's just current-day players.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 04:33 PM
Figures...
:rolleyes:

So is David Garrard, Joe Montana, Tony Romo, Marc Bulger and other QB's who have shown in 6 games they deserve the job...Or at least more time to lock it down.

Great list of FOUR GUYS.

Two of which were surrounded by the greatest offensive talent of that era.

Another who has a great surrounding cast, and an OC who wants to air it out constantly.

And another who's proven precisely jack shit, other than having a great 2007 season.

Third Eye
07-22-2008, 04:35 PM
I have been one of Brodies biggest supporters, but i will give him this whole year to prove something, and if he dont then we need to move on.

That pretty much sums up my opinion, but with worse english. :D

SBK
07-22-2008, 04:35 PM
I would expect him to get a little better all year long. If his last 4 games aren't better than the first 4 then you have a problem.

tmax63
07-22-2008, 04:37 PM
To answer the original question, a full year. To answer question #2, show improvement through this year. He didn't do as horridly last year as some haters let on. He should have a better team around him this year and can show some of the skills he has. He has a veteran OC that will fit the offense to his strengths and I think he could really show the non-believers some things. If he stinks it up and shows little/no improvement then he should be in a battle for the job next year. As long as he shows steady improvement through the year he earns the right to keep on improving next year.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 04:38 PM
First rounders are always given more time - look at Sims/Freeman/Sands.


I'm not arguing that 1st rounders aren't given more time.

I'm simply saying it's borderline retarded NOT to give a 3rd round QB with SIX starts - who's gone through TWO offensive coordinators, one who was borderline retarded himself - on a rebuilding team more than 14 ****ing starts to prove himself.

Mic has hated Croyle from the get-go, he'll fight to the death over this one.

TRR
07-22-2008, 04:39 PM
Figures...
:rolleyes:

So is David Garrard, Joe Montana, Tony Romo, Marc Bulger and other QB's who have shown in 6 games they deserve the job...Or at least more time to lock it down.

Read my other post. Tell me a QB who's starting RB was a 3rd stringer, and their O Line was as bad as KC's....

Don't play dumb and say David Garrard when his O Line is solid, and he had two RB's that were better than KC's starting one at the time Croyle came in.

Or Tony Romo who had a solid RB, a good O Line, and Owens, Glenn, and Whitten to throw too.

Come on, make an equal comparison....

Micjones
07-22-2008, 04:46 PM
Yeah, he didn't show one big game...

First start, on the road, against the World ****ing Champions.

A 70% completion percentage, no turnovers, and a QB rating of 99.2

That's a big game? His 169 yard, 6.3 yards per pass, 1 TD day?
Gimme a break.

I'm having a hard time understanding why him being a 3rd round picks has jack shit to do with the fact that the Kansas City Chiefs are REBUILDING, and there's absolutely NO DOWNSIDE to playing this kid every snap, of every game, for the next season, at least.

Sure there is. You lose valuable time.
If you know he isn't the guy it's time to move on and make the best of the time you have left with three of your best offensive players (Waters/Gonzalez/Johnson).

You're so hell bent on riding him out of town base on his draft location.

Yeah, his play be damned...

Hasselbeck

Green Bay certainly made fools of themselves keeping the Hall of Fame guy over Hasselbeck.

Bulger, Anderson

Good examples. I can't and won't argue.
Though I would say they were released because their teams believed they had no inherent value and NOT because they played poorly. That happens all the time in the NFL. You can only keep so many guys. Every now and again a talented player will get away.

Brees

San Diego screwed that one up big time. I stand in agreement.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 04:50 PM
Read my other post. Tell me a QB who's starting RB was a 3rd stringer, and their O Line was as bad as KC's...

Kolby Smith was the backup.
And I think I would argue that Tom Brady's supporting cast was comparable.
He did have a reliable rusher, but his pass-catchers weren't as productive.
And again, he was sacked 41 times his rookie season. So obviously the protection wasn't there either.

Don't play dumb and say David Garrard when his O Line is solid, and he had two RB's that were better than KC's starting one at the time Croyle came in.

Or Tony Romo who had a solid RB, a good O Line, and Owens, Glenn, and Whitten to throw too.

Come on, make an equal comparison....

Hold on...
Is the argument that he hasn't had sufficient time to produce or that he doesn't have weapons to produce with?

The story seems to be changing.

If the argument is that he doesn't have enough around him...
He doesn't need more time. I can tell you now that he won't pan out.

angelo
07-22-2008, 04:53 PM
I have never been sold on Croyle.

I think he is a nice kid that might be a decent back up.

I dream of being proven wrong. I pulled for him every time he lined up behind center. I hope he worked this year on finesse, on his reads, on not telescoping his passes and his overall body strength.

I am not the football guru most of you are. I can not spout off stat's like playing this little piggy.

I am willing to give him the year. We have got no one else to challenge him so let him play. I did want us to draft a QB in the draft but someone like Dennis Dixon or Josh Johnson.

Ang

JuicesFlowing
07-22-2008, 04:56 PM
I think Solari's shit playcalling screwed our offense up last year. I would give Croyle this entire season before making any judgments ... I thought Croyle played better than Huard last season, despite losing every game.

Mecca
07-22-2008, 04:56 PM
This is it, if he's awful this season or gets hurt numerous times/misses significant time due to injury, time to move on.

You can't keep running him back out there time after time. Even if he shows slight development if he can't stay on the field, the story of his career, that means he's a backup.

FAX
07-22-2008, 04:59 PM
In all fairness, Croyle needs another full year under his belt. And a heck of a lot more protein.

FAX

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:01 PM
If after this year, he is either the same or marginally better and got hurt again I guarantee there will be people still saying he's the guy he just needs more....you can't commit year after year to a guy.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:02 PM
According to Mic, here's 3 recent 3rd rounders who should be released immediately from their respective teams. They've shown nothing, yet continued to get playing time after their first 6 starts...what gives?

Trent Edwards: 102/157, 65% completion percentage, 1TD/5INT, 1047 yards. Stats declined rapidly after those six games, save on big game against Miami. Yet, he's the starter in Buffalo.

Tarvaris Jackson: 75/152, 49% completion percentage, 3TD/8 INT, 800 yards. Started another 8 games after that debacle, and is still the starter in Minnesota.

Chris Simms: 103/175, 59% completion percentage, 5TD/5INT, 1242 yards. Debatable that barring injury, he might STILL be the starter in Tampa.



Croyle played no worse than any of these 3, yet has the least amount of playing time of the group.

rad
07-22-2008, 05:02 PM
That's a big game? His 169 yard, 6.3 yards per pass, 1 TD day?
Gimme a break.





Sure there is. You lose valuable time.
If you know he isn't the guy it's time to move on and make the best of the time you have left with three of your best offensive players (Waters/Gonzalez/Johnson).



Yeah, his play be damned...



Green Bay certainly made fools of themselves keeping the Hall of Fame guy over Hasselbeck.



Good examples. I can't and won't argue.
Though I would say they were released because their teams believed they had no inherent value and NOT because they played poorly. That happens all the time in the NFL. You can only keep so many guys. Every now and again a talented player will get away.



San Diego screwed that one up big time. I stand in agreement.

Yes, that is a big game.

CupidStunt
07-22-2008, 05:03 PM
I would say about 12 games. That gives four to a guy like Thigpen. No use in wasting them if Croyle does NOTHING. Now, if Croyle stinks for six and then shows some mild to moderate improvement over the next six, I'd give him the rest of the season and go from there.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:06 PM
This thread is amusing.

I'd like to watch the NFL some of you are apparently watching, where if a QB doesn't produce in his first full year, he must be a bust.

Wonder how many HOFers, Super Bowl Champions or MVP's of the league would have never existed under these conditions.

blueballs
07-22-2008, 05:07 PM
Mike Solari - Dick Curl - Herm Edwards
McIntosh - Turley - Sivteck
Smith - Boomer - some guy washing tractors the week before

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:09 PM
Yes, that is a big game.


Not in Mic's world, because he didn't have ridiculous SportsCenter worthy numbers.

Nevermind it was his first NFL start, on the road, against the defending Champs, and all Croyle did was march his team down the field late, and kept them in the game - which they should have won, against a vastly superior opponent.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:12 PM
I would say about 12 games. That gives four to a guy like Thigpen. No use in wasting them if Croyle does NOTHING. Now, if Croyle stinks for six and then shows some mild to moderate improvement over the next six, I'd give him the rest of the season and go from there.

No offense, but what the hell would we be wasting?

If people aren't willing to give Croyle, a 3rd round pick more than 14 games, I guess we'll only need the 4 you're speaking of to know if Thigpen is a bust...

We wouldn't be wasting any time by playing Croyle over the next year and a half.

We ALREADY wasted half of a season by playing Captain Fetal Position instead of giving Croyle that experience.

TRR
07-22-2008, 05:15 PM
Kolby Smith was the backup.
And I think I would argue that Tom Brady's supporting cast was comparable.
He did have a reliable rusher, but his pass-catchers weren't as productive.
And again, he was sacked 41 times his rookie season. So obviously the protection wasn't there either.



Hold on...
Is the argument that he hasn't had sufficient time to produce or that he doesn't have weapons to produce with?

The story seems to be changing.

If the argument is that he doesn't have enough around him...
He doesn't need more time. I can tell you now that he won't pan out.

Kolby Smith was the third stringer behind LJ and Priest Holmes.

The arguement is both...He hasn't received enough playing time, and when he has, he has done it with a less than adequate squad. Why can't I make both arguements??

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:15 PM
Kolby Smith was the third stringer behind LJ and Priest Holmes.

The arguement is both...He hasn't received enough playing time, and when he has, he has done it with a less than adequate squad. Why can't I make both arguements??

They're not arguments, they're excuses. /micjones

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:16 PM
This thread is amusing.

I'd like to watch the NFL some of you are apparently watching, where if a QB doesn't produce in his first full year, he must be a bust.

Wonder how many HOFers, Super Bowl Champions or MVP's of the league would have never existed under these conditions.

He's a 3rd round pick, you have to produce quickly in that spot, the only QB's that get 4 years are top 5 picks due to the money....Brodie Croyle can be easily moved on from with no financial remification.

BigMeatballDave
07-22-2008, 05:18 PM
Good QB's overcome adversity.Not always. Ask Brady if his offense would have performed better in the SB had the line been able to protect him better?

CoMoChief
07-22-2008, 05:19 PM
This season and next because the right side of our line is Swiss Cheese folks.

That and it makes me wanna cry

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:20 PM
He's a 3rd round pick, you have to produce quickly in that spot, the only QB's that get 4 years are top 5 picks due to the money....Brodie Croyle can be easily moved on from with no financial remification.

Then please explain why Simms, Edwards and Jackson continue(d) to start for their respective teams when they've showed no more than Croyle, other than a habit of turning the ball over.

I'm with you 100% on the injury front. Staying healthy is a must.

But some here are trying to imply the kid has no talent - and that's ridiculously untrue.

Being the draft guru you are, even you can admit that he was spoken of as a 1st round talent, but dropped because of his injury history.

BigMeatballDave
07-22-2008, 05:20 PM
This will be his THIRD year, if he doesn't show signs of improvement eight games into, he's likely a bust.Yes. He saw TONS of action his rookie season...

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:22 PM
Not always. Ask Brady if his offense would have performed better in the SB had the line been able to protect him better?

The point of this though is you can't make excuses for him, QB's that win bowls elevate players around them, you don't constantly go "he needs this, he needs that" Either he has it or he doesn't...Any half ass QB can be good with a pro bowl supporting cast...

So far he's shown nothing other than he's still injury prone, the scariest thing is that in that Lions game that Croyle got hurt in Huard came in and looked better.....that should send up some flags.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:22 PM
Not always. Ask Brady if his offense would have performed better in the SB had the line been able to protect him better?

Yeah, Manning and Aikman sure overcame adversity in their first years starting, to the tune of 4-32.

Interesting that they both got much better as the team round them got better...

SNR
07-22-2008, 05:23 PM
He's a 3rd round pick, you have to produce quickly in that spot, the only QB's that get 4 years are top 5 picks due to the money....Brodie Croyle can be easily moved on from with no financial remification.Yeah, but move on to what? Let's say the Chiefs tank it and Croyle is terrible. Do we draft a top 5 guy next year and wait for HIM to prove himself? What if we try to make ends meet with a somewhat pricey free agent (just as an example, like Elvis Grbac to Baltimore in 2001).

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:23 PM
Then please explain why Simms, Edwards and Jackson continue(d) to start for their respective teams when they've showed no more than Croyle, other than a habit of turning the ball over.

I'm with you 100% on the injury front. Staying healthy is a must.

But some here are trying to imply the kid has no talent - and that's ridiculously untrue.

Being the draft guru you are, even you can admit that he was spoken of as a 1st round talent, but dropped because of his injury history.

Simms hasn't really been given a great shot, most people hate Jackson even though Minnesota somehow had a winning record with him....

Croyle got thought of as that due to his arm, like say Kyle Boller, I don't personally see it with him, he's an undersized frail guy who has a strong arm.

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:25 PM
Yeah, Manning and Aikman sure overcame adversity in their first years starting, to the tune of 4-32.

Interesting that they both got much better as the team round them got better...

Now those teams picked #1 overall even the Chiefs weren't THAT bad.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:26 PM
The point of this though is you can't make excuses for him, QB's that win bowls elevate players around them, you don't constantly go "he needs this, he needs that" Either he has it or he doesn't...Any half ass QB can be good with a pro bowl supporting cast...

So far he's shown nothing other than he's still injury prone, the scariest thing is that in that Lions game that Croyle got hurt in Huard came in and looked better.....that should send up some flags.


C'mon, Jeff.

Croyle was 9/11 for 69 yards in the Detroit game before he threw the pick.

It's not like he was stinking up the joint.

LiL stumppy
07-22-2008, 05:26 PM
All season.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:28 PM
Now those teams picked #1 overall even the Chiefs weren't THAT bad.

Please tell me your kidding.

If you're picking in the Top 5, you suck. Period.

Both teams were exactly where the Chiefs are now - at the very beginning of a rebuilding project.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 05:28 PM
This will be Aaron Rodgers' FOURTH year, and by your standards, should be great his first year starting.

Very good point.

Which is why the Chiefs should have a veteran QB starting this year, IMO. If the line isn't much improved, Croyle will be injured (again) and he'll lose another year of development, even if that development is running the taxi squad and learning the new system.

Croyle isn't Aikman. He isn't Manning. He's not even Eli Manning. He's a third round QB that's very injury prone. IMO, he shouldn't be on the field with an extremely young team and an offensive line that's completely unproven. In addition to everyone learning a brand new system.

I'm in the minority, of course.

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:28 PM
C'mon, Jeff.

Croyle was 9/11 for 69 yards in the Detroit game before he threw the pick.

It's not like he was stinking up the joint.

Anyone who watched that knows how it looked...Croyle kept throwing that dink until he got baited, fine but he for the most part looked bad.

BigMeatballDave
07-22-2008, 05:30 PM
Those were #1 overall draft picks.
The way their respective franchises handled them has ZERO bearing on what we do with Croyle.I hate this excuse of yours. Its a ****ing cop-out.

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:32 PM
Croyle is getting his year, he's not going to get 3 years, no way no how, it will get them all fired.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:32 PM
Very good point.

Which is why the Chiefs should have a veteran QB starting this year, IMO. If the line isn't much improved, Croyle will be injured (again) and he'll lose another year of development, even if that development is running the taxi squad and learning the new system.

Croyle isn't Aikman. He isn't Manning. He's not even Eli Manning. He's a third round QB that's very injury prone. IMO, he shouldn't be on the field with an extremely young team and an offensive line that's completely unproven. In addition to everyone learning a brand new system.

I'm in the minority, of course.


All due respect, Dane, but he would be losing a year of development by riding the pine behind a veteran as well.

(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...

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 05:33 PM
All due respect, Dane, but he would be losing a year of development by riding the pine behind a veteran as well.

(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...

QFT.

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:33 PM
Reality here is you can't expect a mid round pick to get what a top 5 guy does, the only way that happens is when he's on the field he does show something,.

FAX
07-22-2008, 05:34 PM
Personally, I think it's astonishingly amazing how some of you guys can analyze Croyle's performance and draw solid conclusions when you know damn good and well he had no protection and no running game whatsoever. How you can accurately evaluate a quarterback trying to operate under those circumstances is beyond me.

FAX

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 05:35 PM
All due respect, Dane, but he would be losing a year of development by riding the pine behind a veteran as well.

(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...

And Kurt Warner didn't have two ACL surgeries or miss training camp due to shoulder issues.

Kurt Warner played in the Arena League and the World League. He gained a ton of experience and confidence playing with players on his own level.

Everyone's different. And Brodie Croyle isn't Kurt Warner.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 05:35 PM
I hate this excuse of yours. Its a ****ing cop-out.

Really?

So Croyle is a HOF in the wings?

Awesome!

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:38 PM
Reality here is you can't expect a mid round pick to get what a top 5 guy does, the only way that happens is when he's on the field he does show something,.

I think you know that I'm not expecting him to get the 4 years it took Eli Manning to pull his head out of his ass.

If guys like Edwards and Jackson are going to get 24-30 starts, which it looks like they will, with MUCH better teams around them BTW - then there's absolutely NO REASON why a team that is literally on the ground floor of a rebuild can't give their supposed QBOTF another year and a half.

Christ, we don't even have anyone to play behind him - it's not like we drafted Matt Ryan and we have to rush Croyle. The earliest another guy would play is 2010, unless they drafted a guy and started him IMMEDIATELY in 2009, which I seriously doubt.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 05:39 PM
Reality here is you can't expect a mid round pick to get what a top 5 guy does, the only way that happens is when he's on the field he does show something,.

I don't think it makes any difference where you are drafted, if the team has proclaimed you the QB, and has committed to you for the season. 2008 is Croyle's show. Win or lose. I'm sure if he is not making plays by week 12, the scouting team is going to be focusing on QBs. This is probably his only shot.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:39 PM
Personally, I think it's astonishingly amazing how some of you guys can analyze Croyle's performance and draw solid conclusions when you know damn good and well he had no protection and no running game whatsoever. How you can accurately evaluate a quarterback trying to operate under those circumstances is beyond me.

FAX

Because every ****ing one of them thinks you have to be a 1st round draft pick to be worth a shit as a QB.

kcchiefsus
07-22-2008, 05:40 PM
Figures...
:rolleyes:

So is David Garrard, Joe Montana, Tony Romo, Marc Bulger and other QB's who have shown in 6 games they deserve the job...Or at least more time to lock it down.


Let's take a look at another quarterback who was complete shit as a first year starter:

John Elway
7 touchdowns
14 interceptions
47.5 completion %
54.9 QB rating

You can argue that Croyle does not deserve as much time to prove himself because he is not a first rounder. But the fact is there isn't anybody better who we should be given time to develop so by default he gets this entire season. If he sucks then by all means we get somebody else next year. But saying he only gets 8 games is pointless. Who else are we going to go to? Tyler Thigpen?

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:40 PM
I think you know that I'm not expecting him to get the 4 years it took Eli Manning to pull his head out of his ass.

If guys like Edwards and Jackson are going to get 24-30 starts, which it looks like they will, with MUCH better teams around them BTW - then there's absolutely NO REASON why a team that is literally on the ground floor of a rebuild can't give their supposed QBOTF another year and a half.

Christ, we don't even have anyone to play behind him - it's not like we drafted Matt Ryan and we have to rush Croyle. The earliest another guy would play is 2010, unless they drafted a guy and started him IMMEDIATELY in 2009, which I seriously doubt.

If they don't get another QB and he's bad this year that can be explained to an extent, the issue is I don't want to after this year if Croyle is bad be told he's a reason to not get another QB...

I think next years QB class blows but Croyle if he's bad again or gets hurt again no longer becomes a reason to not get another QB.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 05:41 PM
I think you know that I'm not expecting him to get the 4 years it took Eli Manning to pull his head out of his ass.

If guys like Edwards and Jackson are going to get 24-30 starts, which it looks like they will, with MUCH better teams around them BTW - then there's absolutely NO REASON why a team that is literally on the ground floor of a rebuild can't give their supposed QBOTF another year and a half.

Christ, we don't even have anyone to play behind him - it's not like we drafted Matt Ryan and we have to rush Croyle. The earliest another guy would play is 2010, unless they drafted a guy and started him IMMEDIATELY in 2009, which I seriously doubt.

I think if Croyle throws as many or more TDs than ints this year. He starts 2009 under center.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 05:41 PM
Because every ****ing one of them thinks you have to be a 1st round draft pick to be worth a shit as a QB.

I wouldn't go that far but with very few notable exceptions (Tom Brady & Joe Montana being the most obvious), 24 of 42 Super Bowls were won by first round QB's.

That's certainly no coincidence.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:44 PM
I wouldn't go that far but with very few notable exceptions (Tom Brady & Joe Montana being the most obvious), 24 of 42 Super Bowls were won by first round QB's.

That's certainly no coincidence.

Wow, a little more than half.

They way some are acting around here, it should be 40 of 42.

alanm
07-22-2008, 05:44 PM
He's started SIX games in the NFL. Less than half of a full season.

3 years doesn't mean much compared to the amount of time he's actually spent on the field, in games that count.

This will be Aaron Rodgers' FOURTH year, and by your standards, should be great his first year starting.

Odds are against him, and he has a great TEAM around him. Solid OL play, good WR corp, good coaching.

Croyle has none of that.
Most teams don't truly evaluate a QB until they've started 24-32 games. Croyle has 6 and everyone is ready to throw him under the bus. :rolleyes:

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:46 PM
If they don't get another QB and he's bad this year that can be explained to an extent, the issue is I don't want to after this year if Croyle is bad be told he's a reason to not get another QB...

I think next years QB class blows but Croyle if he's bad again or gets hurt again no longer becomes a reason to not get another QB.

FWIW, I'm of the opinion that we draft a QB next year regardless of how Croyle performs in 2008.

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:46 PM
Wow, a little more than half.

They way some are acting around here, it should be 40 of 42.

You honestly probably shouldn't use Edwards as an example, he got time as a rookie and his team actually improved with him, that's why he's getting another year.....it's pretty easily argued he's way ahead of Croyle at a younger age.

CupidStunt
07-22-2008, 05:46 PM
No offense, but what the hell would we be wasting?

Time and opportunity. Four games is a quarter of the season. A quarter of the season is a quarter of the season we'd waste in 2009/10 by looking at someone else again.

If people aren't willing to give Croyle, a 3rd round pick more than 14 games, I guess we'll only need the 4 you're speaking of to know if Thigpen is a bust...


Croyle's had time, and looks like dogshit most of the time. Another 12 games is ample time for him to show SOMETHING. That's the point I'm making. I'm not saying he needs to throw for 3000 yards with a 3:1 TD:INT ratio in those 12 games, but he damn sure needs to do better than what I think he might do. A glimmer of genuine hope buys him the season, if not longer.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:48 PM
You honestly probably shouldn't use Edwards as an example, he got time as a rookie and his team actually improved with him, that's why he's getting another year.....it's pretty easily argued he's way ahead of Croyle at a younger age.

The stats don't bear that out, and you're ALWAYS talking about how Buffalo has a ton more talent than KC.

He SHOULD be doing REMARKABLY better than Croyle, but IMO, he's not. At least not in the only way to compare them, since Edwards has started more games than Croyle...

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 05:49 PM
Wow, a little more than half.

They way some are acting around here, it should be 40 of 42.

A little more than half? It's 58% in 42 years.

Keep in mind that the NFL Draft used to have 12 rounds, then 8 and now 7.

That's a huge statistic.

LiL stumppy
07-22-2008, 05:49 PM
Personally, I think it's astonishingly amazing how some of you guys can analyze Croyle's performance and draw solid conclusions when you know damn good and well he had no protection and no running game whatsoever. How you can accurately evaluate a quarterback trying to operate under those circumstances is beyond me.

FAX

Indeed. No one knows how good he will be next year with new surroundings.

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:49 PM
The stats don't bear that out, and you're ALWAYS talking about how Buffalo has a ton more talent than KC.

He SHOULD be doing REMARKABLY better than Croyle, but IMO, he's not. At least not in the only way to compare them, since Edwards has started more games than Croyle...

They really don't....I used Buffalo as an example of how a LT won't make the offense much better they were 28th in offense.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:50 PM
Time and opportunity. Four games is a quarter of the season. A quarter of the season is a quarter of the season we'd waste in 2009/10 by looking at someone else again.



Croyle's had time, and looks like dogshit most of the time. Another 12 games is ample time for him to show SOMETHING. That's the point I'm making. I'm not saying he needs to throw for 3000 yards with a 3:1 TD:INT ratio in those 12 games, but he damn sure needs to do better than what I think he might do. A glimmer of genuine hope buys him the season, if not longer.

You're not going to draft another QBOTF before April of 2009.

Not sure how we'd be wasting time in 2009/2010 when that QB isn't even on the roster yet.

Had we drafted Ryan/Flacco/Brohm this year, I'd agree 100%.

But there's no one behind Croyle who "saves" us any time if Croyle plays poorly. 2009 is the earliest you're getting a legit QBOTF in here.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:52 PM
They really don't....I used Buffalo as an example of how a LT won't make the offense much better they were 28th in offense.

Because like in KC, their OC is a fuggin moron.

Buffalo is well ahead of KC. This is not debatable.

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:52 PM
Someone else will get time anyway the odds of Croyle playing 16 games are same as Clayton getting laid.

LiL stumppy
07-22-2008, 05:52 PM
They really don't....I used Buffalo as an example of how a LT won't make the offense much better they were 28th in offense.

A LT can provide better pass blocking from the backside of the QB, allowing him for time to read and throw, which in essence, CAN improve your offense.

Mecca
07-22-2008, 05:54 PM
Because like in KC, their OC is a fuggin moron.

Buffalo is well ahead of KC. This is not debatable.

On defense yes, on offense it's not that much different...their OL is better but overall it's close.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:56 PM
A little more than half? It's 58% in 42 years.

Keep in mind that the NFL Draft used to have 12 rounds, then 8 and now 7.

That's a huge statistic.

Which means that 42% of the time, a QB drafted in rounds 2-?? won the SB.

Not the overwhelming, impossible odds that some are making it to be.

And again, football is a TEAM game.

I can think of 1 of those 1st round QB's who won a ring and is a complete POS.

If winning the SB is the only criteria for being a great QB, then this league has been full of bums for years...

Bwana
07-22-2008, 05:57 PM
I will stand behind him until he starts throwing up ducks.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 05:59 PM
On defense yes, on offense it's not that much different...their OL is better but overall it's close.

They have a much better OL and a much better running game than Croyle had to work with.

WR would be a SLIGHT edge to KC, Bowe outgained Evans by 150 yards.

TE is a landslide in favor of KC.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:04 PM
Which means that 42% of the time, a QB drafted in rounds 2-?? won the SB.

Not the overwhelming, impossible odds that some are making it to be.

And again, football is a TEAM game.

I can think of 1 of those 1st round QB's who won a ring and is a complete POS.

If winning the SB is the only criteria for being a great QB, then this league has been full of bums for years...

I think you're missing the point.

If I have an almost 60% chance to win the Super Bowl with a first round draft choice, why would I even waste a pick on a 2nd through 5th?

There are a few HOFer's that through off the curve. Tom Brady & Joe Montana. They account for a combined 7 Super Bowls. But here's the way it breaks down:

1: 24 of 42
2: 2 of 42
3: 5 of 42 (Montana & Hostetler)
4: 1 of 42 (Theisman)
5: ZERO
6: 4 of 42 (Brady 3, Rypien 1)
7: ZERO

Undrafted or later than round 7: Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Kurt Warner & Brad Johnson.

This also doesn't take into account the hundreds of quarterbacks drafted in the past 42 years in each and every round. Just the Super Bowl winners.

And in retrospect, shouldn't Tom Brady & Joe Montana have been drafted in the first round? They're both HOFer's. And if they had been, that would be an astounding 31 of 42 in the first!

So ask yourself: Are you better off trying to develop first round talent or non-first round talent?

To me, the answer is crystal clear.

TRR
07-22-2008, 06:09 PM
I think you're missing the point.

If I have an almost 60% chance to win the Super Bowl with a first round draft choice, why would I even waste a pick on a 2nd through 5th?

There are a few HOFer's that through off the curve. Tom Brady & Joe Montana. They account for a combined 7 Super Bowls. But here's the way it breaks down:

1: 24 of 42
2: 2 of 42
3: 5 of 42 (Montana & Hostetler)
4: 1 of 42 (Theisman)
5: ZERO
6: 4 of 42 (Brady 3, Rypien 1)
7: ZERO

Undrafted or later than round 7: Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Kurt Warner & Brad Johnson.

This also doesn't take into account the hundreds of quarterbacks drafted in the past 42 years in each and every round. Just the Super Bowl winners.

And in retrospect, shouldn't Tom Brady & Joe Montana have been drafted in the first round? They're both HOFer's. And if they had been, that would be an astounding 31 of 42 in the first!

So ask yourself: Are you better off trying to develop first round talent or non-first round talent?

To me, the answer is crystal clear.

Could that be because teams are less likely to give up on them as easily as a late round QB? Just within recent memory, Eli Manning would have neve had the chance to win last years Super Bowl if the Giants didn't give up so much to acquire him from SD...

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:11 PM
I think you're missing the point.

If I have an almost 60% chance to win the Super Bowl with a first round draft choice, why would I even waste a pick on a 2nd through 5th?

There are a few HOFer's that through off the curve. Tom Brady & Joe Montana. They account for a combined 7 Super Bowls. But here's the way it breaks down:

1: 24 of 42
2: 2 of 42
3: 5 of 42 (Montana & Hostetler)
4: 1 of 42 (Theisman)
5: ZERO
6: 4 of 42 (Brady 3, Rypien 1)
7: ZERO

Undrafted or later than round 7: Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Kurt Warner & Brad Johnson.

This also doesn't take into account the hundreds of quarterbacks drafted in the past 42 years in each and every round. Just the Super Bowl winners.

And in retrospect, shouldn't Tom Brady & Joe Montana have been drafted in the first round? They're both HOFer's. And if they had been, that would be an astounding 31 of 42 in the first!

So ask yourself: Are you better off trying to develop first round talent or non-first round talent?

To me, the answer is crystal clear.

You can throw out all the #s you want to. Being a first round pick, doesn't mean you will do a damn thing, being undrafted doesn't mean you will fail.
On a large scale, and as whole, these percentages, hold weight, but a players chances, on an individual level are not influenced by the QBs who have played before them.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:12 PM
Trent Edwards: 102/157, 65% completion percentage, 1TD/5INT, 1047 yards. Stats declined rapidly after those six games, save on big game against Miami. Yet, he's the starter in Buffalo.

Tarvaris Jackson: 75/152, 49% completion percentage, 3TD/8 INT, 800 yards. Started another 8 games after that debacle, and is still the starter in Minnesota.

Chris Simms: 103/175, 59% completion percentage, 5TD/5INT, 1242 yards. Debatable that barring injury, he might STILL be the starter in Tampa.

Jackson's job is so secure the Vikings drafted Josh David Booty in Round 5 of the NFL Draft. And the team is currently being investigated for having tampered with the QB of another franchise.

Simms has been on the chopping block two years running.
He will not be the Bucs starter when the season opens.

Edwards is the only QB on this list whose job is safe.

Come again?

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:12 PM
Could that be because teams are less likely to give up on them as easily as a late round QB? Just within recent memory, Eli Manning would have neve had the chance to win last years Super Bowl if the Giants didn't give up so much to acquire him from SD...

I don't think so, Dude.

Are you telling me that had if NY hadn't traded for Manning, Manning wouldn't be capable of winning a Super Bowl?

That's ridiculous logic.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:14 PM
Could that be because teams are less likely to give up on them as easily as a late round QB? Just within recent memory, Eli Manning would have neve had the chance to win last years Super Bowl if the Giants didn't give up so much to acquire him from SD...

Good point.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:14 PM
Yes, that is a big game.

No sir. It's not.
He completed 19 passes for 169 yards. He threw for 1 TD.
I'm sorry...

TRR
07-22-2008, 06:14 PM
I don't think so, Dude.

Are you telling me that had if NY hadn't traded for Manning, Manning wouldn't be capable of winning a Super Bowl?

That's ridiculous logic.

No, I'm saying that because the Giants traded for Manning with SD, and essentially spent a first round pick on him plus, the Giants gave him more of an opportunity to see if he could do the job, than say a 3rd or 4th round QB.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:15 PM
I don't think so, Dude.

Are you telling me that had if NY hadn't traded for Manning, Manning wouldn't be capable of winning a Super Bowl?

That's ridiculous logic.

No he's saying that if the Giants had picked him in the third round, he would have been canned before he could ever come into his own, but since he was the #1 overall pick his chances of succeeding were multiplied by four years.

TRR
07-22-2008, 06:16 PM
No sir. It's not.
He completed 19 passes for 169 yards. He threw for 1 TD.
I'm sorry...

Compared to veteran QB's it isn't. Considering it was Croyle's first start in the NFL against the defending champs on the road, it was a very big game. He managed that game well, and played Peyton Manning evenly.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:16 PM
I think you're missing the point.

If I have an almost 60% chance to win the Super Bowl with a first round draft choice, why would I even waste a pick on a 2nd through 5th?

There are a few HOFer's that through off the curve. Tom Brady & Joe Montana. They account for a combined 7 Super Bowls. But here's the way it breaks down:

1: 24 of 42
2: 2 of 42
3: 5 of 42 (Montana & Hostetler)
4: 1 of 42 (Theisman)
5: ZERO
6: 4 of 42 (Brady 3, Rypien 1)
7: ZERO

Undrafted or later than round 7: Bart Starr, Roger Staubach, Kurt Warner & Brad Johnson.

This also doesn't take into account the hundreds of quarterbacks drafted in the past 42 years in each and every round. Just the Super Bowl winners. And in retrospect, shouldn't Tom Brady & Joe Montana have been drafted in the first round? They're both HOFer's. And if they had been, that would be an astounding 31 of 42 in the first!

So ask yourself: Are you better off trying to develop first round talent or non-first round talent?

To me, the answer is crystal clear.

If there weren't 52 other guys on a team that are responsible for a team reaching/winning a SB, then I'd be on board with you.

For me, 58% isn't an overwhelming-enough number to overlook the stats regarding 1st round QB busts and the crippling effects they have on a franchise.

I'm not saying you NEVER take that chance, but in a weak QB class like this year, the smart move is to pass, IMO. Especially when you have a kid who you think is your guy, and he only has six starts under his belt.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:17 PM
Kolby Smith was the third stringer behind LJ and Priest Holmes.

That was as much political as it was anything else, but touche.

The arguement is both...He hasn't received enough playing time, and when he has, he has done it with a less than adequate squad. Why can't I make both arguements??

Because you're interchanging them where it suits you.

Mecca
07-22-2008, 06:17 PM
Um that's just common logic there's a reason a guy is taken in the 1st round as compared to the 3rd.

TRR
07-22-2008, 06:19 PM
That was as much political as it was anything else, but touche.



Because you're interchanging them where it suits you.

I'm interchanging because it's the truth. Talk to any person with NFL knowledge, and he is going to tell you (1) Croyle hasn't been given enough time to really know what he is. And (2) the team around him last year was complete shit, minus a veteran TE and rookie WR.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:20 PM
Jackson's job is so secure the Vikings drafted Josh David Booty in Round 5 of the NFL Draft. And the team is currently being investigated for having tampered with the QB of another franchise.

Simms has been on the chopping block two years running.
He will not be the Bucs starter when the season opens.

Edwards is the only QB on this list whose job is safe.

Come again?

According to your logic, JDB will only see six or seven starts...Jackson is safe.

Seriously, if they were concerned about Jackson, they would have taken a QB much higher than the 5th round. He was a value pick, plain and simple, just like GB taking Brohm when Rodgers hasn't even started a game.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:20 PM
No, I'm saying that because the Giants traded for Manning with SD, and essentially spent a first round pick on him plus, the Giants gave him more of an opportunity to see if he could do the job, than say a 3rd or 4th round QB.

No ****ing way.

The Giants traded for him because they KNEW that he was a capable QB. His pedigree was only exceeded by his brother, Peyton.

I'd take Eli over Rivers any day of the week.

TRR
07-22-2008, 06:22 PM
No ****ing way.

The Giants traded for him because they KNEW that he was a capable QB. His pedigree was only exceeded by his brother, Peyton.

I'd take Eli over Rivers any day of the week.


YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT COMPLETELY!!

I am saying that Eli Manning was given more of a shot in NY because he was a 1st round draft pick. If Manning was a 4th rounder, he would have been benched way before last season ever took place.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:23 PM
Not always. Ask Brady if his offense would have performed better in the SB had the line been able to protect him better?

Better is relative.

He played well despite being dumped 5 times.
He completed 60% of his passes at 9 yards per clip for 266 yards and 1 TD.
NO interceptions.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:24 PM
Um that's just common logic there's a reason a guy is taken in the 1st round as compared to the 3rd.

And in Croyle's case, it was injuries, not talent.

You know as well as I do he was highly regarded out of Alabama - his injury history scared teams off.

IIRC, one of the ex-QB's who's now a commentator, either Jaws or Young, I think, thought he was right there with Cutler - a legit 1st round talent.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:24 PM
Um that's just common logic there's a reason a guy is taken in the 1st round as compared to the 3rd.

BS. There's too many examples for either argument.

Look at Drew Brees. Some QBs develop, along with every other position, develop in their third, or even fourth NFL season. The Fact is you just dont know.

The Chargers basically gave up on the guy, and ended up with an inferior QB because of it. Not to say they did the wrong thing, just that, you just don't know. Maybe a QB wasn't that great their final season of College football. That doesn't mean they could never be a quality QB in the future.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:25 PM
BS. There's too many examples for either argument.

Look at Drew Brees. Some QBs develop, along with every other position, develop in their third, or even fourth NFL season. The Fact is you just dont know.

The Chargers basically gave up on the guy, and ended up with an inferior QB because of it. Not to say they did the wrong thing, just that, you just don't know. Maybe a QB wasn't that great their final season of College football. That doesn't mean they could never be a quality QB in the future.

IMO, the Chargers would have a Lombardi Trophy by now had they kept Brees.

I think the Saints sure would have liked to have Marc Bulger running the show instead of Aaron ****ing Brooks.

Baltimore had their QBOTF, and let him go. Now he whips their ass twice a year.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:25 PM
According to your logic, JDB will only see six or seven starts...Jackson is safe.

Six starts is enough to have played 1 or more games well enough to warrant additional consideration. Add in three God awful pre-season starts and the fact that said QB was taken in the Third Round... And well...I'm not crying Croyle a river.

Tough shit. He's a professional athlete.
You act like I'm calling for the benching of some 12-year old kid.

Seriously, if they were concerned about Jackson, they would have taken a QB much higher than the 5th round. He was a value pick, plain and simple, just like GB taking Brohm when Rodgers hasn't even started a game.

And the phonecalls to Favre were what?
Courtesy calls to wish him well in his retirement?
Come on!!!

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:27 PM
And in Croyle's case, it was injuries, not talent.

You know as well as I do he was highly regarded out of Alabama - his injury history scared teams off.

IIRC, one of the ex-QB's who's now a commentator, either Jaws or Young, I think, thought he was right there with Cutler - a legit 1st round talent.

Some would say the injuries are a by-product of him being so thin.
Should we overlook that like that's beyond Croyle's control?

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:28 PM
Six starts is enough to have played 1 or more games well enough to warrant additional consideration. Add in three God awful pre-season starts and the fact that said QB was taken in the Third Round... And well...I'm not crying Croyle a river.

Tough shit. He's a professional athlete.
You act like I'm calling for the benching of some 12-year old kid.



And the phonecalls to Favre were what?
Courtesy calls to wish him well in his retirement?
Come on!!!

Dude, it's ****ing Farve. AND you are 1!!!! player away from the SB.(arguably) That's totally different.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:29 PM
Some would say the injuries are a by-product of him being so thin.
Should we overlook that like that's beyond Croyle's control?


My God, I know you're not retarded, but you sure go out of your way to appear that way.

You're saying the kid DOESN'T HAVE TALENT. I'm not debating his injury history.

Many, many scouts and league insiders have made it clear that they think he does.

Period.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:30 PM
IMO, the Chargers would have a Lombardi Trophy by now had they kept Brees.

I think the Saints sure would have liked to have Marc Bulger running the show instead of Aaron ****ing Brooks.

Baltimore had their QBOTF, and let him go. Now he whips their ass twice a year.

Bingo. But those guys weren't 1st rnd picks, so they don't get to develop with the team that drafted them.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:31 PM
If there weren't 52 other guys on a team that are responsible for a team reaching/winning a SB, then I'd be on board with you.

For me, 58% isn't an overwhelming-enough number to overlook the stats regarding 1st round QB busts and the crippling effects they have on a franchise.

I'm not saying you NEVER take that chance, but in a weak QB class like this year, the smart move is to pass, IMO. Especially when you have a kid who you think is your guy, and he only has six starts under his belt.

Duuuuuude.

You're missing the point. There have been over 12,000 football players drafted during the past 42 years. Out of those 12k players, only a select few have played in the Super Bowl. Out of those select few, of the 42 teams that have won the Super Bowl, 58% of the time, it's been won by a first round choice.

That mean that the odds are infintessimal that it will be won by a QB NOT chosen in the first round.

Since 2000, the Super Bowls been won by a 6th rounder (who by all accounts would have been chosen #1 overall, had every team not had shit for brains), two undrafted players (Johnson & Warner), both of whom played in the World League, and the rest by first rounders (Manning, Manning, Rothlisberger & Dilfer).

In today's NFL, you're going to need a first round QB to even sniff the Super Bowl.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:31 PM
Dude, it's ****ing Farve. AND you are 1!!!! player away from the SB.(arguably) That's totally different.

That team is not 1 player away from a Superbowl trip.
And if they were confident in Tavaris Jackson there'd be no reason to even pick up the phone.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:31 PM
Dude, it's ****ing Farve. AND you are 1!!!! player away from the SB.(arguably) That's totally different.

No shit.

They were so worried about Jackson that they drafted precisely ZERO QB's in rounds 1-4 as an insurance policy, now he's using one of the greatest QB's of all ****ing time to try to make a really poorly thought out point.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:32 PM
That team is not 1 player away from a Superbowl trip.
And if they were confident in Tavaris Jackson there'd be no reason to even pick up the phone.


ROFLROFLROFLROFLROFL

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:32 PM
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT COMPLETELY!!

I am saying that Eli Manning was given more of a shot in NY because he was a 1st round draft pick. If Manning was a 4th rounder, he would have been benched way before last season ever took place.

And I say NO ****ING WAY

The Giants weren't going to "give up" on Eli Manning. Ever.

They KNEW he had the goods. Otherwise, they wouldn't have traded up for him. Get it?

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:33 PM
My God, I know you're not retarded, but you sure go out of your way to appear that way.

Ad hominem fallacies...
Cute.

When your arguments fail you. Personal attacks to the rescue!!!

You're saying the kid DOESN'T HAVE TALENT. I'm not debating his injury history.

Never said that.
Talent means dick though if you don't have the intangibles.
Ryan Leaf had talent.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:33 PM
Duuuuuude.

You're missing the point. There have been over 12,000 football players drafted during the past 42 years. Out of those 12k players, only a select few have played in the Super Bowl. Out of those select few, of the 42 teams that have won the Super Bowl, 58% of the time, it's been won by a first round choice.

That mean that the odds are infintessimal that it will be won by a QB NOT chosen in the first round.

Since 2000, the Super Bowls been won by a 6th rounder (who by all accounts would have been chosen #1 overall, had every team not had shit for brains), two undrafted players (Johnson & Warner), both of whom played in the World League, and the rest by first rounders (Manning, Manning, Rothlisberger & Dilfer).

In today's NFL, you're going to need a first round QB to even sniff the Super Bowl.

Tell that to Matt Hasselbeck and Marc Bulger...

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:34 PM
And I say NO ****ING WAY

The Giants weren't going to "give up" on Eli Manning. Ever.

They KNEW he had the goods. Otherwise, they wouldn't have traded up for him. Get it?

They never gave up because he was a #1 overall pick.
You don't give up on those players until you've exhausted every effort in their development.

That CANNOT be argued.
Just stop...

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:36 PM
That team is not 1 player away from a Superbowl trip.
And if they were confident in Tavaris Jackson there'd be no reason to even pick up the phone.

Minnesota believes they are "right there", and honestly, they are STACKED.

Farve could take them to the bowl, TJ can't, but if they can't get a legend, then TJ will get a chance to develop.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:38 PM
They never gave up because he was a #1 overall pick.
You don't give up on those players until you've exhausted every effort in their development.

That CANNOT be argued.
Just stop...

And you just proved OTWP's point. Maybe you didn't understand.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:39 PM
Ad hominem fallacies...
Cute.

When your arguments fail you. Personal attacks to the rescue!!!



Never said that.
Talent means dick though if you don't have the intangibles.
Ryan Leaf had talent.

My arguments aren't the one's failing...do you have a mirror in your house?

And if you know as much about football as you claim, you'd know that almost every scouting report on Croyle at Bama praised his intangibles.

It takes a leader to go 10-2 with that shitpile of a team that surrounded him in 2005...

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:39 PM
YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT COMPLETELY!!

I am saying that Eli Manning was given more of a shot in NY because he was a 1st round draft pick. If Manning was a 4th rounder, he would have been benched way before last season ever took place.

Sorry, I meant TRR's point.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:40 PM
Tell that to Matt Hasselbeck and Marc Bulger...

Dude, I'm talking 2008.

Not 2000. Not 1998. Not 1968.

These guys are so thoroughly evaluated that it's not even funny. The fact that Tom Brady slipped down to the 6th round is ridiculous and I doubt that will happen again in the next 20 years.

Why did Baltimore move up to draft Joe Flacco, who most teams thought would go in the 2nd? Because they saw something no one else did. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.

But if he wins a Super Bowl, it'll be as a first round selection.

Not a second. Not a third.

A first.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:42 PM
Dude, I'm talking 2008.

Not 2000. Not 1998. Not 1968.

These guys are so thoroughly evaluated that it's not even funny. The fact that Tom Brady slipped down to the 6th round is ridiculous and I doubt that will happen again in the next 20 years.

Why did Baltimore move up to draft Joe Flacco, who most teams thought would go in the 2nd? Because they saw something no one else did. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.

But if he wins a Super Bowl, it'll be as a first round selection.

Not a second. Not a third.

A first.

Wow, so a 6th rounder "sniffing" the SB 3 years ago is completely invalid.

Gotcha.

TRR
07-22-2008, 06:43 PM
And I say NO ****ING WAY

The Giants weren't going to "give up" on Eli Manning. Ever.

They KNEW he had the goods. Otherwise, they wouldn't have traded up for him. Get it?

Exactly. 1st rounders are given more of a window than guys drafted in the 3rd round and beyond. That was exactly my point.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:44 PM
Dude, I'm talking 2008.

Not 2000. Not 1998. Not 1968.

These guys are so thoroughly evaluated that it's not even funny. The fact that Tom Brady slipped down to the 6th round is ridiculous and I doubt that will happen again in the next 20 years.

Why did Baltimore move up to draft Joe Flacco, who most teams thought would go in the 2nd? Because they saw something no one else did. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong.

But if he wins a Super Bowl, it'll be as a first round selection.

Not a second. Not a third.

A first.

That's funny because the Ravens seem to always see something in QB's that no one else does. Usually a big arm.. Everyone else sees it, but they look at other things too. Why don't you break down how many QB's are actually taken in rnd 1 compared to other rnds

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:47 PM
Exactly. 1st rounders are given more of a window than guys drafted in the 3rd round and beyond. That was exactly my point.

And in return, they get a much better chance of winning a SB, because they spend a shit load more time under center.

Phillip Rivers may win a SB, but if Drew Brees was still on that team, it would have been a 2nd rouder winning it while a first rnder rode the bench.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:47 PM
Someone call Green Bay and tell them they're ****ing stupid for picking Brian Brohm - odds are he won't win them a Super Bowl...

Why, oh why do teams keep picking QB's in the later rounds?

Don't they realize their wasting their picks?

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:48 PM
That's funny because the Ravens seem to always see something in QB's that no one else does. Usually a big arm.. Everyone else sees it, but they look at other things too. Why don't you break down how many QB's are actually taken in rnd 1 compared to other rnds

You mean the number of QB's chosen in rounds other than round one in each draft?

Whew. That's a lot of work. I'll try to do it someday but I don't have the time right now, while we're having this discussion.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:49 PM
Someone call Green Bay and tell them they're ****ing stupid for picking Brian Brohm - odds are he won't win them a Super Bowl...

Why, oh why do teams keep picking QB's in the later rounds?

Don't they realize their wasting their picks?

Ted Thompson is a moron.

KC Tattoo
07-22-2008, 06:49 PM
It's going to be a fun year! Brodie has "it" . I don't look at him as going to fail, D Bowe and Toney are going to be getting a lot of TDs and LJ is going to get back to form. Is our D going to hold up? We still have to go through growing pains for this to take off, we should be patient with this whole team, not just the QB.

I am exited for the youth movement we finally have, should of could of done this two years ago.

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:49 PM
Minnesota believes they are "right there", and honestly, they are STACKED.

Farve could take them to the bowl, TJ can't, but if they can't get a legend, then TJ will get a chance to develop.

They were so confident in Jackson they were willing to violate NFL rules just to have a conversation with Favre.

Oh and... They drafted another QB in the 5th Round.

AND signed Gus Frerotte...

Yeah. TJ's got NOTHING to worry about.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:49 PM
And in return, they get a much better chance of winning a SB, because they spend a shit load more time under center.

Phillip Rivers may win a SB, but if Drew Brees was still on that team, it would have been a 2nd rouder winning it while a first rnder rode the bench.

Exactly.

People have been wanting to run Eli out of town for 3 years.

He would have never gotten that 4th year to pull his head out of his ass.

He's the poster boy of why you don't give up on a guy you believe in.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:50 PM
Someone call Green Bay and tell them they're ****ing stupid for picking Brian Brohm - odds are he won't win them a Super Bowl...

Why, oh why do teams keep picking QB's in the later rounds?

Don't they realize their wasting their picks?

C'mon, now Bro. Don't take this personal.

All I'm trying to get across is that the safest and best way to guarantee a Super Bowl is by drafting a first round pick. The stats overwhelmingly back that up and again, if you throw out Brady & Montana (both of whom in retrospect would have most certainly be chosen #1 overall), the odds are even slimmer that you'll find a Super Bowl winning QB outside of round one.

TRR
07-22-2008, 06:51 PM
And in return, they get a much better chance of winning a SB, because they spend a shit load more time under center.

Phillip Rivers may win a SB, but if Drew Brees was still on that team, it would have been a 2nd rouder winning it while a first rnder rode the bench.

That is what I was getting at. The same thing goes for Trent Green. He was awful his first season here. He had 24 INT's that season. However, Vermeil gave him time, and a couple of weapons, and he flurished. I think the same can be done if given the time and the weapons....

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:52 PM
And in return, they get a much better chance of winning a SB, because they spend a shit load more time under center.

Phillip Rivers may win a SB, but if Drew Brees was still on that team, it would have been a 2nd rouder winning it while a first rnder rode the bench.

Yeah, but that's the point.

San Diego didn't have enough faith in Brees to win a Super Bowl.

Right or wrong, that was their decision.

Considering that A.J. Smith has been quite successful in talent evaluations, I'd say he should receive the benefit of the doubt on this one.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:52 PM
They were so confident in Jackson they were willing to violate NFL rules just to have a conversation with Favre.

Oh and... They drafted another QB in the 5th Round.

AND signed Gus Frerotte...

Yeah. TJ's got NOTHING to worry about.

You keep spouting off about this "conversation" that took place like Childress and the Vikings GM placed the call.

IIRC, it was a coach who happens to be one of Favre's best friends. And to my knowledge, he's only been ACCUSED of tampering. I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with it being a division rival....

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:53 PM
You mean the number of QB's chosen in rounds other than round one in each draft?

Whew. That's a lot of work. I'll try to do it someday but I don't have the time right now, while we're having this discussion.

I understand. I'm just saying lots of Qbs are taken in the first. More of them fail than not. The nature of the position makes a high # of QBs go in the first, in many drafts, in turn inflating the possibility of a 1st rnder succeeding.

KC Tattoo
07-22-2008, 06:53 PM
C'mon, now Bro. Don't take this personal.

All I'm trying to get across is that the safest and best way to guarantee a Super Bowl is by drafting a first round pick. The stats overwhelmingly back that up and again, if you throw out Brady & Montana (both of whom in retrospect would have most certainly be chosen #1 overall), the odds are even slimmer that you'll find a Super Bowl winning QB outside of round one.

:BS: first round pick does not guarantee a SB holy cow!

Mecca
07-22-2008, 06:54 PM
:BS: first round pick does not guarantee a SB holy cow!

I think his point is when you build a team you're alot more likely to do it the way the Colts did than the way the Patriots did.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:55 PM
Yeah, but that's the point.

San Diego didn't have enough faith in Brees to win a Super Bowl.

Right or wrong, that was their decision.

Considering that A.J. Smith has been quite successful in talent evaluations, I'd say he should receive the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Until he has a ring A.J. Smith is a "good" GM to me. Drew Brees gives them the best chance to win the SB, IMO. He made the wrong call. So where does that leave him. Another year, and LT will be slowing down.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:55 PM
C'mon, now Bro. Don't take this personal.

All I'm trying to get across is that the safest and best way to guarantee a Super Bowl is by drafting a first round pick. The stats overwhelmingly back that up and again, if you throw out Brady & Montana (both of whom in retrospect would have most certainly be chosen #1 overall), the odds are even slimmer that you'll find a Super Bowl winning QB outside of round one.

I'm not taking it personal at all, man. I've got no beef with you.

But there are NO guarantees, 1st round or 7th round.

There is no retrospect. Guys slip in the draft all the time, at all positions.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:55 PM
Exactly.

People have been wanting to run Eli out of town for 3 years.

He would have never gotten that 4th year to pull his head out of his ass.

He's the poster boy of why you don't give up on a guy you believe in.

I fully disagree.

Why do you guys insist on using QB's like Manning, Eli Manning, Aikman and Elway in these discussions? Guys that are giants among the QB world.

A better comparison would be a guy like Kerry Collins or Mark Rypien or Trent Dilfer or Jeff Hostetler. Guys that weren't super-human, had issues and teams gave up on.

No one in their right mind was going to give up on Eli Manning after three seasons. The New York media? Sure. But WTF do they know?

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:55 PM
I think his point is when you build a team you're alot more likely to do it the way the Colts did than the way the Patriots did.

Who has more rings?

Chiefs Pantalones
07-22-2008, 06:56 PM
I'll give him this year. If he hasn't proven much, then bye bye.

FAX
07-22-2008, 06:57 PM
Keep fighting the good fight, Mr. OnTheWarpath58. You're doing great.

I'll be checking in every 50 posts, or so.

FAX

Micjones
07-22-2008, 06:57 PM
You keep spouting off about this "conversation" that took place like Childress and the Vikings GM placed the call.

They wouldn't have the same suasion as his former coach would.
Not to mention the fact that it would've been a hell of a lot more suspicious-looking.

I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with it being a division rival....

Sure, sure.
Teams trump up charges tampering all the time.
Remember that time when Carl Peterson...Uh...Nevermind.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 06:57 PM
Until he has a ring A.J. Smith is a "good" GM to me. Drew Brees gives them the best chance to win the SB, IMO. He made the wrong call. So where does that leave him. Another year, and LT will be slowing down.

Dude, come on. That team is absolutely LOADED at almost every position. Each and every year, AJ Smith takes a player that other teams avoid (Cromartie, Luis Castillo, and so on) and they flourish.

That team will win a Super Bowl. Whether it's this year or next year or the year after. They're just too loaded with talent, much like the Tampa Bay Bucs under Dungy.

It's unavoidable.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 06:57 PM
I fully disagree.

Why do you guys insist on using QB's like Manning, Eli Manning, Aikman and Elway in these discussions? Guys that are giants among the QB world.

A better comparison would be a guy like Kerry Collins or Mark Rypien or Trent Dilfer or Jeff Hostetler. Guys that weren't super-human, had issues and teams gave up on.

No one in their right mind was going to give up on Eli Manning after three seasons. The New York media? Sure. But WTF do they know?

Come on, Dane.

Eli Manning had been a HUGE disappointment up until the last 6 games of the 2007 regular season.

They gave up a ransom for him, and he didn't hold up his end of the bargain for 3.5 years.

KC Tattoo
07-22-2008, 06:57 PM
I think his point is when you build a team you're alot more likely to do it the way the Colts did than the way the Patriots did.


I have allways been for the Chiefs to draft a QB in the first round and would have loved it if like we picked um Dan Marino instead of you know who but that just shows it is not guaranteed.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:58 PM
I'll give him this year. If he hasn't proven much, then bye bye.

I think that's the general consensus, of the fans, and probably the front office.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 06:59 PM
Dude, come on. That team is absolutely LOADED at almost every position. Each and every year, AJ Smith takes a player that other teams avoid (Cromartie, Luis Castillo, and so on) and they flourish.

That team will win a Super Bowl. Whether it's this year or next year or the year after. They're just too loaded with talent, much like the Tampa Bay Bucs under Dungy.

It's unavoidable.

Well when they do, I'll happily agree with you. Until they do, AJ ****ed up in my mind.

blueballs
07-22-2008, 07:00 PM
Actually if Croyle needs time to learn
and high first round picks win super bowls
this year all comes to the same answer -play Croyle

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:03 PM
Well when they do, I'll happily agree with you. Until they do, AJ ****ed up in my mind.


I'm with you on this one.

Sure SD has a ton of talent, but as 2 of the last 3 SB winners show, the most talented team doesn't always win.

And for that 3rd team, how many years did they come up short, and how many changes were made to the roster before they got over the hump?

kcfanXIII
07-22-2008, 07:09 PM
he gets no pressure before game 8. regardless of his performance. 3 things will answer the "how long" question.

1. does he demonstrate the same decision making he made in college? one of the things he was touted for coming out of bama, was his td/int ratio. can that translate into the nfl?

2. can the "injury prone" tag be left on the bench? his durabillity has always been a question. i'll leave it at that.

3. he must improve as the season progresses. mistakes will be made, but if there's no improvement as the season goes on, the leash gets shorter.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:09 PM
Come on, Dane.

Eli Manning had been a HUGE disappointment up until the last 6 games of the 2007 regular season.

They gave up a ransom for him, and he didn't hold up his end of the bargain for 3.5 years.


2005: 1,048 yards. 6TD's, 9 INT's.
2006: 3,762 yards. 24TD's, 17 INT's
2007: 3,224 yards. 24TD's. 18 INT's
2008: 3,336 yards. 23TD's. 20 INT's. Super Bowl Victory.

Outside of his rookie year, how could those numbers be a disappointment? Seriously.

Please explain.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 07:10 PM
I'm with you on this one.

Sure SD has a ton of talent, but as 2 of the last 3 SB winners show, the most talented team doesn't always win.

And for that 3rd team, how many years did they come up short, and how many changes were made to the roster before they got over the hump?

The Chargers had a lot of talent at 4-12.

They've got the patriots, Colts, and Jags, etc to deal with.

Without Brees, they don't beat those guys. A.J. ****ed up.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:13 PM
The Chargers had a lot of talent at 4-12.

They've got the patriots, Colts, and Jags, etc to deal with.

Without Brees, they don't beat those guys. A.J. ****ed up.

No.

Without Philip Rivers and LT in last year's AFC Championship Game (in Foxborough), the Chargers only managed four field goals.

With a healthy Rivers and LT, the Chargers win that game.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:15 PM
What's funny about all this...

The QB's who are 1st round picks SHOULD be the best prepared to succeed quickly in the league, while the later round guys logically should need more time to develop.

Eli Manning needed FIFTY-SEVEN starts before the light bulb went off in his head, and even them he's been consistent for a whopping 4 games - the 2007 Playoffs.

This is a guy who as a R1 pick, should have been lighting it up from Day one, suposedly.

So if an apple from the Manning tree needed 3 1/2 years and 57 starts to "get it, " why do people think that Croyle has been given enough time after SIX starts? Or even another 16, for that matter.

Unless your name is Roethlisberger or Brady, you need time to develop as a young QB in this league, REGARDLESS of your draft position.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:16 PM
No.

Without Philip Rivers and LT in last year's AFC Championship Game (in Foxborough), the Chargers only managed four field goals.

With a healthy Rivers and LT, the Chargers win that game.

Thanks, Creskin.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:17 PM
Thanks, Creskin.

You're welcome o:-)

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:19 PM
Eli Manning needed FIFTY-SEVEN starts before the light bulb went off in his head, and even them he's been consistent for a whopping 4 games - the 2007 Playoffs.

This is a guy who as a R1 pick, should have been lighting it up from Day one, suposedly.

He did.

Did you miss this post?

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4862003&postcount=196

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:23 PM
2005: 1,048 yards. 6TD's, 9 INT's.
2006: 3,762 yards. 24TD's, 17 INT's
2007: 3,224 yards. 24TD's. 18 INT's
2008: 3,336 yards. 23TD's. 20 INT's. Super Bowl Victory.

Outside of his rookie year, how could those numbers be a disappointment? Seriously.

Please explain.

For a 1st round pick who you gave up the moon to get, that's not overly impressive, IMO. Until the Playoffs in 2007, of course.

Averaging over a turnover a game, not good. Even Croyle didn't do that...

Stats tell PART of the story, but they don't tell the WHOLE story.

Up until the playoff run, his leadership had been questioned, his decision making had been questioned - Troy Aikman did a bunch of Giants games and constantly questioned his future.

If his name wasn't Manning, I'd bet that a lot of people question whether that run is what they're going to get down the road, or if he'll revert back to the Eli of old...

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:27 PM
For a 1st round pick who you gave up the moon to get, that's not overly impressive, IMO. Until the Playoffs in 2007, of course.

Averaging over a turnover a game, not good. Even Croyle didn't do that...

Stats tell PART of the story, but they don't tell the WHOLE story.

Up until the playoff run, his leadership had been questioned, his decision making had been questioned - Troy Aikman did a bunch of Giants games and constantly questioned his future.

If his name wasn't Manning, I'd bet that a lot of people question whether that run is what they're going to get down the road, or if he'll revert back to the Eli of old...

Sorry, Man, I don't buy that.

Those are pretty damn good stats for any NFL QB. Any time your TD exceed your INT's, you're in good standing.

Throwing for more than 3,000 yards and 20 TD's a season is nothing to sneeze at, whether it's a QB on his first contract or his last.

Those are damn fine numbers.

Additionally, the INT's can be explained away the same as Trent Green's in his first season. Poor WR corp. Once they added Burress and a few draftees, BAM! He's a Super Bowl winning QB.

If Croyle were to put up 24/17 for the next 5 years, I'd say we'd all be in heaven.

Raiderhader
07-22-2008, 07:28 PM
No offense, but what the hell would we be wasting?

If people aren't willing to give Croyle, a 3rd round pick more than 14 games, I guess we'll only need the 4 you're speaking of to know if Thigpen is a bust...

We wouldn't be wasting any time by playing Croyle over the next year and a half.

We ALREADY wasted half of a season by playing Captain Fetal Position instead of giving Croyle that experience.


Bingo. We wasted time on a old back up who had an over-stated season the year before instead of giving the young talent a chance for on the field experience. That is where the time was wasted. This year is giving him his fair shot.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:30 PM
Speaking of stats not telling the whole story.

Manning's career completion percentage?

54.7. Terrible. Career high of 57.7 in 2006.

Career yards per completion? 6.3

Yards per game? 199.

Career QB rating of 73.4.

If the Giants hadn't shocked the world, or his last name wasn't Manning, he'd be considered an above average QB, at best. Surely not worth what they gave to get him.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:34 PM
If the Giants hadn't shocked the world, or his last name wasn't Manning, he'd be considered an above average QB, at best. Surely not worth what they gave to get him.

Since he won the Super Bowl, he's worth every penny.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:35 PM
If Croyle were to put up 24/17 for the next 5 years, I'd say we'd all be in heaven.

Yeah, if the 85th overall pick went 24/17 for 5 years, I'd be pretty happy.

When the 1st overall does it, I'm not terribly impressed.

JMO.

Call me when Manning's completion percentage breaks 60.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:37 PM
Since he won the Super Bowl, he's worth every penny.

Question:

Could that Giants team have won the SB with another QB?

Drew Brees?

Marc Bulger?

Hell, a healthy Trent Green?

TRR
07-22-2008, 07:37 PM
Since he won the Super Bowl, he's worth every penny.

He didn't win the Super Bowl alone. I know I'm being picky, but I hear that a lot. He played a great game, but it was a team effort (obviously).

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:38 PM
He didn't win the Super Bowl alone. I know I'm being picky, but I hear that a lot. He played a great game, but it was a team effort (obviously).


Exactly.

He gets the pub because they spoiled a perfect season, and his last name is Manning.

The defense won that game for the Giants, period.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 07:40 PM
No.

Without Philip Rivers and LT in last year's AFC Championship Game (in Foxborough), the Chargers only managed four field goals.

With a healthy Rivers and LT, the Chargers win that game.

Speculation.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:41 PM
He didn't win the Super Bowl alone. I know I'm being picky, but I hear that a lot. He played a great game, but it was a team effort (obviously).

Yeah, if the 85th overall pick went 24/17 for 5 years, I'd be pretty happy.

When the 1st overall does it, I'm not terribly impressed.

JMO.

Call me when Manning's completion percentage breaks 60.

Well, it's very clear that there's no way to please either one of you.

Could Bulger have made the throw to Tyree? Trent Green? I don't think so.

If you're quantify a player's drafted position to his numbers and Super Bowl wins, aren't you agreeing with me?

24 of 42 Super Bowls were won by first round draft choices. Therefore, it's highly likely that you'll need first round talent to win, right?

But, it's "okay" if Croyle's 24/17 for five years and doesn't win a Super Bowl, right? Because he's justified his draft position?

I guess I just don't understand this circular logic.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:43 PM
Speculation.

No more than saying that with a great offensive line, Croyle will be a great QB.

Probably far less.

TRR
07-22-2008, 07:44 PM
Well, it's very clear that there's no way to please either one of you.

Could Bulger have made the throw to Tyree? Trent Green? I don't think so.

If you're quantify a player's drafted position to his numbers and Super Bowl wins, aren't you agreeing with me?

24 of 42 Super Bowls were won by first round draft choices. Therefore, it's highly likely that you'll need first round talent to win, right?

But, it's "okay" if Croyle's 24/17 for five years and doesn't win a Super Bowl, right? Because he's justified his draft position?

I guess I just don't understand this circular logic.

Anyone in the world could have made that throw to Tyree....It was Tyree who made the play between several defenders....

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 07:44 PM
Well, it's very clear that there's no way to please either one of you.

Could Bulger have made the throw to Tyree? Trent Green? I don't think so.

If you're quantify a player's drafted position to his numbers and Super Bowl wins, aren't you agreeing with me?

24 of 42 Super Bowls were won by first round draft choices. Therefore, it's highly likely that you'll need first round talent to win, right?

But, it's "okay" if Croyle's 24/17 for five years and doesn't win a Super Bowl, right? Because he's justified his draft position?

I guess I just don't understand this circular logic.

I don't know how TRR's post relates, but I do no agree with double standards because of draft position.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:44 PM
Well, it's very clear that there's no way to please either one of you.

Could Bulger have made the throw to Tyree? Trent Green? I don't think so.

If you're quantify a player's drafted position to his numbers and Super Bowl wins, aren't you agreeing with me?

24 of 42 Super Bowls were won by first round draft choices. Therefore, it's highly likely that you'll need first round talent to win, right?

But, it's "okay" if Croyle's 24/17 for five years and doesn't win a Super Bowl, right? Because he's justified his draft position?

Bulger or Green couldn't have made the throw to Tyree?

We're only talking about the leaders of two of the most prolific offenses in recent memory...

And my point is that IMO, you could have put half of the QB's in the league in that game, and they way the defense played, came out with a win the majority of the time - 1st round pick QB or not.

Otter
07-22-2008, 07:46 PM
All next season then a decision made based on his performance and the options available at qb.

I personally think he's gonna be fine.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:46 PM
No more than saying that with a great offensive line, Croyle will be a great QB.

Probably far less.

I haven't seen a soul say he'll be a great QB regardless of the line, WR's, coaching, etc. That remains to be seen.

We're saying that the kid deserves more than 10-12 games over two seasons with different OC's, players, etc.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 07:47 PM
No more than saying that with a great offensive line, Croyle will be a great QB.

Probably far less.

That's why time will tell with both, and until the Chargers win the SB, or Croyle proves his worth, we will be sceptical of both.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 07:48 PM
I haven't seen a soul say he'll be a great QB regardless of the line, WR's, coaching, etc. That remains to be seen.

We're saying that the kid deserves more than 10-12 games over two seasons with different OC's, players, etc.

Yep. That's all that is being said.

BigMeatballDave
07-22-2008, 07:49 PM
Since he won the Super Bowl, he's worth every penny.Would Trent Dilfer be worth it?

TRR
07-22-2008, 07:49 PM
I don't know how TRR's post relates, but I do no agree with double standards because of draft position.

Beach,

Really my stance is that Croyle should be given a chance to play an entire season, and probably one more with a better supporting cast until a decision is made on him...

I have also said that Croyle's play last season was basically nothing more than playing time because of splitting practice time, and a terrible supporting cast.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:51 PM
Nearing training camp, I'm starting to wonder how soon fellow KC fans will start throwing Croyle under the bus.

Uh, by the looks of this thread, about.....now.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:53 PM
Would Trent Dilfer be worth it?

At the price that Baltimore paid (league minimum), I'd say so.

TRR
07-22-2008, 07:53 PM
Uh, by the looks of this thread, about.....now.

I was inspired to start this thread last week because I saw a post that said something like, "I can't wait for this season to start so Croyle can fail, and we can get a high draft pick."

Poor kid at least deserves a season...I honestly don't know what he can prove in another 6-8 games.

BigMeatballDave
07-22-2008, 07:54 PM
At the price that Baltimore paid (league minimum), I'd say so.:D You skated right by that...

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:55 PM
I haven't seen a soul say he'll be a great QB regardless of the line, WR's, coaching, etc. That remains to be seen.

We're saying that the kid deserves more than 10-12 games over two seasons with different OC's, players, etc.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is that I haven't seen anything from him that separates him from run-of-the-mill QB's. His decision making is fair to poor and he can't stay healthy. He appears to me to be nothing more than a journeyman, backup QB.

But in all sincerity, I hope I'm incorrect.

beach tribe
07-22-2008, 07:56 PM
Beach,

Really my stance is that Croyle should be given a chance to play an entire season, and probably one more with a better supporting cast until a decision is made on him...

I have also said that Croyle's play last season was basically nothing more than playing time because of splitting practice time, and a terrible supporting cast.

I was responding to Dane's post. I understand where you are coming from, and agree with your stance.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 07:56 PM
:D You skated right by that...


I'm 10 pounds heavier on TV, too

TRR
07-22-2008, 07:58 PM
I was responding to Dane's post. I understand where you are coming from, and agree with your stance.

I see that now...

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 07:59 PM
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

My opinion is that I haven't seen anything from him that separates him from run-of-the-mill QB's. His decision making is fair to poor and he can't stay healthy. He appears to me to be nothing more than a journeyman, backup QB.

But in all sincerity, I hope I'm incorrect.

His decision making is fair to poor, yet he averaged only 1 turnover per game in those first 6 starts.

The Amazing Eli Manning averaged 1.25, in his fourth year in the league.

Count Alex's Losses
07-22-2008, 08:00 PM
I wish people would get off Croyle's case. He wasn't good last year but he certainly wasn't completely awful. Other quarterbacks have had worse six-game debuts. Considering his supporting cast he deserves another chance.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 08:02 PM
The icing on the cake for this thread:

Eli Manning's First 6 starts:

74/161

46% completion percentage

833 yards

3TD/8INT


This from a guy who as a #1 pick, should have been ready to go from day 1.

Instead, the "journeyman" 3rd round pick of ours pwned every one of those numbers in his first 6 starts.

Yet people want to continue to argue that 6 games, 14 games, or even 20 games is enough to properly evaluate a QB.

Valiant
07-22-2008, 08:03 PM
Nearing training camp, I'm starting to wonder how soon fellow KC fans will start throwing Croyle under the bus. Last season, Croyle struggled, but had no real help to give KC fans an honest look at what he can do. This season, the line should be a bit better, a healthy LJ should give him a legitimate playmaker in the backfield, and an entire offseason of working as the starting QB could only help...

BUT...

I remember how impatient KC fans were with Trent Green. Most were ready to kill him after the 2001 season, and still weren't happy with him after the 2002 season. Even at the end, after Green became one of the great Chiefs QB's in recent memory, fans were quick to rip him apart, and resurrect the name "TrINT".

My question is, (1) how long will you give Croyle to prove himself? Half the season? All season? And (2) what does he need to do to be brought back as the starting QB for the 2009 season?

Thoughts...

He gets the entire season to prove that he can be a starting NFL QB..

FAX
07-22-2008, 08:05 PM
Awesome job, Mr. OnTheWarpath58.

FAX

Reerun_KC
07-22-2008, 08:07 PM
What does the Chiefs organization or its fan base know about developing a QB?

FAX
07-22-2008, 08:09 PM
What does the Chiefs organization or its fan base know about developing a QB?

Herm says everything is under control.

Except for those pesky 6 things that happen every day.

FAX

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 08:09 PM
The icing on the cake for this thread:

Eli Manning's First 6 starts:

74/161

46% completion percentage

833 yards

3TD/8INT


This from a guy who as a #1 pick, should have been ready to go from day 1.

Instead, the "journeyman" 3rd round pick of ours pwned every one of those numbers in his first 6 starts.

Yet people want to continue to argue that 6 games, 14 games, or even 20 games is enough to properly evaluate a QB.

I'll tell ya what, Dude.

If Croyle's a Super Bowl winning QB, regardless of his numbers with the Chiefs, I'll send you all my Casino cash at the time and be more than happy to have this thread thrown back in my face.

I don't see it. I don't think it'll ever happen and bringing up Super Bowl winning QB's stats, good or bad, have no actual bearing on Croyle's ability or his body's ability to stay healthy.

I hope he succeeds but I'd say there's about a 98.9% chance that he won't.

I don't like those odds.

Reerun_KC
07-22-2008, 08:11 PM
Herm says everything is under control.

Except for those pesky 6 things that happen every day.

FAX

Phew, I was worried, Thanks Mr FAX, I can sleep at night knowing "the PLAN" is working.

Reerun_KC
07-22-2008, 08:13 PM
I'll tell ya what, Dude.

If Croyle's a Super Bowl winning QB, regardless of his numbers with the Chiefs, I'll send you all my Casino cash at the time and be more than happy to have this thread thrown back in my face.

I don't see it. I don't think it'll ever happen and bringing up Super Bowl winning QB's stats, good or bad, have no actual bearing on Croyle's ability or his body's ability to stay healthy.

I hope he succeeds but I'd say there's about a 98.9% chance that he won't.

I don't like those odds.


Regardless of the odds, With Dick Curls and Herman Edwards coaching a young QB, the odds are against him being worth a shit....

Croyle really hasnt much of a chance, Hell even if we draft #1 over all next year and take a QB, he wont have much of a chance until we get a NFL caliber coaching staff...

Sad but true.

TRR
07-22-2008, 08:13 PM
I don't see it.

That's exactly the point....He hasn't received enough time for anyone to "see it" yet...

FAX
07-22-2008, 08:14 PM
I say, give him some solid pass protection and a running game and let him sling nuclear powered, red hot, blazing, rocket balls 60 yards on a laser beam from hell's training room off his back foot.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid this season will see us back in dump-off city.

FAX

Buehler445
07-22-2008, 08:18 PM
Thanks for starting this thread TRR. I was going to do it, but it has taken me a tremendous amount of time to get my thoughts together. I'm with Warpath on this one.

There is SOOO many variables between teams, games, stadiums, coaching, injuries etc. that there is no way to identify the strengths/weaknesses of a QB without a substantial body of work to look at.

So many defenses come to play one week and are flat the next. Plus if he abuses Atlanta but gets abused by the Fade, what are we going to think of him then? There must be a significant body of work to identify trends, and see if mistakes are being rectified.

Six games is ****ing rediculous. No two ways about it. That is ****ing stupid. No way can you make a substantive fact based analysis on six games.

My official answer is all of 2008 to identify improvement. 2009 if reasonable improvement is made. Below are some considerations that can have an effect on the decision.

Health
First and foremost if the kid can't stay healthy, we got probems. But even that depends on what kind of injury. A fluke injury can be overlooked, but a major one, or one related to him being a pussy is a big deal.

Supporting Cast
Really, you guys can argue all you want, but the ****ing horseshit of a team the Chiefs fielded, especially the last 4 games, is just unreasonable. Maybe an all-time quarterback wins a few, but for the love of ****, come on people, that team was AWEFUL and incapable of winning games.

Coaching
Let's not forget that Herman ****ING Edwards coaches this team. Epic fail-jobs like the Indy game and Raiders 2 timeout fiasco should be excluded from his evaluation.

Turnovers
What makes me chuckle is that nobody wanted him to play last year because he would throw SOOOOOO many interceptions. He came in and had a lower turnover ratio that Hutard did. With a much worse team. But his decision making does need to be evaluated. I don't think it is nearly as much of an issue as most make it out to be.

Like I said, I'm giving him 2008 barring only a major injury. But likely, it will be 2009 to get an effective evaluation. This team is still bad. Accordingly, it is going to make Brodie look bad when it isn't necessarily his fault. Then if we get major injuries (see Sviteck coming in for McIntosh last year) that will severly affect his ability to make plays. All that will point to 2009 as being the end of the "does Brodie blow ass?" phase of the rebuild. We can debate all we want about this and that, but in order to have truely effective evaluation, it takes a significant body of work. Whether or not gotta-win-now-Carl will give him that is another story, but IMO it is necessary for effective evaluation.

TRR
07-22-2008, 08:21 PM
Thanks for starting this thread TRR. I was going to do it, but it has taken me a tremendous amount of time to get my thoughts together. I'm with Warpath on this one.

There is SOOO many variables between teams, games, stadiums, coaching, injuries etc. that there is no way to identify the strengths/weaknesses of a QB without a substantial body of work to look at.

So many defenses come to play one week and are flat the next. Plus if he abuses Atlanta but gets abused by the Fade, what are we going to think of him then? There must be a significant body of work to identify trends, and see if mistakes are being rectified.

Six games is ****ing rediculous. No two ways about it. That is ****ing stupid. No way can you make a substantive fact based analysis on six games.

My official answer is all of 2008 to identify improvement. 2009 if reasonable improvement is made. Below are some considerations that can have an effect on the decision.

Health
First and foremost if the kid can't stay healthy, we got probems. But even that depends on what kind of injury. A fluke injury can be overlooked, but a major one, or one related to him being a pussy is a big deal.

Supporting Cast
Really, you guys can argue all you want, but the ****ing horseshit of a team the Chiefs fielded, especially the last 4 games, is just unreasonable. Maybe an all-time quarterback wins a few, but for the love of ****, come on people, that team was AWEFUL and incapable of winning games.

Coaching
Let's not forget that Herman ****ING Edwards coaches this team. Epic fail-jobs like the Indy game and Raiders 2 timeout fiasco should be excluded from his evaluation.

Turnovers
What makes me chuckle is that nobody wanted him to play last year because he would throw SOOOOOO many interceptions. He came in and had a lower turnover ratio that Hutard did. With a much worse team. But his decision making does need to be evaluated. I don't think it is nearly as much of an issue as most make it out to be.

Like I said, I'm giving him 2008 barring only a major injury. But likely, it will be 2009 to get an effective evaluation. This team is still bad. Accordingly, it is going to make Brodie look bad when it isn't necessarily his fault. Then if we get major injuries (see Sviteck coming in for McIntosh last year) that will severly affect his ability to make plays. All that will point to 2009 as being the end of the "does Brodie blow ass?" phase of the rebuild. We can debate all we want about this and that, but in order to have truely effective evaluation, it takes a significant body of work. Whether or not gotta-win-now-Carl will give him that is another story, but IMO it is necessary for effective evaluation.


Excellent post! (Other than I have a little more faith in Herm than you do...)

FAX
07-22-2008, 08:21 PM
El posto supremo, Mr. Buehler445.

FAX

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 08:22 PM
That's exactly the point....He hasn't received enough time for anyone to "see it" yet...

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.

OnTheWarpath58
07-22-2008, 08:23 PM
I'll tell ya what, Dude.

If Croyle's a Super Bowl winning QB, regardless of his numbers with the Chiefs, I'll send you all my Casino cash at the time and be more than happy to have this thread thrown back in my face.

I don't see it. I don't think it'll ever happen and bringing up Super Bowl winning QB's stats, good or bad, have no actual bearing on Croyle's ability or his body's ability to stay healthy.

I hope he succeeds but I'd say there's about a 98.9% chance that he won't.

I don't like those odds.

Again, I'm not saying Croyle will ever get near a SB, much less win one.

But you keep saying "SB winning QB" like that was the only position that had an outcome on the game.

Trent Dilfer is a SB winning QB, for **** sake. It isn't the end-all, be-all for determining a QB's worth or ability.

Great QB's have lost SB's, average QB's have won SB's.

I'll say again:

If a supposed super-stud 1st overall pick needed 4 years to get over the mental hump, why should it be any different for any other QB, regardless of draft position?

The stats prove that unless your name is Brady or Roethlisberger, it takes 3-4 years to get over the hump as a QB, mentally and physically.

So, if you have someone you think is you're QBOTF, why give up on him after 15 starts? Stats show it's likely going to take at least double that amount.

Jay Cutler is a good example. 2nd full year starting, he needs to raise his game to the next level. Another 16 games gets him to 37 starts - time to see improvement.

TRR
07-22-2008, 08:25 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.

Everyone has a different "wow" factor to them. For me, the "wow" factor was dueling Manning even on the road. I also thought that he had a couple of throws that kept drives alive last season that wow'd me as well.

The odds are against Croyle coming up big...but for all of our sake, we should be hoping for Croyle to become the next Eli, Tom, or Big Ben.

DaneMcCloud
07-22-2008, 08:33 PM
Again, I'm not saying Croyle will ever get near a SB, much less win one.

But you keep saying "SB winning QB" like that was the only position that had an outcome on the game.

Trent Dilfer is a SB winning QB, for **** sake. It isn't the end-all, be-all for determining a QB's worth or ability.

Great QB's have lost SB's, average QB's have won SB's.

I'll say again:

If a supposed super-stud 1st overall pick needed 4 years to get over the mental hump, why should it be any different for any other QB, regardless of draft position?

The stats prove that unless your name is Brady or Roethlisberger, it takes 3-4 years to get over the hump as a QB, mentally and physically.

So, if you have someone you think is you're QBOTF, why give up on him after 15 starts? Stats show it's likely going to take at least double that amount.

Jay Cutler is a good example. 2nd full year starting, he needs to raise his game to the next level. Another 16 games gets him to 37 starts - time to see improvement.

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.