ChiefsPlanet
Page 14 of 25 « First 410111213 14 1516171824 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Is Damon Huard likely to be the odd man out? (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142573)

htismaqe 06-21-2006 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief
Your point appears to be a moving target. You said name one rookie QB that has performed well. I did, then you shifted your point.

I wouldn't be "suprised at how poorly most rookie QBs perform." I'm fully aware of the odds of Croyle or Printers coming in and doing well. What I would be surprised by is Huard coming in and doing any better than the average rookie QB.

This isn't a question of which back-up is capable of taking us to the Superbowl (the answer to that is likely none). It's a question of which back-up is likely to be better. I'm saying that I'll take the chance with Croyle who might suck, over Huard who has already established that he sucks.
I wouldn't say Manning performed well.

56.7% comp, 26 TD, 28 INT, 6.5ypa, the team only won 3 games...

RockChalk 06-21-2006 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moooo
Don't compare Manning to Huard, please. That's just wrong. My point was if MANNING as a rookie could only muster a low 70s rating, then what makes you think Croyle could even mimic that closely?

I guarantee you if Huard started a few games this next year he'd be around the 70s as far as QB rating. I bet if Croyle or Printers started, it'd be low 60s, high 50s. One could keep us in a game with our running offense, the other would actually cost us the game.

Moooo
Man, I'm just being a d*ck in regards to some earlier posts in the thread regarding huard.

jspchief 06-21-2006 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe
I wouldn't say Manning performed well.

56.7% comp, 26 TD, 28 INT, 6.5ypa, the team only won 3 games...
Ben Roethlisberger

htismaqe 06-21-2006 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief
Ben Roethlisberger
Fair enough.

Of course, there's one glaring statistic when you look at Big Ben's rookie year:

295 attempts

Trent Green threw 507 passes last year, despite the fact that we RODE Larry Johnson the last half of the season. There's no chance, even if Edwards goes full-on Marty caveman ball, that our replacement QB will have the benefits that Roethlisberger had. We only have 1 RB.

jspchief 06-21-2006 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe
I wouldn't say Manning performed well.

56.7% comp, 26 TD, 28 INT, 6.5ypa, the team only won 3 games...
Besides, if you told me right now I could have those numbers from my back-up QB if he had to come in, I would take them in an instant.

Donovan McNabb comes to mind to. Again not great numbers, but not terrible.

Like I said earlier. It's not about expecting a rookie to light the league on fire. It's about expecting a rookie to potentially be better than career bench warmer Damon Huard.

When considered with the prospect of losing one of our young QBs, It's a risk that I might be willing to take.

htismaqe 06-21-2006 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubbleDownBKU
Man, I'm just being a d*ck in regards to some earlier posts in the thread regarding huard.
You'll fit in quite well here. :thumb:

RockChalk 06-21-2006 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe
I wouldn't say Manning performed well.

56.7% comp, 26 TD, 28 INT, 6.5ypa, the team only won 3 games...
Based on the scores from the 1998 season, I wouldn't blame many of the losses on Manning. Looks like they had some defensive woes that we are all too familiar with.

1998 Indy results

htismaqe 06-21-2006 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspchief
Besides, if you told me right now I could have those numbers from my back-up QB if he had to come in, I would take them in an instant.

Donovan McNabb comes to mind to. Again not great numbers, but not terrible.

Like I said earlier. It's not about expecting a rookie to light the league on fire. It's about expecting a rookie to potentially be better than career bench warmer Damon Huard.

When considered with the prospect of losing one of our young QBs, It's a risk that I might be willing to take.
No, not for me it's not.

The expectations CHANGE depending on whether Green's injury is short-term or long-term.

Those numbers for Manning look OK, until you consider that those 28 INT's contributed mightily to them being 3-13.

The goal is to win games, no matter how ugly it might look.

Chiefnj 06-21-2006 02:35 PM
Bottom line: a Marty disciple isn't going to enter the regular season with his #2 and #3 QB's having zero NFL experience.

Lets see how they do in some preseason games before they are annointed great QBsOTF that couldn't possible clear waivers. Croyle is still a bit on the frail side with a history of injuries and Printers (from everything else I've read) hasn't looked too sharp in practice without any contact whatsoever.

htismaqe 06-21-2006 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DubbleDownBKU
Based on the scores from the 1998 season, I wouldn't blame many of the losses on Manning. Looks like they had some defensive woes that we are all too familiar with.

1998 Indy results
That defense was bad, yes it was. But they also were playing on a short field more often than the should have been.

milkman 06-21-2006 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe
Precisely.

Manning threw for 3700 yards his first year. He also threw 2 more INT's than TD's and the team went 3-13.

Again, it comes down to how badly Green is injured. If Green goes down for just a couple of games, WHOEVER replaces him is going to throw screens and hand the ball off. However, they are going to have to throw downfield at some point to win a game. In the event, the second criteria is who is going to make the least amount of mistakes. In 99% of the cases, that WON'T be a rookie, no matter how mediocre the veteran in question is.
I disagree.

Huard simply doesn't fit into this system.

The couple of games that Huard played for the Dolphins in that '99 season that I saw, he was on a leash that would make the leash that Plummer played on pale by comparison.

The reason that Huard looked so bad in last year's preseason game is that he lacks the accuracy that this offense requires, and couldn't hit a deep route if his job depended on it.

tk13 06-21-2006 02:39 PM
If one of those rookies threw 28 INT's this year this board would go NUTS. Insane... we couldn't control the meltdown, people would be calling him a total bust.

jspchief 06-21-2006 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by htismaqe
No, not for me it's not.

The expectations CHANGE depending on whether Green's injury is short-term or long-term.

Those numbers for Manning look OK, until you consider that those 28 INT's contributed mightily to them being 3-13.

The goal is to win games, no matter how ugly it might look.
That team sucked top to bottom. How do you think they got Manning to begin with?

Manning's 28 INT's aren't any more to blame for those losses than the overall team around him is to blame for his INTs. They were 3-13 the year before, without his 28 INTs.

jspchief 06-21-2006 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk13
If one of those rookies threw 28 INT's this year this board would go NUTS. Insane... we couldn't control the meltdown, people would be calling him a total bust.
Yea, just ask Trent Green.

Hammock Parties 06-21-2006 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk13
If one of those rookies threw 28 INT's this year this board would go NUTS. Insane... we couldn't control the meltdown, people would be calling him a total bust.
ROFL

Taco would be all over it, too.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:36 AM.
Page 14 of 25 « First 410111213 14 1516171824 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.