This is a tough question for ol' Herm. It all depends, I suppose, on what you think is more important; Winning games or determining once and for all if Croyle has what it takes.

On the one hand, winning helps the young players build morale and confidence. On the other hand, we're going nowhere with Huard because he isn't going to be here much longer. Plus, it won't be long before he's either hurt again or takes himself out of another game.

I say you have to start Croyle. We really need to find out if he can play at this level without getting injured. Otherwise, the franchise doesn't know whether to deal for another, young quarterback or spend a high pick on one. And, like any organization, the Chiefs have limited resources. Better to know as soon as possible if Croyle has a future here.

FAX

Hypothetical: Lets say Brodie comes back and does well enough and stays healthy. Do you still draft a QB in the later rounds as insurance?

I'd still draft a QB in the early rounds...

The Packers showed having a QB in the rough doesn't hurt anything...

If Croyle comes back and plays out of his mind...90+ QB rating stays healthy for 9 straight games...I still take a QB in the 1st or 2nd round...a good insurance policy never hurt anything (see Larry Johnson).

You can't go into next season depending on Croyle.

So if he has say, 60% 12 TDs 6 INTs and wins 3 or 4 out of 9 games, you draft another where?

1st or 2nd round

That's the problem at this point. Croyle's health history has become extremely discomforting.

In fact, if he's injured again (for whatever reason), you have to think about his relative value in a roster spot. He might be willing to serve in a backup role - then again, he might not. It's a damned shame, too. He really has the physical tools.

Then again, you never know. I think about guys like Trent Green, for example. There was a time when peeps thought his knee would prevent him from ever starting somewhere again. Then, he came back to lead one of the most potent offenses in the modern era.

FAX

I think he just didn't want Huard to hear that he is gonna be yanked after this game. And there was no reason to say that yet. Huard is our starting QB this week. I think he just wanted to leave it at that. He's played around like that before just saying he didn't have to decide that yet. But I think he was also having a little fun at the reporters (and ours now) expense.

He will get another chance but the problem is we know how this is going to turn out.

Prediction: Croyle comes back in the next 2-4 games and will get injured again sometime shortly thereafter causing him to miss significant time.

It's not entirely his fault though since Herm won't let him throw the ball more than 10 yards. This makes our offense so easy to defend that that Brodie is doomed to fail.

With Huard at the helm does anyone with any football sense really see us competing for a WC?.....No. So the real question is do you value getting all of your other rookies and young players experience in competitive games with the rare win over figuring out if Brodie is the guy? I say Brodie healthy doesn't make us much worse at ALL if any so you HAVE to play Brodie. Even if he is slightly less, the offense will still be ran decently and we can still be competitive (see NE game) with him at the helm so you do it to see if he's QBOTF.

If you're writing this season off you should start Croyle. If you want to compete this season you should start Huard. Not that complicated a decision.

I think he showed at NE you can compete with Brodie, I think they were writing this season off before they made a decision to start Brodie.

Here's the bottom line:

The Chiefs at 0-3 soundly beat a 3-0 team. I don't care if Denver's defense is "suspect", they were 3-0 and beat San Diego, Oakland and New Orleans.

The Chiefs beat the Broncos in every phase of the game. Defense, Special Teams and Offense. The Chiefs had more than 10 rookies contributing and many second year players as well (Taylor, Tank, Turk). This is HUGE. And they did it behind Damon Huard.

I don't think anyone here thinks Huard is a great QB. Hell, I don't think anyone here thinks Huard is a good QB. But he's relatively healthy and seems to have the respect of the huddle. Croyle can't stay healthy, doesn't seem to have the same effect on the huddle and just doesn't appear to be a starting QB in the NFL at this point in his career.

The Chiefs need to take a QB in the first round of the 2009 draft. Period. I don't care if they trade up, trade back, whatever. They NEED a first round talented QB. They should absolutely keep Croyle. He may be a late bloomer (Trent Green, Brad Johnson, Kurt Warner, etc.) and he's under contract. There's no reason why he shouldn't stick around and continue to develop.

But if Huard is playing well in 2008 and the Chiefs are winning or are staying very close, there's no reason to throw Croyle back into the fire. He's been unable to stay healthy and continuity is far more important to a young team. And this IS a young team.

Just imagine what it will be like NEXT year when all of these rookies that have played so well have one season under their belts, the current 2nd year players are in their third year and there's a new batch of rookies pushing to start.

Hate Herm, hate Huard, hate the coaches, etc. There's NO denying that this franchise is absolutely headed in the right direction.

Sunday's game against Denver proved it. If even for just a week.

Croyle will start against Tenn. and thereafter as long as he is healthy. Of course, I don't expect him to stay healthy all season (does anyone?). In any case, we have no choice but to draft a QB early next April because I don't believe we can count on Croyle, talent or no.

It's funny to see what one win will do for the mood on ChiefsPlanet. It's true that one can make the argument that the team is headed in the right direction. We were last Sunday, that's for sure. Still, a young team is going to look good one week and absolutely horrible the next. It's fair to say that inconsistency is the only consistent attribute of a squad that's this inexperienced. And, that makes the quarterback decision even more convoluted. Does Downfield provide more consistency at a key position? Does his play help the other skill players develop faster? If so, why even consider starting Thiggy in Atlanta?

At this point, I would pay money to find out what modifications (if any) the coaches make to the game plan or in-game playcalling when Downfield is in the game as compared to Croyle. I know they have to forget about the boots and rollouts, but (although I can't prove it) it seems as though they allow Downfield to fling that dang rock a little more often and a little further. Not to mention the fact that they let him curl up in a little ball a ton more. Are these situational reads or calls or is Downfield simply more willing to take the risk whereas Croyle has been taught differently?

If so, I have to wonder what their overall approach to the quarterback position really is. I know they want to win as quickly as possible, but they can't do that if they don't get the ball downfield once in awhile. That, of course, depends on the run game, the pass protection, the WR routes and their ability to get open, timing with the receivers, etc. Were they waiting for the o-line to prove they can pass-protect? Were they waiting for the run game to develop? Were they waiting for Croyle to demonstrate he could handle the little stuff before cutting him loose? Were they simply a'skeered that Croyle would turn it over?

We may be heading in the right direction but, so far as the quarterback position is concerned, that direction doesn't seem to be very clear.

FAX