Is Damon Huard likely to be the odd man out?

[jAZ]

Sounds like it...

"Both of them (Printers and Croyle) will make this team" (Shea)
"(Printers is) going to be a backup for us..." (Peterson)

http://www.tsn.ca/cfl/news_story/?ID=169275&hubname=cfl

Printers impresses Chiefs; likely to stick
TSN.ca Staff

6/20/2006 7:47:27 PM

It appears that Casey Printers will not be returning to the Candian Football League this season.

Terry Shea, the quarterbacks coach for the Kansas City Chiefs, told CKNW in Vancouver that he expects Printers will stick with the NFL club.

Kansas City is set with Trent Green as the starter and Damon Huard as the primary back-up, and the Chiefs entered their off-season workouts expecting a battle for the third spot between Printers and third round draft pick Brodie Croyle.

Green, who will be 36 this season, has been resting his arm in camp, which has given the Chiefs a lot of good looks at the newcomers. Shea said Printers and Croyle are simply too good to let go.

"Both of them will make this team," Shea told CKNW. "They've done a nice job of picking up the offence."

The only problem for the Chiefs now is figuring out how to carry four quarterbacks. League rules permit clubs to carry three, but another can be signed to the practice squad.

The Chiefs' training camp opens July 28.

Printers signed with the Chiefs in January after a short, but stellar, career with the B.C. Lions. He was the league MVP in 2004 after throwing for 5,000 yards, 35 touchdowns and only 10 interceptions. He also ran for almost 500 yards and nine touchdowns.

Printers, though, did not start the Grey Cup game, which the Lions lost. Injuries hampered him in 2005, and he lost the starting job to veteran Dave Dickenson.

After the 2005 season, Printers started to explore his options and signed with the Chiefs.

"We've had some good fortune with Canadian players," Chiefs president/general manager Carl Peterson told the Kansas City Star after Printers signed.

"I look at it this way: It's like having an additional draft choice. And this draft choice has pro football experience, albeit the CFL. It’s a bigger, wider field and so on. But I think he's got a chance to come in and help us. He’s going to be a backup for us and learn what we do and what this offense is all about."

After a workout last May, Printers told KCChiefs.com that his CFL experience will help him make the Chiefs.

"Well it definitely prepared me for this because in the CFL you have five receivers going out on every play," Printers said. "Here it’s kind of similar and we were running the same kind of stuff up there. It prepared me a bunch. I was able to play a bunch up there and I'm just prepared for the opportunity when it's given."

After watching him practice this spring, Shea has high hopes for the former B.C. Lions pivot.

"Eventually, Casey has a chance to compete as a starting quarterback in the NFL," Shea said.

[htismaqe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[RockChalk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Taco would be all over it, too.