Hootie is a genius - Page 5

Hammock Parties · 10:39 AM

First, he was right about Huard at the beginning of last year (98.0 QB rating).

Then, he was right about Huard at the end of last year (Trent Green was horrible and we should have stuck with Huard).

Then, he was right about Huard at the beginning of this year (Croyle to the bench).

So far, he remains right about Huard (we're in first place).

Now he wins $800 on a $40 parlay. HOOTIE IS A GENIUS. NO ONE SHOULD EVER QUESTION HIS FOOTBALL ACUMEN EVER AGAIN! LET IT BE WRITTEN! LET IT BE KNOWN!

beach tribe · 10-29-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootie

I absolutely could TOTALLY careless about what people (yourself included) think about me and what I say...

I'm just stating how ridiculous you all can't get over someone saying "if Priest Holmes gets 20 carries I'll never post again!"

I 'apologized' for doubting Priest, but I have no apologies for any of you.

I'm a Chiefs fan and that's why I post on a Chiefs board. If there was a better Chiefs board on the net, I'd post there...However, there isn't...

The only downfall to this board is it is full of negative half-fans...

Dude, nobody brought any of this on you, but YOU.
You want to be hailed as prophet when you call something, but want everyone to forget when you put your reputation on the line for something you edorse.
If there is a HALF fan, it's you.

Hammock Parties · 10-29-2007, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by penguinz

2 TD's per game is nothing more than average.

2 TD per game = 32 TD on the year.

Average? Try again.

jjjayb · 10-29-2007, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

We were talking about average QB's and what they could do for this team to improve the record. It's apples and oranges.

Not apples to oranges at all. The argument I keep hearing for leaving Huard in is that we are 4-3. We are not 4-3 Because of Huard, we are 4-3 in spite of him. A perfect example is our Horrid defense with Vermeil. We weren't winning games because of them, but we were winning games with them. Should we have kept that defense if we could've had this defense we have now just because we had a winning record? Not. You go with what gives you the best chance to win all of your games, not just the easy ones.

Hootie · 10-29-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjayb

Not apples to oranges at all. The argument I keep hearing for leaving Huard in is that we are 4-3. We are not 4-3 Because of Huard, we are 4-3 in spite of him. A perfect example is our Horrid defense with Vermeil. We weren't winning games because of them, but we were winning games with them. Should we have kept that defense if we could've had this defense we have now just because we had a winning record? Not. You go with what gives you the best chance to win all of your games, not just the easy ones.

We wouldn't have beaten Oakland or Minnesota...or even San Diego without those TD passes and TD drives set up by Damon Huard...

Damon has played a major role in 4 of our 4 wins.

Hootie · 10-29-2007, 02:53 PM

but I guess both local media and national media are totally wrong (like usual) for pointing out how good Huard has been DESPITE his below average numbers...

I realize BigChiefDave is smarter than any analyst, head coach or general manager!

**penguinz** · 10-29-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GOATSE

2 TD per game = 32 TD on the year.

Average? Try again.

You know as well as anyone else that it does not work that way. He is seven games in. He will not stay on that pace for another 9 games.

**penguinz** · 10-29-2007, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootie

but I guess both local media and national media are totally wrong (like usual) for pointing out how good Huard has been DESPITE his below average numbers...

I realize BigChiefDave is smarter than any analyst, head coach or general manager!

They have not pointed out how good he has been as a QB. They have pointed out that with the situation in KC you could not ask for much more from him.

jjjayb · 10-29-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootie

We wouldn't have beaten Oakland or Minnesota...or even San Diego without those TD passes and TD drives set up by Damon Huard...

Damon has played a major role in 4 of our 4 wins.

I was at the Minnesotta game. He missed as many wide open guys as he hit. In Oakland He SUCKED with a capital S for most of the game. Woopity doo, he hit 3 or 4 decent passes after he looked clueless for most of the game.

I understand how proud you must be of a guy who manages to barely eek out a win against a 2-5 oakland team. Especially since the defense had to bail him out once again by making a huge stop to win the game. I can see where I'm completely wrong about him.

I guess we'll know at the end of the year how he really is. Seeya then.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 10-29-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjayb

Not apples to oranges at all. The argument I keep hearing for leaving Huard in is that we are 4-3. We are not 4-3 Because of Huard, we are 4-3 in spite of him. A perfect example is our Horrid defense with Vermeil. We weren't winning games because of them, but we were winning games with them. Should we have kept that defense if we could've had this defense we have now just because we had a winning record? Not. You go with what gives you the best chance to win all of your games, not just the easy ones.

You think we're 4-3 in spite of Huard. I think we're 4-3 in spite of our HORRENDOUS offensive line. Huard played better last year because he had better protection. If he had that protection again, I have no reason to believe it wouldn't be the same results. The QB hasn't changed, but the line sure has.

beach tribe · 10-29-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hootie

but I guess both local media and national media are totally wrong (like usual) for pointing out how good Huard has been DESPITE his below average numbers...

I realize BigChiefDave is smarter than any analyst, head coach or general manager!

Another Mecca. Base our season off what the "experts" say, Knowing they don't remotely follow us.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 10-29-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjjayb

I was at the Minnesotta game. He missed as many wide open guys as he hit. In Oakland He SUCKED with a capital S for most of the game. Woopity doo, he hit 3 or 4 decent passes after he looked clueless for most of the game.

I understand how proud you must be of a guy who manages to barely eek out a win against a 2-5 oakland team. Especially since the defense had to bail him out once again by making a huge stop to win the game. I can see where I'm completely wrong about him.

I guess we'll know at the end of the year how he really is. Seeya then.

He's missed some throws. Only an idiot would claim otherwise. They all miss throws though, is he missing more than most? If so, why? Again, I think it revolves around the fact that he is trying to keep all of his teeth.

Hammock Parties · 10-29-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

You think we're 4-3 in spite of Huard. I think we're 4-3 in spite of our HORRENDOUS offensive line. Huard played better last year because he had better protection. If he had that protection again, I have no reason to believe it wouldn't be the same results. The QB hasn't changed, but the line sure has.

Oh I wouldn't say that. I'd say the tackles are slightly better, but the interior is MUCH worse in pass protection.

The biggest difference is the lack of a running game. Huard is being asked to do way too much. If our running game was functioning at the level it did last year, we'd probably be averaging around 20 points a game right now, perhaps even more.

beach tribe · 10-29-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

You think we're 4-3 in spite of Huard. I think we're 4-3 in spite of our HORRENDOUS offensive line. Huard played better last year because he had better protection. If he had that protection again, I have no reason to believe it wouldn't be the same results. The QB hasn't changed, but the line sure has.

Huard is a decent QB, and is doing the best(and a damn good job), with what we have, and what his skills allow him to do.

Fish · 10-29-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GOATSE

Oh I wouldn't say that. I'd say the tackles are slightly better, but the interior is MUCH worse in pass protection.

The biggest difference is the lack of a running game. Huard is being asked to do way too much. If our running game was functioning at the level it did last year, we'd probably be averaging around 20 points a game right now, perhaps even more.

?

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 10-29-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Huard is a decent QB, and is doing the best(and a damn good job), with what we have, and what his skills allow him to do.

I agree 100%

10-29-2007, 09:40 AM
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $4430478	Hootie is a genius First, he was right about Huard at the beginning of last year (98.0 QB rating). Then, he was right about Huard at the end of last year (Trent Green was horrible and we should have stuck with Huard). Then, he was right about Huard at the beginning of this year (Croyle to the bench). So far, he remains right about Huard (we're in first place). Now he wins $800 on a $40 parlay. HOOTIE IS A GENIUS. NO ONE SHOULD EVER QUESTION HIS FOOTBALL ACUMEN EVER AGAIN! LET IT BE WRITTEN! LET IT BE KNOWN! Last edited by Hammock Parties; 10-29-2007 at 10:39 AM..
Posts: 278,670

10-29-2007, 02:53 PM	#65
Hootie Banned Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Dallas, Texas Casino cash: $10004900	but I guess both local media and national media are totally wrong (like usual) for pointing out how good Huard has been DESPITE his below average numbers... I realize BigChiefDave is smarter than any analyst, head coach or general manager!
Posts: 56,356