Okay, so you don't like Huard ... BUT - Page 3

Silock · 09-23-2007, 06:06 PM

No, Huard isn't the future. No, he's not a great QB. He was terrible in the first half. He was good in the second half. Most importantly, though, he didn't throw a pick. Can you honestly say that Croyle would not have thrown a pick, either?

Croyle may or may not be the future. Hell, he may even be the future for this season. But when you bench Huard in favor of Croyle, you're also saying that you're okay with turning the ball over. When Croyle finally gets the start and has a 1 TD, 2 INT 170 yd day, I fully expect to see people clamoring for Huard.

Huard is old and broken. However, as long as we aren't out of the playoff race, it's best that we start him if we are, indeed, trying to win. Croyle showed in the preseason that he doesn't always make the best decisions. Huard may not be the greatest QB ever, but he manages the game pretty well.

If our run blocking were a little bit better, I don't think we'd even be having this discussion. You really want to start Croyle when LJ is getting less than 50 yards a game? I don't. That's a TON of pressure on a young QB. At least, not if we're still in it. When we're out of it, I don't really care what leads to us playing all the risky guys, because we need to see what those guys are made of.

Simply Red · 09-23-2007, 06:37 PM

Actually, I see both options/opinions and can understand them both. This is a very hard "O" to figure out (by us) (not by the opposing teams though.)

**Tribal Warfare** · 09-23-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

How many do you think Croyle will have? I would bet that it's substantially more.

If KC doesn't play him how will we know?

Simplex3 · 09-23-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

The AFC West is wide open at this point. We could still win and get to the playoffs. Once you're in the playoffs, anything can happen. We get into the playoffs and maybe our offense lights up like Indy's defense did last year.

You never know.

Indy's D got Bob Sanders back. Who are we going to get back?

**BigMeatballDave** · 09-23-2007, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

What's the matter? Couldn't come up with that witty response the first time you quoted it?

No, I'm reeruned...

Silock · 09-23-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Indy's D got Bob Sanders back. Who are we going to get back?

Their whole defense stepped up. Bob Sanders did not shut us down single-handedly.

chop · 09-23-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

How many do you think Croyle will have? I would bet that it's substantially more.

How much more production would Croyle have? I would bet substantially more. Huard has led the Chiefs to two td's in three games. How many three and outs have the Chiefs had? IMO, Croyle is an upgrade.

Silock · 09-23-2007, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chop

How much more production would Croyle have? I would bet substantially more. Huard has led the Chiefs to two td's in three games. How many three and outs have the Chiefs had? IMO, Croyle is an upgrade.

With LJ being shut down like he's been, I don't think anyone would be much more productive.

**pr_capone** · 09-23-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Micjones

This defense isn't that good, by any stretch of the imagination, but I believe we're a Top 10 unit this season.

Perhaps we will be a top 10 defense but if it were not for Jared Allen, this would have been an embarasing loss.

Quote:

You're being disingenuous. This kid may well be Rookie of the Year by the end of the season. He's not exactly chopped liver.

You are correct sir, but a Rookie RB in his 3rd NFL game after missing most of his previous college season has no business gaining 150 offensive yards on us at home... especially if we are a top 10 D.

Quote:

Huh? He completed just 50% of his passes.
And threw no TD's.

He looked like a men among boys in the first half. At the very least there was a threat of a completed pass which opened up the run game unlike St. Huard.

chop · 09-23-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

With LJ being shut down like he's been, I don't think anyone would be much more productive.

I guess we have to disagree. I think Croyle would be better but that is just my opinion. Maybe Croyle can help LJ by making opponents respect his down the field play ability.

movinbones · 09-23-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

With LJ being shut down like he's been, I don't think anyone would be much more productive.

LJ is running into 8 and 9 man fronts because of HUARD. He will continue to get shut down as long as our QB's best play is an overthrown swing pass for 2 yards.

movinbones · 09-23-2007, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chop

I guess we have to disagree. I think Croyle would be better but that is just my opinion. Maybe Croyle can help LJ by making opponents respect his down the field play ability.

Bingo!

**BigMeatballDave** · 09-23-2007, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

With LJ being shut down like he's been, I don't think anyone would be much more productive.

Huard IS the reason the running game sucks. Think about it. Defense puts 8 in the box and dares Huard to beat them. Which they know he can't with his noodle arm. Croyle throws twice as hard. That can make a defense more honest...

Silock · 09-23-2007, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by movinbones

LJ is running into 8 and 9 man fronts because of HUARD. He will continue to get shut down as long as our QB's best play is an overthrown swing pass for 2 yards.

Okay, so when Croyle starts, and there are still 8 man fronts, who are you going to blame? Solari? Herm?

**BigMeatballDave** · 09-23-2007, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

Okay, so when Croyle starts, and there are still 8 man fronts, who are you going to blame? Solari? Herm?

When Brodie fires a few of his 40 yrd ropes, the D should back off.

Extra Point · 09-23-2007, 07:02 PM

The inside slant pass calls were timely.

09-23-2007, 06:06 PM
Silock MVP Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Overland Park Casino cash: $10020882	Okay, so you don't like Huard ... BUT No, Huard isn't the future. No, he's not a great QB. He was terrible in the first half. He was good in the second half. Most importantly, though, he didn't throw a pick. Can you honestly say that Croyle would not have thrown a pick, either? Croyle may or may not be the future. Hell, he may even be the future for this season. But when you bench Huard in favor of Croyle, you're also saying that you're okay with turning the ball over. When Croyle finally gets the start and has a 1 TD, 2 INT 170 yd day, I fully expect to see people clamoring for Huard. Huard is old and broken. However, as long as we aren't out of the playoff race, it's best that we start him if we are, indeed, trying to win. Croyle showed in the preseason that he doesn't always make the best decisions. Huard may not be the greatest QB ever, but he manages the game pretty well. If our run blocking were a little bit better, I don't think we'd even be having this discussion. You really want to start Croyle when LJ is getting less than 50 yards a game? I don't. That's a TON of pressure on a young QB. At least, not if we're still in it. When we're out of it, I don't really care what leads to us playing all the risky guys, because we need to see what those guys are made of.
Posts: 19,908

09-23-2007, 06:37 PM	#31
Simply Red You Sweetie! Join Date: Sep 2005 Casino cash: $2021206219 VARSITY	Actually, I see both options/opinions and can understand them both. This is a very hard "O" to figure out (by us) (not by the opposing teams though.)
Posts: 71,691

09-23-2007, 07:02 PM	#45
Extra Point MVP Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Prairie Village, KS Casino cash: $10004900	The inside slant pass calls were timely. __________________ "Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." --Satchel Paige
Posts: 7,845