PDA

View Full Version : Gannon vs. Grbac II: Croyle vs. Printers


cdcox
08-04-2006, 11:42 PM
Who do you, deep down in your heart, want to be the true-one-and-only QBOFT? No hedging bets saying that you want whoever will be best of the Chiefs. Take a stand. Bear your soul. I made the poll public so you can know who to hate.

Hammock Parties
08-04-2006, 11:46 PM
I'm not ready to form an opinion.

pr_capone
08-04-2006, 11:49 PM
Printers - We are probably not going to continue to have one of the best O-lines in the NFL for the next 10 years. Roaf gone (for now) and next year Weigmann... who knows how long Turley is gonna go before his back gives out.

Someone who can not only throw with good accuracy but can run the ball as well. Not the next Vick though.

He has experience at a post-college level.

KcMizzou
08-04-2006, 11:50 PM
Haven't seen either play...

007
08-04-2006, 11:51 PM
Too early to form an opinion on this one.

cdcox
08-04-2006, 11:52 PM
Haven't seen either play...

You're just waiting to see where Denise lines up.

Hammock Parties
08-04-2006, 11:55 PM
The Chiefs have been developing offensive linemen for almost 20 years. I'm not worried.

Chiefs Minor Satellite
08-05-2006, 12:07 AM
Too early to form an opinion on this one.

Agreed. We have very little available data to digest for a decision, just about the same as the Chiefs do not have enough information as of now to make that decision. If they did there would be one less QB in camp.

KCChiefsFan88
08-05-2006, 12:20 AM
Who gives a shit about Croyle or Printers. The Chiefs won't develop either one and will end up eventually replacing Trent Green with a veteran QB.

Moooo
08-05-2006, 12:28 AM
Mobile quarterbacks a lot of time serve the advantage of turning the ball over less. Look at Steve Young. Someone with legs always has one more option than a pocket QB (though it should be the last option).

That being said, it's still too early.

Moooo

007
08-05-2006, 12:47 AM
This shouldn't even be a thread yet. We haven't even seen a preseason game yet to base anything on.

greg63
08-05-2006, 12:57 AM
Too early to form an opinion on this one.



This shouldn't even be a thread yet. We haven't even seen a preseason game yet to base anything on.

:clap:
Ditto!

RealSNR
08-05-2006, 01:03 AM
I want Croyle to win. I think running QBs suck and don't want one on my team.

Unless Printers can learn to stay the **** in the pocket and pass like he's supposed to, my entire support is going behind Croyle.

greg63
08-05-2006, 01:09 AM
I want Croyle to win. I think running QBs suck and don't want one on my team.

Unless Printers can learn to stay the **** in the pocket and pass like he's supposed to, my entire support is going behind Croyle.

Yeah, but I think there is something to be said for QB's that are mobile and can escape a collapsing pocket.

Moooo
08-05-2006, 01:35 AM
Yeah, but I think there is something to be said for QB's that are mobile and can escape a collapsing pocket.

Mobile QBs are a better choice in theory. Mobile QBs have more talent. The problem comes in having this talent it becomes very difficult to balance. As if the NFL QB position wasn't tough enough, a prospect mobile QB has to learn how to balance his ability to run along with it.

So IMO Mobile QBs are better ideally, but since they rarely are able to balance their skills effectively, they end up falling short quite often. You can make a pass a little better when you don't have that seed in the back of your mind to tuck it in and run with it.

Though as I said before, ths consequently lets Mobile QBs throw fewer picks which can sometimes counter their lack of ability and run/pass balance.

Moooo

Tribal Warfare
08-05-2006, 02:04 AM
I guess we are all racist bastards

htismaqe
08-05-2006, 04:42 AM
Just like keeping Grbac over Gannon was a no-brainer, keeping Croyle over Printers is a no-brainer.

There, that outta stir up some shit! :D

StcChief
08-05-2006, 05:17 AM
Little early to tell....

The best athlete (Printers) and smartest player (Croyle). at this point.

Hopefully some of each will rub off on one another.

the Talking Can
08-05-2006, 06:32 AM
nobody wants a canadian QB

greg63
08-05-2006, 07:51 AM
Just like keeping Grbac over Gannon was a no-brainer, keeping Croyle over Printers is a no-brainer.

There, that outta stir up some shit! :D


Eh, came too late to do that.

JBucc
08-05-2006, 07:59 AM
If I had a choice as to which one turned out to be good i'd pick Croyle since I prefer pocket passers, but if Printers ends up being better I'm fine with him too.

Coogs
08-05-2006, 07:59 AM
This one was easy. My 8 year old son is already a huge Croyle fan. Why I don't know, but he is. Therefore the choice is Croyle here.

Chiefs Minor Satellite
08-05-2006, 08:51 AM
Just like keeping Grbac over Gannon was a no-brainer, keeping Croyle over Printers is a no-brainer.

There, that outta stir up some shit! :D

You are right stick, it's stirred up something.

Keeping Grbac over Gannon wasn't a no brainer, it was a decision using no brains. The better QB was Gannon. Grbac had a million dollar arm and a five cent brain.

Mr. Laz
08-05-2006, 09:10 AM
Printers is the easy choice .........


if you want one guy to reach his potential and be "THE MAN" then it's Printers ... he's got the most potential. His physical skills are supposed to be phenomenal.



that said ... i think Croyle is the more likely to reach his potential and therefore more likely to be our QBotF.

milkman
08-05-2006, 01:49 PM
Who gives a shit about Croyle or Printers. The Chiefs won't develop either one and will end up eventually replacing Trent Green with a veteran QB.

I am really getting sick of your shit.

RealSNR
08-05-2006, 01:51 PM
Yeah, but I think there is something to be said for QB's that are mobile and can escape a collapsing pocket.You mean like Trent Green, who IMO, is the best pocket passer in the NFL at doing this?

milkman
08-05-2006, 01:54 PM
Printers is the easy choice .........


if you want one guy to reach his potential and be "THE MAN" then it's Printers ... he's got the most potential. His physical skills are supposed to be phenomenal.



that said ... i think Croyle is the more likely to reach his potential and therefore more likely to be our QBotF.

Intelligence and poise are every bit as much a part of the equation as athleticism is when speaking of the QB position.

Croyle's reported pocket presense makes him the QB with the most potential, and his reported intelligence make it more likley for him to achieve that potential.

greg63
08-05-2006, 11:04 PM
You mean like Trent Green, who IMO, is the best pocket passer in the NFL at doing this?I was thinking more like how Roger Staubach was, but yeah; ok.

Moooo
08-05-2006, 11:09 PM
I was thinking more like how Roger Staubach was, but yeah; ok.

IMO Steve Young had the perfect balance.

Moooo

milkman
08-05-2006, 11:21 PM
IMO Steve Young had the perfect balance.

Moooo

Early in his career, Young had the same problems as most running QBs.

He didn't succeed at a high level untl he became a pocket passer that could run when necessary, rather than a runner who happened to play the QB position.

cdcox
08-06-2006, 07:55 AM
Early in his career, Young had the same problems as most running QBs.

He didn't succeed at a high level untl he became a pocket passer that could run when necessary, rather than a runner who happened to play the QB position.

Yup. There have only been two QBs who's rushing totals have exceeded 10% of their passing totals in a year they won the SB. Who are they?

I'm excluding Hostetler from this question, since he didn't play most of the Giants regular season games in 1990.

JBucc
08-06-2006, 07:57 AM
Yup. There have only been two QBs who's rushing totals have exceeded 10% of their passing totals in a year they won the SB. Who are they?

I'm excluding Hostetler from this question, since he didn't play most of the Giants regular season games in 1990.Uh, Steve Young? And...................................................someone else?


I really have no idea.

cdcox
08-06-2006, 08:00 AM
Uh, Steve Young? And...................................................someone else?


I really have no idea.

Not Young. I've got to run off to church, but I'll be back later.

greg63
08-06-2006, 08:21 AM
IMO Steve Young had the perfect balance.

Moooo

Good example. :thumb:

Adept Havelock
08-06-2006, 09:05 AM
Mobile QBs are a better choice in theory. Mobile QBs have more talent. The problem comes in having this talent it becomes very difficult to balance. As if the NFL QB position wasn't tough enough, a prospect mobile QB has to learn how to balance his ability to run along with it.

So IMO Mobile QBs are better ideally, but since they rarely are able to balance their skills effectively, they end up falling short quite often. You can make a pass a little better when you don't have that seed in the back of your mind to tuck it in and run with it.

Though as I said before, ths consequently lets Mobile QBs throw fewer picks which can sometimes counter their lack of ability and run/pass balance.

Moooo


I'm not a big fan of Mobile QB's. Or QB's from almost anywhere else in Alabama....

Seriously though, Young was a great middle ground between Pocket and Mobile QB's.

milkman
08-06-2006, 09:08 AM
Yup. There have only been two QBs who's rushing totals have exceeded 10% of their passing totals in a year they won the SB. Who are they?

I'm excluding Hostetler from this question, since he didn't play most of the Giants regular season games in 1990.

I'm going to guess that Roger Staubach was one.

And, what the hell, Joe Namath.

KCBOSS1
08-06-2006, 09:22 AM
Keep Croyles & Printers, release Huard. done.

Mr. Laz
08-06-2006, 09:40 AM
Intelligence and poise are every bit as much a part of the equation as athleticism is when speaking of the QB position.

Croyle's reported pocket presense makes him the QB with the most potential, and his reported intelligence make it more likley for him to achieve that potential.
nope...


printers can learn the mental part of the game ....... croyle can't learn to run faster or grow bigger.

thus Printers has the most total potiential



but once again, croyle is more likely to succeed imo.

milkman
08-06-2006, 09:59 AM
nope...


printers can learn the mental part of the game ....... croyle can't learn to run faster or grow bigger.

thus Printers has the most total potiential



but once again, croyle is more likely to succeed imo.

I disagree.

Kordell Stewart never got it.
Michael Vick is going into his 5th(?) season, and is still a terrible pocket QB.

The reality is that only a couple of guys that were running QBs ever really got it.

Steve Young and (maybe) Steve McNair.

If you, as a QB, don't already have an instinctual grasp of the intellectual aspect of the position, then it's highly unlikely you'll ever get it.

And the natuarl poise that Croyle is reported to have is rarely, if ever, developed.

The QB who already has a mental grasp of the position is far more likely to succeed, which automatically makes him the QB with the most potential.

Hammock Parties
08-06-2006, 10:08 AM
Fran Tarkenton.

milkman
08-06-2006, 10:09 AM
Frank Tarkenton.

Fran.

But he never won a SB.

cdcox
08-06-2006, 10:23 AM
Yup. There have only been two QBs who's rushing totals have exceeded 10% of their passing totals in a year they won the SB. Who are they?

I'm excluding Hostetler from this question, since he didn't play most of the Giants regular season games in 1990.

Still no correct answers to the question above.

Mr. Laz
08-06-2006, 10:27 AM
I disagree.

Kordell Stewart never got it.
Michael Vick is going into his 5th(?) season, and is still a terrible pocket QB.

The reality is that only a couple of guys that were running QBs ever really got it.

Steve Young and (maybe) Steve McNair.

If you, as a QB, don't already have an instinctual grasp of the intellectual aspect of the position, then it's highly unlikely you'll ever get it.

And the natuarl poise that Croyle is reported to have is rarely, if ever, developed.

The QB who already has a mental grasp of the position is far more likely to succeed, which automatically makes him the QB with the most potential.
didn't i say both times that Croyle is the more likely to succeed?


the idea is that if you could choose 1 guy to reach his potiential and be your guy ... who would it be?

Casey Printers has the most potiential ... so he's your guy


now if you want to ask the question "who is most likely to succeed?

i say (again) it's Croyle

JBucc
08-06-2006, 10:31 AM
Still no correct answers to the question above.Bradshaw and Jim Mcmahon?

cdcox
08-06-2006, 10:40 AM
Bradshaw and Jim Mcmahon?

Ding! Nice job.

Bradshaw in 1975 threw for 2055 while rushing for 210.

McMahon in 1985 passed for 2392 while running for 252.

These were not great QB rushing perfomances by any stretch of the imagination. Our own Len Dawson, a classic pocket passer even had one of these years and his rushing total eclipsed either of the above two: throwing for 2390 while rushing for 272.

milkman
08-06-2006, 10:44 AM
didn't i say both times that Croyle is the more likely to succeed?


the idea is that if you could choose 1 guy to reach his potiential and be your guy ... who would it be?

Casey Printers has the most potiential ... so he's your guy


now if you want to ask the question "who is most likely to succeed?

i say (again) it's Croyle

The problem here, Laz, is that we disagree on the criteria for potential.

You are size and arm strength, while I am adding perceived intangibles.

Mr. Laz
08-06-2006, 10:54 AM
The problem here, Laz, is that we disagree on the criteria for potential.

You are size and arm strength, while I am adding perceived intangibles.
i think the problem is that we are debating the answer to 2 different questions.


you don't think Printers can learn the intangibles ... so that drops his potential.


while i'm taking the more hypothetical stance, IF printers learns then he has the most upside. (it is possible to learn ya know :) )


Printers has a legit chance to learn
Croyle physical abilities are more or less set


Printers > Croyle


will Printers learn all these intangible aspects of the game ........ who knows.

but the original question was "IF"


IF both players maximize their abilities then Printers is the better choice.

milkman
08-06-2006, 11:42 AM
i think the problem is that we are debating the answer to 2 different questions.


you don't think Printers can learn the intangibles ... so that drops his potential.


while i'm taking the more hypothetical stance, IF printers learns then he has the most upside. (it is possible to learn ya know :) )


Printers has a legit chance to learn
Croyle physical abilities are more or less set


Printers > Croyle


will Printers learn all these intangible aspects of the game ........ who knows.

but the original question was "IF"


IF both players maximize their abilities then Printers is the better choice.

I'm saying that the QB that already possesses those intangibles has the better potential.

When all else breaks down, natural instincts take over.

It's like the difference bewteen Manning and McNabb.

McNabb had a larger learning curve, and he has raised his game to the upper echelon of the league, but he still isn't/never will be as good as Manning.

Or the difference between Brady and McNair.

RealSNR
08-06-2006, 12:03 PM
I disagree.

Kordell Stewart never got it.
Michael Vick is going into his 5th(?) season, and is still a terrible pocket QB.

The reality is that only a couple of guys that were running QBs ever really got it.

Steve Young and (maybe) Steve McNair.

If you, as a QB, don't already have an instinctual grasp of the intellectual aspect of the position, then it's highly unlikely you'll ever get it.

And the natuarl poise that Croyle is reported to have is rarely, if ever, developed.

The QB who already has a mental grasp of the position is far more likely to succeed, which automatically makes him the QB with the most potential.Randall Cunningham?

JBucc
08-06-2006, 12:07 PM
McNabb is pretty good. Doesn't run a lot anymore though.

milkman
08-06-2006, 12:08 PM
Randall Cunningham?

Another maybe, with a lean towards no.

I don't think he ever really became much more than a running QB.

cdcox
08-06-2006, 12:15 PM
Another maybe, with a lean towards no.

I don't think he ever really became much more than a running QB.

1998 he definitely was. That was the year Minnesota went 15-1, with Cunningham passing for 3700 yards and rushing for only 132. I think his last years in Philly could have been something if he had fewer injuries and better recievers.

milkman
08-06-2006, 12:20 PM
1998 he definitely was. That was the year Minnesota went 15-1, with Cunningham passing for 3700 yards and rushing for only 132. I think his last years in Philly could have been something if he had fewer injuries and better recievers.

That's the problem.

We can't really know what Cunningham might have evolved into because of those injuries, and that year in Minnesota is what gave me pause from just saying "No".

cdcox
08-06-2006, 12:24 PM
That's the problem.

We can't really know what Cunningham might have evolved into because of those injuries, and that year in Minnesota is what gave me pause from just saying "No".

Reasonalbe position. He had a couple pretty good years in Philli (over 3000 passing), but his leading receivers were backs, not wide outs. It would have been interesting to see what he could have done with a better cast.

Frankie
08-06-2006, 01:09 PM
My choice is Croyle. After he gains some bulk and physical endurance.

However if Casey Printers turns out to be the true QBOTF he'll need to spell his first name KC.

JohnnyV13
08-06-2006, 04:45 PM
Hello,

The best running/passing QB of them all was John Elway.

Elway and Young are the prototype for that kind of QB. Back in the day, Roger Staubach was also very mobile.

Early in his career, Joe Montana was also viewed as a "mobile" qb.

I think we here on CP have a bit of a blind spot with respect to Elway, b/c we can't stand 'ole horseface.

milkman
08-06-2006, 04:51 PM
Hello,

The best running/passing QB of them all was John Elway.

Elway and Young are the prototype for that kind of QB. Back in the day, Roger Staubach was also very mobile.

Early in his career, Joe Montana was also viewed as a "mobile" qb.

I think we here on CP have a bit of a blind spot with respect to Elway, b/c we can't stand 'ole horseface.

Each of those QB's (except Young) were QB's that could run, but were passers first.

Guys like Steve Young and Donnovan McNabb were running QB's who had to learn to become passers.