Croyle or Huard as Chiefs starter a selection Poll.

[Logical]

Choices above

[DJJasonp]

It will be Huard....but probably Croyle by week 10

[Redrum_69]

CROYLE WILL BE THE NEXT JOE MONTANA

THE CHIEFS WILL WIN 4 STRAIGHT SUPER BOWLS

CARL PETERSON WILL LEAVE KC FOREVER

GEORGE BRETT TAKES OVER THE ROYALS

[beach tribe]

croyle plays ball control/play action offense.defense kicks ass 11-5

[Logical]

croyle plays ball control/play action offense.defense kicks ass 11-5Good luck with that idea.

[luv]

Talk about a biased poll....

[splatbass]

Talk about a biased poll....

Exactly. Under those conditions I would pick Croyle, but I'm not ready to concede that the Chiefs would only go 9-7 with Huard or 6-10 with Croyle, so the poll is useless. Start a poll asking who I think should start, without the bias in this poll, and I'll choose Croyle. I won't vote in this poll.

[Hog's Gone Fishin]

Oh Geez, not this again!

[ChiTown]

LOL

Nice try ilLogical

[Eleazar]

I want to register a very strong disagreement with the notion that Croyle starting right out of the gate automatically means that he's going to develop and become better in the end. A young player being elevated to starter does not always improve. You have to be ready, on some basic level, before being in the game will help you mature rather than make you turtle up and just try to survive.

I'm not for it if our protection is going to be as horrendous as it has been in the past. This guy has a history of leg injuries already. I'm not for it if he's not ready mentally. If he's not comfortable enough in the offense to run it as competently as the other QBs are.

We shouldn't assume that just because he's in the game he will get better. It might be better to ease him into the role as the season progresses.

[Brock]

what a douche.

[luv]

I want to register a very strong disagreement with the notion that Croyle starting right out of the gate automatically means that he's going to develop and become better in the end. A young player being elevated to starter does not always improve. You have to be ready, on some basic level, before being in the game will help you mature rather than make you turtle up and just try to survive.

I'm not for it if our protection is going to be as horrendous as it has been in the past. This guy has a history of leg injuries already. I'm not for it if he's not ready mentally. If he's not comfortable enough in the offense to run it as competently as the other QBs are.

We shouldn't assume that just because he's in the game he will get better. It might be better to ease him into the role as the season progresses.
Why not take a risk? Start Croyle and use Huard like we always have - as a backup.

[Priest4Prez]

croyle plays ball control/play action offense.defense kicks ass 11-5
Maybe not 11-5, but I feel the d will come thru 4 who ever is qb. I want 2 see what the kid can do

[Wile_E_Coyote]

Where is the Casey Printers out plays them both, option?

[Priest4Prez]

R u referring to the when hell freezes over choice?

[htismaqe]

I want to register a very strong disagreement with the notion that Croyle starting right out of the gate automatically means that he's going to develop and become better in the end. A young player being elevated to starter does not always improve. You have to be ready, on some basic level, before being in the game will help you mature rather than make you turtle up and just try to survive.

I'm not for it if our protection is going to be as horrendous as it has been in the past. This guy has a history of leg injuries already. I'm not for it if he's not ready mentally. If he's not comfortable enough in the offense to run it as competently as the other QBs are.

We shouldn't assume that just because he's in the game he will get better. It might be better to ease him into the role as the season progresses.

By the same token, we shouldn't assume that starting Huard = winning season while starting Croyle = losing season.

Yet another great thread by Logical.

[Wile_E_Coyote]

R u referring to the when hell freezes over choice?

ROFL

[Mama Hip Rockets]

LOL "I just want to be able to vote and see the results"

[Eleazar]

By the same token, we shouldn't assume that starting Huard = winning season while starting Croyle = losing season.

Yet another great thread by Logical.

Yeah, the whole thing is faulty so making any argument is kind of a waste of time.

I was just saying, we don't necessarily need to name him the starter before or during camp.

It might be better for Croyle, in terms of learning and confidence, for him to spend the season as the #2 and then gradually ease into starting sometime after midseason.

I wouldn't want him out there getting killed behind a porous offensive line, or for us to lose the first two games and have people like Pootie spend the whole rest of the season campaigning for a career backup because Croyle supposedly sucks. No need for him to feel like the fans are against him all year like that. We ought to put him in a situation where the team sentiment is with him and the fans are backing him and not against him.

But yeah. Another quality thread.

[Priest4Prez]

By the same token, we shouldn't assume that starting Huard = winning season while starting Croyle = losing season.

Yet another great thread by Logical.

According 2 Fox Sports, both Brodie and Damon are ranked higher than lock Hall of Famer Brett Favre

[beach tribe]

I know my expectations seem unrealistic(10-6 11-5)but any of us would be foolish to think that anything isnt possible in todays NFL,and I see no reason to leave a little hope out of the picture.

[htismaqe]

Yeah, the whole thing is faulty so making any argument is kind of a waste of time.

Pretty much the long and short of it.

[jAZ]

Is this a "which scenario would be prefer" poll? Or a "which QB do I want to start" poll? Or a "which QB do I predict the staff will start" poll?

As for my preference, I'm willing to throw in Croyle to start so long as the OL is up to par. Don't want him and his injury history to end up like David Carr. I'd settle for a 6-10 season and a healthy QB at season's end to get Croyle the experience for 2008.

My prediction is that Huard will start becase Herm doesn't think the line is quite ready yet. But that a few (4?) games of experience will get them ready and playing well together. At which point, Croyle will go in and start the rest of the season.

And finally (though out of order), I want the better QB to start opening day. If that's Huard, then so be it.

[Priest4Prez]

I know my expectations seem unrealistic(10-6 11-5)but any of us would be foolish to think that anything isnt possible in todays NFL,and I see no reason to leave a little hope out of the picture.
7-9 with either starter

[beach tribe]

7-9 with either starter
thank you peter king

[greg63]

Croyle

[Priest4Prez]

thank you peter king
You're very welcome

[Priest4Prez]

Time Network
09/09/07 at Houston TexansW
09/16/07 at Chicago BearsL
09/23/07 Minnesota VikingsW
09/30/07 at San Diego ChargersL
10/07/07 Jacksonville Jaguars W
10/14/07 Cincinnati Bengals L
10/21/07 at Oakland RaidersW
10/28/07 Bye
11/04/07 Green Bay Packers L
11/11/07 Denver Broncos L
11/18/07 at Indianapolis Colts L
11/25/07 Oakland Raiders W
12/02/07 San Diego Chargers L
12/09/07 at Denver Broncos L
12/16/07 Tennessee Titans W
12/23/07 at Detroit Lions W
12/30/07 at New York Jets L

[HemiEd]

Huard, until the revamped OL proves they are effective and won't get Brodie killed. I am hoping that would be by the third game of the season, the Home Opener.

[RustShack]

I am assuming the Croyle option is if Johnson is traded, but that won't happen, so Croyle will win more games than that.

[htismaqe]

Huard, until the revamped OL proves they are effective and won't get Brodie killed. I am hoping that would be by the third game of the season, the Home Opener.

What a waste.

We're gonna know everything we need to know about the OL by the 3rd preseason game.

START CROYLE!

[RustShack]

What a waste.

We're gonna know everything we need to know about the OL by the 3rd preseason game.

START CROYLE!

Agree 100% Its Croyles job, and hes not going to lose it.

[HemiEd]

What a waste.

We're gonna know everything we need to know about the OL by the 3rd preseason game.

START CROYLE!

So you are going to know all their is to know about the OL by the 3rd preseason game, wow. We aren't worthy.

I sure hope you enjoy this rebuilding, I won't.

[beach tribe]

Time Network
09/09/07 at Houston TexansW
09/16/07 at Chicago BearsL
09/23/07 Minnesota VikingsW
09/30/07 at San Diego ChargersL
10/07/07 Jacksonville Jaguars W
10/14/07 Cincinnati Bengals L
10/21/07 at Oakland RaidersW
10/28/07 Bye
11/04/07 Green Bay Packers L
11/11/07 Denver Broncos L
11/18/07 at Indianapolis Colts L
11/25/07 Oakland Raiders W
12/02/07 San Diego Chargers L
12/09/07 at Denver Broncos L
12/16/07 Tennessee Titans W
12/23/07 at Detroit Lions W
12/30/07 at New York Jets L
lets just for the sake of argument say maybe we beat the bengals, we kick the shat out of the pack. follow that up by bitch slapping cuntler (AT HOME you should be ashamed)10-6 eh?...takes off homer goggles..........yea your probably right,except denver at home geeeeze.

[beach tribe]

why did they censor cuntler

[luv]

why did they censor **ntler
There's a four letter word in there that's a no-no.

[Lzen]

Not enough poll options. I need to see how Croyle looks in preseason before making a choice.

[beach tribe]

There's a four letter word in there that's a no-no.
yea I thought so just seems as though ive seen it in all its glory

[htismaqe]

So you are going to know all their is to know about the OL by the 3rd preseason game, wow. We aren't worthy.

I sure hope you enjoy this rebuilding, I won't.

You pull out the "we aren't worthy" without even acknowledging that you have gone much farther out on a limb that I did. Logical, and apparently you too, have already pre-ordained that starting Croyle = losing while starting Huard = winning.

Well, I'm glad you enjoy 9-7/10-6 and a first round playoff loss year-after-year.

Me, I'm ready for a change, regardless of the results.

There is no progress without some element of risk.

[HemiEd]

Well, I'm glad you enjoy 9-7/10-6 and a first round playoff loss year-after-year.

Me, I'm ready for a change, regardless of the results.

There is no progress without some element of risk.

We have discussed mediocrity to delirium on here. However, until you have been on the bottom, and could not get off of it, you won't get the real appreciation for how nice mediocrity can be.

After you have been through several coaching changes, quarterback changes etc. and still suck ass, you should regret ever wanting to gut the team.

[HemiEd]

You pull out the "we aren't worthy" without even acknowledging that you have gone much farther out on a limb that I did. Logical, and apparently you too, have already pre-ordained that starting Croyle = losing while starting Huard = winning.

Well, I'm glad you enjoy 9-7/10-6 and a first round playoff loss year-after-year.

Me, I'm ready for a change, regardless of the results.

There is no progress without some element of risk.


I see you edited your post while I was in the process of responding. The "we aren't worthy" is in regards to your statement about the offensive line. You will know all there is to know about them after two preseason games.
I know, I don't have even a fraction of the football knowledge you do, but I have been hearing for years that it takes a while, for an OL to come together.
Since our first two games are on the road, I personally like the idea of starting the kid at home.
If that doesn't make any sense to you, then you are being a bull headed ass.

Oh, and my reasons are simple, what I feel is the best chance for his success.

[htismaqe]

We have discussed mediocrity to delirium on here. However, until you have been on the bottom, and could not get off of it, you won't get the real appreciation for how nice mediocrity can be.

After you have been through several coaching changes, quarterback changes etc. and still suck ass, you should regret ever wanting to gut the team.

Pure and unadulterated bullshit.

I became a fan in the early 80's. I know what it's like to root for a perennial loser.

I have no appreciation for playing it safe and never moving forward. That's the attitude of a coward.

FYI, I'm glad to know that gutting the team definitively means a losing season. We're not worthy.

[htismaqe]

I see you edited your post while I was in the process of responding. The "we aren't worthy" is in regards to your statement about the offensive line. You will know all there is to know about them after two preseason games.
I know, I don't have even a fraction of the football knowledge you do, but I have been hearing for years that it takes a while, for an OL to come together.
Since our first two games are on the road, I personally like the idea of starting the kid at home.
If that doesn't make any sense to you, then you are being a bull headed ass.

My statement about the offensive line is called "prognostication".

As is your statement that we're automatically going to have a losing season if we start out the first two games with Croyle.

Football knowledge, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it. Neither of us can tell the future. Only one of us decided to take potshots at the other about making predictions.

I certainly know where you're coming from, I "understand" your perspective. I just happen to think that starting a 35-year old career backup, FOR ANY REASON, is a dumb idea. It's even more dumb if you're doing it because you want to be "safe".

[Frankie]

Good luck with that idea.
Forgive him Logical. The n00b knows not what he says.

[StcChief]

Croyle by week 8. We are 2006 Dungver with Cuntler coming in....

[beach tribe]

logical is to carl
as frankie is to gretz..................kiss ass

[DaFace]

My only issue with starting Huard first is that you can't just bench a player who is performing well. If he comes out and plays reasonably well, you can't just sit him down and tell him that it's just time for the new guy to get a shot. And I don't want to have to wait another year before we see what Croyle can do.

[HemiEd]

My statement about the offensive line is called "prognostication".

As is your statement that we're automatically going to have a losing season if we start out the first two games with Croyle.

Football knowledge, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with it. Neither of us can tell the future. Only one of us decided to take potshots at the other about making predictions.

I certainly know where you're coming from, I "understand" your perspective. I just happen to think that starting a 35-year old career backup, FOR ANY REASON, is a dumb idea. It's even more dumb if you're doing it because you want to be "safe".

As usual we disagree. My concern with Croyle is more about his long term success.
I have been training people for years, one thing I have found, a little early success goes a long way towards building confidence.
Whether you think so or not, I think it probably is something nice for a QB to have.
I think Croyle has the best chance of early success at home, against the Vikings. That is where I would start him if I thought the OL was up to it.

[htismaqe]

As usual we disagree. My concern with Croyle is more about his long term success.
I have been training people for years, one thing I have found, a little early success goes a long way towards building confidence.
Whether you think so or not, I think it probably is something nice for a QB to have.
I think Croyle has the best chance of early success at home, against the Vikings. That is where I would start him if I thought the OL was up to it.

Brodie Croyle's biggest asset is his attitude. He's ALREADY FACED extreme adversity. He's already OVERCOME it.

Sitting him early is NOT going to help his confidence.

And strugglig early is NOT going to hurt it.

You evidently just don't understand Croyle's background very well.

[htismaqe]

By the way, while early success may build confidence, sheltering someone from a situation that you might feel is untenable does not.

It undermines confidence, because it gives that person the impression that YOU lack confidence, in THEM.

Furthermore, in competitive single-player sports like boxing, picking and choosing opportunities results in a fighter that looks GREAT against the scrubs but can't handle the pressure of the title fight.

[HemiEd]

By the way, while early success may build confidence, sheltering someone from a situation that you might feel is untenable does not.

It undermines confidence, because it gives that person the impression that YOU lack confidence, in THEM.


Oh Bullshit, you have to know what you are doing for CS.
Spin it anyway you want, you are always right. You are like discussing something with a 4 year old.

[htismaqe]

Oh Bullshit, you have to know what you are doing for CS.
Spin it anyway you want, you are always right. You are like discussing something with a 4 year old.

What are you talking about?

What is CS?

Futhermore, I gave perfectly valid OPINIONS as to what I think the affects would be on Croyle, or anyone, given the situation you described.

The only one crossing their arms here and acting like a 4-year old is you.

[Lzen]

Gentlemen, there is no need for insults. Why can't we all just get along?

FTR, I would rather go with the youth if that means we don't sacrifice the season. If starting Huard means making the playoffs, I say go with Huard. Croyle knows he will eventually be the man in KC. If he is not ready yet, then go with the guy who is experienced.

[Buehler445]

Brodie Croyle's biggest asset is his attitude. He's ALREADY FACED extreme adversity. He's already OVERCOME it.

...

You evidently just don't understand Croyle's background very well.

I admit I don't know too much about Croyle. The adversity you speak of, is that him being hurt and coming back to play behind a poopy line? Any insight would be helpful. Thanks.

[htismaqe]

Gentlemen, there is no need for insults. Why can't we all just get along?

I would agree, but then again, you should have directed this at Ed. He started right off the bat with the "we're not worthy" crap and hasn't let up since. Probably because he can't defend his opinion any other way.

FTR, I would rather go with the youth if that means we don't sacrifice the season. If starting Huard means making the playoffs, I say go with Huard. Croyle knows he will eventually be the man in KC. If he is not ready yet, then go with the guy who is experienced.

EXACTLY. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't agree with it, but I also don't have a problem with it.

There are a few out there, though, like Logical, that have pre-ordained that starting Huard means a better season than starting Croyle. Starting Croyle doesn't automatically mean a losing season, like some here have tried to bulldog everyone into believing.

[htismaqe]

I admit I don't know too much about Croyle. The adversity you speak of, is that him being hurt and coming back to play behind a poopy line? Any insight would be helpful. Thanks.

That's precisely the adversity I was speaking of. And it didn't just happen to him once.

It happened 3 times while at Bama, and also once in high school.

[RustShack]

Croyle is used to the line Alabama had while he was there, much worse than the one KC has now. Him winning IN HOUSTON would be a very nice boost for him, and its a game he can win. The Bears D-line isn't what it was last year, it will still be tough for him but it will also be good for him. Chicago will be much harder than Houston, but Croyle has been watching Green and Huard for a whole year and I think hes ready. If the Chiefs defence has improved, they should have no problems holding the Bears horrible offence, and it should be a very close game. I see what your saying, but I personaly think he should be the starter week one.

[Priest4Prez]

lets just for the sake of argument say maybe we beat the bengals, we kick the shat out of the pack. follow that up by bitch slapping **ntler (AT HOME you should be ashamed)10-6 eh?...takes off homer goggles..........yea your probably right,except denver at home geeeeze.
Denver's secondary is very good, and their run d will focusing on LJ. I see the game coming down to field goals, and I don't trust a rook making a gw field goal from 40+. so that is why. I love the chiefs, and i hope i am wrong on this prediction and they go 16-0 and win the super bowl.

[pikesome]

The adversity you speak of, is that him being hurt and coming back to play behind a poopy line?

That's it in a nutshell. But to call the line "poopy" doesn't really give the full feel on how bad it was. This was also at a high-profile school in "the best football conference". I'd say that htsimage's got grounds for his position on this.

[htismaqe]

Let me ask everyone else here this, since obviously I'm "spinning" and "always right".

How would you feel if your boss said "Hey, we have confidence in you, but we feel that the upcoming task/negotiation/sale is just too difficult for you to handle. The next one will be much easier, it's almost a 'gimme', so we'll let you handle that one."

Would that IMPROVE your confidence?

[pikesome]

Let me ask everyone else here this, since obviously I'm "spinning" and "always right".

How would you feel if your boss said "Hey, we have confidence in you, but we feel that the upcoming task/negotiation/sale is just too difficult for you to handle. The next one will be much easier, it's almost a 'gimme', so we'll let you handle that one."

Would that IMPROVE your confidence?

I'm already on the choir boss. This issue isn't going to be settled till games are played though. I guess we know the next big argument for CP.

[HemiEd]

I would agree, but then again, you should have directed this at Ed. He started right off the bat with the "we're not worthy" crap and hasn't let up since. Probably because he can't defend his opinion any other way..
YOU are the guy that said you would know everthing there is to know about the Offensive line after two preseason games. Thus, we are not worthy.

[Lzen]

There are a few out there, though, like Logical, that have pre-ordained that starting Huard means a better season than starting Croyle. Starting Croyle doesn't automatically mean a losing season, like some here have tried to bulldog everyone into believing.

See, I agree with that. I don't think we can say for sure that starting Huard means more wins than starting Croyle. That's why I said I'll give my opinion after preseason. At this point, I don't any of us have seen enough of Croyle to determine whether he is better or worse than Huard.

[HemiEd]

Let me ask everyone else here this, since obviously I'm "spinning" and "always right".

How would you feel if your boss said "Hey, we have confidence in you, but we feel that the upcoming task/negotiation/sale is just too difficult for you to handle. The next one will be much easier, it's almost a 'gimme', so we'll let you handle that one."

Would that IMPROVE your confidence?

Well if you did it that way, you know the answer. ROFL Do you respect what Shannahan does? What did he do last year? Did he start Cutler on the road? No, he waited until they were home.

[htismaqe]

YOU are the guy that said you would know everthing there is to know about the Offensive line after two preseason games. Thus, we are not worthy.

No, I most certainly did not say *I* would know everything.

I said specifically "WE", which implicitly includes the fans, the players, and the coaches. We = the Chiefs.

So before you assertain whether or not you are worthy, perhaps it would be better to understand what it is you're addressing.

[Lzen]

Let me ask everyone else here this, since obviously I'm "spinning" and "always right".

How would you feel if your boss said "Hey, we have confidence in you, but we feel that the upcoming task/negotiation/sale is just too difficult for you to handle. The next one will be much easier, it's almost a 'gimme', so we'll let you handle that one."

Would that IMPROVE your confidence?

Well, if it was a complex task that I had very limited experience doing, I had just been hired last month, and there was a guy who has been with the company for years that they are giving the task to, I wouldn't worry about it. ;)

[htismaqe]

Well if you did it that way, you know the answer. ROFL Do you respect what Shannahan does? What did he do last year? Did he start Cutler on the road? No, he waited until they were home.

I didn't ask for you to answer. I already know what your answer to that question is. I'm asking for others to chime in.

1) We're not making a QB change in the MIDDLE OF THE SEASON.

2) Our young QB is NOT a rookie.

You're comparing apples to oranges and you know it.

But since you asked, I absolutely DO respect what Shanahan has done. He's trying to win. Hopefully Herm continues on the path he has begun. It will be nice to have someone in Chiefs nation that isn't afraid to move forward for fear that he might stumble along the way.

[RustShack]

If you start Huard for the first two games, you get the line used to his snaps, you get the RB's used to his handoffs, and you get the WR's used to his throws. Then you just completely change the chemistry up by switching to Croyle, making it more likley for us to lose to the Vikings. You might as well let Bowe start off used to Croyle instead of letting him get used to Huard first and screw them both over. Croyle has a better arm, better leadership skills, played in a Pro type offence at college, is used to a crappy line, has sat out a whole year learning from two very good QB's, and all thats left that he needs is experience. Experience is somthing you get by STARTING games. Give Croyle the majority of the snaps in training camp, play him during pre season, and if all goes well like it should, start him week one. There is the chance he will look bad in pre season, but so did Huard. I say give him the chance, while Johnson, Gonzo, and Kennison have gas left in the tank.

[HemiEd]

No, I most certainly did not say *I* would know everything.

I said specifically "WE", which implicitly includes the fans, the players, and the coaches. We = the Chiefs.

So before you assertain whether or not you are worthy, perhaps it would be better to understand what it is you're addressing.


YOU said it, YOU! When in fact I have heard numerous statements from the Chiefs front office over the years, that it takes a while for a group of Offensive Line men to come together and work as a unit. YOU said two preseason games!

[htismaqe]

YOU said it, YOU! When in fact I have heard numerous statements from the Chiefs front office over the years, that it takes a while for a group of Offensive Line men to come together and work as a unit. YOU said two preseason games!

You can't even get your own thoughts straight. No consistency from one post to the next.

Yes, I did say two preseason games.

I also said, and I quote:

We're gonna know everything we need to know about the OL by the 3rd preseason game.

I did not say *I*. I said, quite explicitly, "we". We is a pronoun often used at ChiefsPlanet in replace of the proper noun "Chiefs".

[htismaqe]

If you start Huard for the first two games, you get the line used to his snaps, you get the RB's used to his handoffs, and you get the WR's used to his throws. Then you just completely change the chemistry up by switching to Croyle, making it more likley for us to lose to the Vikings. You might as well let Bowe start off used to Croyle instead of letting him get used to Huard first and screw them both over. Croyle has a better arm, better leadership skills, played in a Pro type offence at college, is used to a crappy line, has sat out a whole year learning from two very good QB's, and all thats left that he needs is experience. Experience is somthing you get by STARTING games. Give Croyle the majority of the snaps in training camp, play him during pre season, and if all goes well like it should, start him week one. There is the chance he will look back in pre season, but so did Huard. I say give him the chance, while Johnson, Gonzo, and Kennison have gas left in the tank.

Spin it however you want.

[HemiEd]

You pull out the "we aren't worthy" without even acknowledging that you have gone much farther out on a limb that I did. Logical, and apparently you too, have already pre-ordained that starting Croyle = losing while starting Huard = winning.

Well, I'm glad you enjoy 9-7/10-6 and a first round playoff loss year-after-year.

Me, I'm ready for a change, regardless of the results.

There is no progress without some element of risk.

See Parker, if you go back and re-read all of our posts, this is where we went wrong. You assumed when I am talking about success for Croyle, it is only about wins. I will admit that I did not state my case as clearly as it could have been, but that probably won't improve.
My concern with Croyle, is his opportunity to succeed, has he been put in the best position to succeed.
Long term, that would be wins and losses, but not short term IMO.
You keep saying he has been through adversity, shouldn't have a problem.
Do you remember how he performed in the game he was in? Don't you agree that better OLine play might have made that come out a little better? Do you think he has forgotten about that game? I don't.

[Logical]

....

There are a few out there, though, like Logical, that have pre-ordained that starting Huard means a better season than starting Croyle. Starting Croyle doesn't automatically mean a losing season, like some here have tried to bulldog everyone into believing.

That statement is incorrect, I believe we are going to have a losing season whether we start Croyle or Huard and that now that Green is gone we should definitely start Croyle. I think we might go 5-11 or 6-10 with Croyle while we are likely to go 7-9 or 8-8 with Huard. I set up the poll to make it a clear difference to see who wanted to win more than develop the team for the future.

[Bugeater]

Just FYI, you don't have to vote to see the results of a public poll.

[Logical]

Just FYI, you don't have to vote to see the results of a public poll.I know that but it is a pain in the ass to have to select View Results every time so being courteous I gave the users who wanted to opt out an option they could select.

[Logical]

Is this a "which scenario would be prefer" poll? Or a "which QB do I want to start" poll? Or a "which QB do I predict the staff will start" poll?

As for my preference, I'm willing to throw in Croyle to start so long as the OL is up to par. Don't want him and his injury history to end up like David Carr. I'd settle for a 6-10 season and a healthy QB at season's end to get Croyle the experience for 2008.

My prediction is that Huard will start becase Herm doesn't think the line is quite ready yet. But that a few (4?) games of experience will get them ready and playing well together. At which point, Croyle will go in and start the rest of the season.

And finally (though out of order), I want the better QB to start opening day. If that's Huard, then so be it.

For the record it was a preference poll that was purposely set up to be biased.

[the Talking Can]

not starting Croyle is pointless

Huard is a career bench warmer whose job is to not get killed while a Vet QB recovers from injury...playing a career clip board holder in place of a young QB on a rebuilding team would be epic dumbness....

I have faith in Herm on this one. He knows that Huard has nothing to offer the franchise moving forward.

[mlyonsd]

I voted for just seeing the results because I really don't know who should start until after training camp and preseason.

Personally I don't think we'll ever win a SB with Croyle or Huard.

[Logical]

We have discussed mediocrity to delirium on here. However, until you have been on the bottom, and could not get off of it, you won't get the real appreciation for how nice mediocrity can be.

After you have been through several coaching changes, quarterback changes etc. and still suck ass, you should regret ever wanting to gut the team.

Well I lived through and was a fan in the stands in the 70s and the 80s, I moved to Cali in 90, is that good enough to qualify me?

[boogblaster]

Start the Kid and roll the dice ....

[Logical]

Gentlemen, there is no need for insults. Why can't we all just get along?

FTR, I would rather go with the youth if that means we don't sacrifice the season. If starting Huard means making the playoffs, I say go with Huard. Croyle knows he will eventually be the man in KC. If he is not ready yet, then go with the guy who is experienced.

Notice I also had the foresight to say 9-7 which would not be a playoff season so that was not the choice.

[mlyonsd]

Well I lived through and was a fan in the stands in the 70s and the 80s, I moved to Cali in 90, is that good enough to qualify me?

Oooh. The 80's. The decade we should never speak of again.

I was in the stands with my new bride for the home opener one of those years when we played Seattle. I can't remember who the rookie RB they had was (Warner?) but on the very first play he took a pitch around the left side and ran about 70 yards before Cherry stripped him of the ball.

The thing I'll never forget is the upper deck was only about half full and when the RB cleared the linebackers and was heading down the field with nobody around him the guy behind me stood up and yelled "NO!, not on the very first play".

That was the 80's.

[Frankie]

logical is to carl
as frankie is to gretz..................kiss assI can't decide if this is more stupid or more lame. Help me out here folks. Which one is it?

[Logical]

Oooh. The 80's. The decade we should never speak of again.

I was in the stands with my new bride for the home opener one of those years when we played Seattle. I can't remember who the rookie RB they had was (Warner?) but on the very first play he took a pitch around the left side and ran about 70 yards before Cherry stripped him of the ball.

The thing I'll never forget is the upper deck was only about half full and when the RB cleared the linebackers and was heading down the field with nobody around him the guy behind me stood up and yelled "NO!, not on the very first play".

That was the 80's.Yup that was indeed the 80s

[the Talking Can]

What a waste.

We're gonna know everything we need to know about the OL by the 3rd preseason game.

START CROYLE!


VIVA EL CROYLE!

[the Talking Can]

If you start Huard for the first two games, you get the line used to his snaps, you get the RB's used to his handoffs, and you get the WR's used to his throws. Then you just completely change the chemistry up by switching to Croyle, making it more likley for us to lose to the Vikings. You might as well let Bowe start off used to Croyle instead of letting him get used to Huard first and screw them both over. Croyle has a better arm, better leadership skills, played in a Pro type offence at college, is used to a crappy line, has sat out a whole year learning from two very good QB's, and all thats left that he needs is experience. Experience is somthing you get by STARTING games. Give Croyle the majority of the snaps in training camp, play him during pre season, and if all goes well like it should, start him week one. There is the chance he will look bad in pre season, but so did Huard. I say give him the chance, while Johnson, Gonzo, and Kennison have gas left in the tank.


MUY ****ING BUENO

[Hammock Parties]

I bet these kind of threads on the Chargers forum last year were really popular.

[HemiEd]

Well I lived through and was a fan in the stands in the 70s and the 80s, I moved to Cali in 90, is that good enough to qualify me?

Yes, and what is your choice. I read on, your choice is to start Croyle right away. I see another Ryan Leaf happening if we do that.

[el borracho]

Croyle should start. We will not win it all this year anyway and Huard is not a long term answer for anything.

[BigMeatballDave]

Yes, and what is your choice. I read on, your choice is to start Croyle right away. I see another Ryan Leaf happening if we do that.No way. Ryan Leaf had a terrible attitude problem. Great idea. Lets just wait to start Croyle when he in his 30's like we always have...

[Dr. Johnny Fever]

I would generally say the best QB in pre-season gets the job. However Damon Huard is not going to solve any long term issues for us... so I relunctantly say give Croyle the chance to hang himself or prove himself.

[BigMeatballDave]

Huard, until the revamped OL proves they are effective and won't get Brodie killed. I am hoping that would be by the third game of the season, the Home Opener.Well, if the line is that shitty, then Croyle will see action anyway when Huard gets killed.

[BigMeatballDave]

I just happen to think that starting a 35-year old career backup, FOR ANY REASON, is a dumb idea. It's even more dumb if you're doing it because you want to be "safe".There it is, Post of the Day!

[HemiEd]

Well, if the line is that shitty, then Croyle will see action anyway when Huard gets killed.

The line should improve as they play together, anyway that is what the experts say. I honestly think the OL is going to be much better, but they still need time to become a coheasive unit. To think they would do it after two preseason games, is reaching IMO.

[Logical]

I bet these kind of threads on the Chargers forum last year were really popular.Who you kidding at this time last year there were no popular threads on a Charger's BB.

[Logical]

Yes, and what is your choice. I read on, your choice is to start Croyle right away. I see another Ryan Leaf happening if we do that.So you are saying Croyle is an immature head case, if so better to find out right away.

[Logical]

Croyle should start. We will not win it all this year anyway and Huard is not a long term answer for anything.Ding, ding, ding

We have the real winner.

[HemiEd]

So you are saying Croyle is an immature head case, if so better to find out right away.

No, in fact I believe the opposite is true, thus he is where he is. But I think Ryan Leaf's chances to succeed were severely hampered, by how we was handled.
The only evidence I really have as to how Brodie Croyle will perform, against NFL talent, was not a stellar performance that would make me think he should start on the road.
I know he has carried the clip board a lot since then, but I want the guy to have the best opportunity to succeed.
When the Chiefs come into that game 1-1, I can only imagine the support thrown behind him in his first Pro Start.

[Logical]

No, in fact I believe the opposite is true, thus he is where he is. But I think Ryan Leaf's chances to succeed were severely hampered, by how we was handled.
The only evidence I really have as to how Brodie Croyle will perform, against NFL talent, was not a stellar performance that would make me think he should start on the road.
I know he has carried the clip board a lot since then, but I want the guy to have the best opportunity to succeed.
When the Chiefs come into that game 1-1, I can only imagine the support thrown behind him in his first Pro Start.

If the support is not there the first game I do not see why it will suddenly materialize in the third game.

[Sanka]

Croyle will struggle this season, but will show many bright spots. In a couple years he will be the best QB in the AFC West and possibly a Pro-Bowl QB.

[crazycoffey]

we're going to sign Culpepper

[Logical]

...
I certainly know where you're coming from, I "understand" your perspective. I just happen to think that starting a 35-year old career backup, FOR ANY REASON, is a dumb idea. It's even more dumb if you're doing it because you want to be "safe".See sometimes we do agree.

[HemiEd]

If the support is not there the first game I do not see why it will suddenly materialize in the third game.

So you expect all the Arrowhead fans, to travel to Houston?
I don't think there will be enough tickets available. Especially since the Texans will be undefeated at that time.

[beach tribe]

Denver's secondary is very good, and their run d will focusing on LJ. I see the game coming down to field goals, and I don't trust a rook making a gw field goal from 40+. so that is why. I love the chiefs, and i hope i am wrong on this prediction and they go 16-0 and win the super bowl.
10-6 playoffs is not 16-0 superbowl, one is impossible the other is not. we will just have to wait and see.it feels good to talk football. good night

[Logical]

So you expect all the Arrowhead fans, to travel to Houston?
I don't think there will be enough tickets available. Especially since the Texans will be undefeated at that time.OK I could be wrong but I thought you were talking about the support of the offensive line. If not my mistake.

[HemiEd]

OK I could be wrong but I thought you were talking about the support of the offensive line. If not my mistake.

No problem Jim, I have stated a couple reasons in this thread, why I like the idea of starting him against the Vikings.
Improved line play, as well as it being a home game, thus getting fan support.

[Logical]

I am impressed that with 95 votes in 70+ percent are going with developing a QB for the future. Hopefully our desires will be fulfilled.

[blueballs]

I command
this thread to be
unstickied

and thread starter
given a enema

[BigMeatballDave]

Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky:: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky:: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky:: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: Sticky: