Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 7244749)

So if Croyle is 0-9, how does Cassel get a pass on the Denver debacle, when he was clearly the one shitting his pants on offense?

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 7244749)

See that is my point, this started out as

"Croyle is 0-9 he is dogshit and why would anyone want to see him play, and they are stupid mother ****ers for even thinking it."/guardasill

So if Croyle is 0-9, how does Cassel get a pass on the Denver debacle, when he was clearly the one shitting his pants on offense?

Any idiot, even one with brain damage from playing Jr. College football should be able to see that.

Originally Posted by jd1020 (Post 7244232)

I can't believe how much little faith people have in Croyle. Ya he hasn't won a game. He also played on a team that was fighting for the #1 draft pick. He didn't have a #1 running game to hide behind. Are you guys so nervous because you dont think Croyle can hand the ball off to Jones or Charles or throw the typical 5 yard slants, dump offs, or screen passes that Weis asks of Cassel. Give me a break. The guy can do what Cassel does + some things Cassel cant.

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2 (Post 7244766)

Cassel was the one shitting his pants on offense in the first Denver game? You might want to check the first half passing stats vs. running stats and penalties.

Originally Posted by Color Red (Post 7244772)

True. True. What would be interesting to see is if Croyle is able to put down his gunslinger mantle and fit into the ball control, "careful" philosophy that Cassell has played with.

Originally Posted by Pants (Post 7244783)

Cassel had a tight leash on him and even still he was throwing the ball into the ground or over the head of receivers 5 yards away from him. But hey, at least he didn't turn it over. :facepalm:

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 7244809)

Eerily similar to the Herm/Huard game plans.

IMO this team really needs a QB that can be turned loose, and that was what was so exciting about the Seattle game. It looked like they had turned Cassel loose to me.

I don't think Brodie Croyle played very well with his hands tied by Herm, hopefully that isn't the case Sunday.

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 7244482)

See, I watch the games, you are reciting numbers. Cassel played two good games this year, two. I want to see what Brodie can do, even though it will be a small sample.

The rest of the six wins, was done by keeping Cassel from losing the games. If you know half as much about football as you spout off that you do, you know this.

If Brodie had half the opportunities Cassel has had, in my opinion he would do better. He actually did something in college, besides warming the bench. He was universally acclaimed for his talent. Is he the final answer? Probably not, but anyone that thinks Cassel is, is kidding themselves.

But go on, run your mouth brilliant one.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 7244827)

When you're claiming that Cassel has only played two good games this season, you probably shouldn't be following that up with insults of other people's intelligence.

Originally Posted by Pants (Post 7244828)

No, your definition of 'good' is just different. It's a subjective issue. You think not throwing any interceptions is good. You don't care if he's inaccurate, doesn't progress through his reads, has bad footwork and has no pocket awareness.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 7244827)

When you're claiming that Cassel has only played two good games this season, you probably shouldn't be following that up with insults of other people's intelligence.

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By (Post 7244837)

No, I care if he's playing "good". I don't pretend that I know what his reads are, for example, because that would require that I pretend to know precisely what plays were called and precisely what every player on the field was supposed to do at every moment. I leave that to the idiots who can't be bothered with honest evaluation.