OK Mr. Croyle, I've defended loyally on this forum.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Micjones

He should never be mentioned in the same breath with Hall of Fame QB's.
It's beyond me why he ever was. You can't expect to forecast his future by pitting him against players who are some of the very best to EVER play the game.

That's the way of the NFL. Players drafted in higher rounds get more time to prove themselves than middle and late round picks. That can't even be argued. Why you've made this into my own personal philosophy speaks volumes.

Thanks Captain Obvious.
But isn't that what the entire thread is composed of? Opinion?

I can say that he hasn't proven he has the requisite skills.
You wanna argue that?

And those three people are...
*A man who wanted Damon Huard to run the offense just one year ago
*A defensive-oriented coach
*A coach who has only had a modicum of success in the now defunct NFLEL

You got me there Chief.

It's humorous that you think so little of him that you feel he shouldn't even be compared to other QBs. The fact that you won't even acknowledge the similarity in first game starts shows your bias. Would it have been wrong to compare Aikman or Elway in their first 6 starts to HOF QBs at that time? What's the requirements for this comparison rule you think exists?

And I don't know how you can say that's the way of the NFL. Simply looking at the current list of starting QBs proves that to be wrong. By your standards, players like Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Marc Bulger, and David Gerrard should have never seen the field. I'm glad head coaches don't share your opinion. You're right about the "personal philosophy" part being your own though.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

It's humorous that you think so little of him that you feel he shouldn't even be compared to other QBs.

He shouldn't be compared to Hall of Fame QB's.
Not where it concerns performance.

The fact that you won't even acknowledge the similarity in first game starts shows your bias. Would it have been wrong to compare Aikman or Elway in their first 6 starts to HOF QBs at that time? What's the requirements for this comparison rule you think exists?

There's another reason why he isn't comparable...
HE WAS TAKEN IN THE THIRD ROUND OF THE NFL DRAFT.
The other QB's were #1 overall picks. You can't be this numb.

And I don't know how you can say that's the way of the NFL. Simply looking at the current list of starting QBs proves that to be wrong. By your standards, players like Tom Brady, Tony Romo, Marc Bulger, and David Gerrard should have never seen the field.

First 6 starts for each QB...

Tom Brady
10 TD's
5 INT's
1,273 Passing Yards
Game 4, 148.3 QB Rating
Game 6, 124.4 QB Rating

Tony Romo
10 TD's
4 INT's
1,651 Passing Yards
Game 2, 109 QB Rating
Game 3, 126.8 QB Rating
Game 5, 148.9 QB Rating

Marc Bulger
14 TD's
6 INT's
1,815 Passing Yards
Game 4, 131.7 QB Rating
Game 5, 100.5 QB Rating

David Garrard
5 TD's
2 INT's
1,044 Passing Yards
Game 5, 103.3 QB Rating


To summarize...
Each QB had better numbers. Each QB improved over time.
Each QB earned more time to develop.

Can we please stop using these QB's as examples for how we should handle Brodie Croyle?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Micjones

He shouldn't be compared to Hall of Fame QB's.
Not where it concerns performance.



There's another reason why he isn't comparable...
HE WAS TAKEN IN THE THIRD ROUND OF THE NFL DRAFT.
The other QB's were #1 overall picks. You can't be this numb.



First 6 starts for each QB...

Tom Brady
10 TD's
5 INT's
1,273 Passing Yards
Game 4, 148.3 QB Rating
Game 6, 124.4 QB Rating

Tony Romo
10 TD's
4 INT's
1,651 Passing Yards
Game 2, 109 QB Rating
Game 3, 126.8 QB Rating
Game 5, 148.9 QB Rating

Marc Bulger
14 TD's
6 INT's
1,815 Passing Yards
Game 4, 131.7 QB Rating
Game 5, 100.5 QB Rating

David Garrard
5 TD's
2 INT's
1,044 Passing Yards
Game 5, 103.3 QB Rating


To summarize...
Each QB had better numbers. Each QB improved over time.
Each QB earned more time to develop.

Can we please stop using these QB's as examples for how we should handle Brodie Croyle?

Hold on.

You're missing his point.

Based on your way of thinking, these guys would have NEVER seen the field to PROVE that they are the talented guys they are.

The Saints, who needed a QB like I need oxygen, RELEASED Marc Bulger.

David Garrard SAT behind a below average Byron Leftwich for years, as did Romo in Dallas.

And we've discussed ad nauseum around here that the Patriots have Mo Lewis to thank for their recent run of Lombardi Trophies. Had he not re-arranged Drew Bledsoe's internal organs, there's no telling when Brady sees the field.

3 of the 4 guys listed had the benefit of spending years as a back up.

Croyle got 1, and was thrown into the fire behind one of the worst lines in NFL history.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Hold on.

You're missing his point.

Based on your way of thinking, these guys would have NEVER seen the field to PROVE that they are the talented guys they are.

The Saints, who needed a QB like I need oxygen, RELEASED Marc Bulger.

David Garrard SAT behind a below average Byron Leftwich for years, as did Romo in Dallas.

And we've discussed ad nauseum around here that the Patriots have Mo Lewis to thank for their recent run of Lombardi Trophies. Had he not re-arranged Drew Bledsoe's internal organs, there's no telling when Brady sees the field.

3 of the 4 guys listed had the benefit of spending years as a back up.

Croyle got 1, and was thrown into the fire behind one of the worst lines in NFL history.

Thank you for explaining that.

I thought it would be obvious that I wasn't comparing their stats, I was referencing their draft position and the fact that teams kept them around even though they were drafted low.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Thank you for explaining that.

I thought it would be obvious that I wasn't comparing their stats, I was referencing their draft position and the fact that teams kept them around even though they were drafted low.

Yep, all except for the Saints/Bulger.

And it happens quite a bit.

Ravens were in the same situation, needing a QB DESPERATELY.

So they dump Derek Anderson, who gets to stick it in their ass twice a year for a division rival.

All out of impatience.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Thank you for explaining that.

I thought it would be obvious that I wasn't comparing their stats, I was referencing their draft position and the fact that teams kept them around even though they were drafted low.

Throw stats out the window once you see in black and white that they clearly earned development time. Boy I tell ya...

Yeah, they kept Brady around cause he had great hair.
Or cause they didn't wanna burn that 6th Rounder.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Based on your way of thinking, these guys would have NEVER seen the field to PROVE that they are the talented guys they are.

*Scratching my head*

Croyle has seen the field.

The Saints, who needed a QB like I need oxygen, RELEASED Marc Bulger.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Talented players are routinely released in the NFL.
Why is this always seen as some knock on a player's ability to produce?

David Garrard SAT behind a below average Byron Leftwich for years, as did Romo in Dallas.

Yes, they did.
I'm going to ask you how to explain why Brady and Bulger were able to produce though after becoming starting QB's in their second season (like Croyle).

The real truth is all four QB's worked out because they had the requisite skills necessary to being starting QB's.

All Romo and Garrard were gifted with were roster spots.
They still had to go out and prove themselves.
And I'll be damned if after 6 starts they weren't both much more efficient than Croyle has been.

And we've discussed ad nauseum around here that the Patriots have Mo Lewis to thank for their recent run of Lombardi Trophies. Had he not re-arranged Drew Bledsoe's internal organs, there's no telling when Brady sees the field.

It's silly to isolate any one incident.
IF my aunt had been born with dangly parts she'd be my uncle.
The fact that Bledsoe got hurt didn't make Tom Brady into an All-World QB.
It gave him the opportunity, but again... It doesn't end there. Opportunity did not make Tom Brady.

3 of the 4 guys listed had the benefit of spending years as a back up.

Try 2 of the 4.

Croyle got 1, and was thrown into the fire behind one of the worst lines in NFL history.

Having a year and a half to learn an offense can't be categorized as being "thrown into the fire". In fact, he sat longer than both Brady and Bulger.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Micjones

I'm going to ask you how to explain why Brady and Bulger were able to produce though after becoming starting QB's in their second season (like Croyle).

I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with:

1) Having excellent offensive lines.

2) Having top-tier offensive coordinators.

3) Having players at the skill positions that actually had some TALENT.


Bottom line?

Had ANY of those QB's listed played here, under these circumstances in their first full year starting, you'd be advocating kicking them to the curb, because they would have sucked.

Out loud.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with:

1) Having excellent offensive lines.

2) Having top-tier offensive coordinators.

3) Having players at the skill positions that actually had some TALENT.


Bottom line?

Had ANY of those QB's listed played here, under these circumstances in their first full year starting, you'd be advocating kicking them to the curb, because they would have sucked.

Out loud.

yep...our line wasn't just bad, it was historically bad.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by PGM

yep...our line wasn't just bad, it was historically bad.

As was our offensive coordinator.

And a good 50% (or more) of our skill players.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with:

1) Having excellent offensive lines.

2) Having top-tier offensive coordinators.

3) Having players at the skill positions that actually had some TALENT.

Romo and Bulger both stepped into great situations offensively (where it concerns offensive weapons). Brady? Not so much. I would argue that Croyle had better pass-catching options.

Concerning pass protection?
Brady was sacked 41 times his first full year as the starter.
Some great protection that was...

Bulger? 12 times in 7 games. Not as much as Croyle though (sacked 5 more times in one less contest).

Romo? Sacked 21 times in 10 games. Again... Not as often as Croyle was dumped but still a significant number.

It's not like any of these guys sat back and made sandwiches while they waited for a receiver to come open.

If having the nucleus Dallas, New England, and St. Louis had is key for Croyle to have success... He doesn't need another 10 games to prove himself. He simply won't pan out. Because we don't have anything like that 2002 St. Louis Rams team. Or the 2006 Cowboys.

Bottom line?

Had ANY of those QB's listed played here, under these circumstances in their first full year starting, you'd be advocating kicking them to the curb, because they would have sucked.

Out loud.

I'm not sure that Brady would've.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I'm sure it had NOTHING to do with:

1) Having excellent offensive lines.

2) Having top-tier offensive coordinators.

3) Having players at the skill positions that actually had some TALENT.


Bottom line?

Had ANY of those QB's listed played here, under these circumstances in their first full year starting, you'd be advocating kicking them to the curb, because they would have sucked.

Out loud.

No, being on a Super Bowl team and good Coaching* had nothing to do with Tom Bradeys success.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by KC Tattoo

No, being on a Super Bowl team and good Coaching* had nothing to do with Tom Bradeys success.

Yep, it was a plug and play system.
Any QB could've been as successful as Brady has been.