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

[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.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

As was our offensive coordinator.

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

Don't you mean Brodie should have lit it up with no pass protect, no running game, predictable playcalling, and questionable targets. Because damn it sure sounds like it according to some.

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by PGM

Don't you mean Brodie should have lit it up with no pass protect

Croyle wasn't sacked at all in Detroit and he laid a man-sized stink nugget.
Damon Huard was sacked 4 times, count them 4, and produced 2 TD's and no interceptions with the same line, same RB, and the same staff.

questionable targets.

My ass...

Gonzalez & Bowe combined for 2100 yards and 10 TD's.

[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.