Chiefs OK Mr. Croyle, I've defended loyally on this forum. - Page 12

Frankie · 05-13-2008, 12:23 PM

It's time for you to reward me and the the rest of your defenders. I'm looking forward to reading a piece on the Star about how you have dedicated this off-season to gaining 10-15 pounds of muscle. I hope you haven't forgotten that as a necessary step for your career and gaining respect of the fans and your teammates.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 05-15-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 05-15-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

Of course the odds are against Croyle becoming a successful quarterback in this league. Especially on this team.

However, (and the tendency to injure problem, notwithstanding) he has all the physical tools necessary to play the game at a high level. Due to my geographical location, I've seen him play in college and I've seen Cutler play in college. A lot. And, scoff if you wish, but I have to tell you that I would pick Croyle over Cutler in a heartbeat based on his ability to get the ball out, find receivers while under duress, and leadership (desire to win, putting it all on the line, etc.). Cutler is a whiny bitch whereas Croyle wants to win at all costs. That's why, when he was drafted, I thought it was a great selection - given the round, perhaps one of Herm's best picks, so far.

Sure, he may not work out. But, personally, I don't think he's had a fair shot to put points on the board. Mainly due to the patented Solari system of play-calling to the enemy's advantage, lack of protection, lack of running game, lack of clutch receivers, as well as the fact that he's being told that his first option is the two-yard dump-off.

In my opinion, some of you guys are seeing the glass half-empty.

FAX

SAY IT AIN'T SO, MR. FAX!

AT CHIEFSPLANET?

Fish · 05-15-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

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** · 05-15-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

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 · 05-15-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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

Try 2 of the 4.

Quote:

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.

Micjones · 05-15-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 05-15-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

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 · 05-15-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

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** · 05-15-2008, 04:47 PM

Quote:

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.

CupidStunt · 05-15-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chiefnj2

I don't realistically see how the team will have a complete picture of Croyle at the end of the 2008 season. New OL, new system, inexperienced WR's. I don't think any young QB would do well in that situation.

Maybe not, but it's good enough to judge him reasonably well. I don't think a six-game sample with last year's horrific team was, but he should have a healthy Larry Johnson in the backfield with improved RB depth, at least a couple of solid targets in Bowe and Gonzalez, and a line that should be able to at least keep him upright for a couple of seconds. (As unproven as KC's line may be, and as bad as it may seem, their strength should be pass-blocking and it could actually be decent in that department; it's the run-blocking that will stink.)

If Croyle bombs this year, he's done.

Pasta Little Brioni · 05-15-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

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 · 05-15-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 05-15-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

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 · 05-15-2008, 05:16 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

questionable targets.

My ass...

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

Micjones · 05-15-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

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.

05-13-2008, 12:23 PM
Frankie Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Casino cash: $10004900	OK Mr. Croyle, I've defended loyally on this forum. It's time for you to reward me and the the rest of your defenders. I'm looking forward to reading a piece on the Star about how you have dedicated this off-season to gaining 10-15 pounds of muscle. I hope you haven't forgotten that as a necessary step for your career and gaining respect of the fans and your teammates.
Posts: 26,959