The Chiefs have an unreliable rushing game that hasn’t scared any defense. They have an offensive line that can’t protect the quarterback or open rushing lanes. They have one wide receiver and one tight end whom the quarterbacks trust.
With those concerns, does it really matter who plays quarterback?
They’ve been looking forward to Croyle’s return. But Niswanger said the quarterback can do only so much. Croyle can’t block or run or catch, and worse, he can’t pass when those other assignments aren’t taken care of.
about 1 month ago
ChiefDJ
39 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Niswanger's Got It Right
The coaching staff has tossed out Croyle’s name before like he’s suddenly going to turn their fortunes around. But the fact of the matter is that he’s still never outperformed Huard. If the coaching staff thinks that the addition of Croyle is somehow going to improve this offense, they’re delusional.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 5, 2008 11:30 PM CDT 0 recs
In all fairness
They spent the entire offseason building the offense around Croyles strengths and working with him to know it inside out. So its not difficult for me to understand that they are hoping that turns things around.
We only saw Croyle in half the first game of the season and I think its safe to say he outperformed Huards performance today against the Panthers. Croyles problem is and always will be his inability to stay on the field, not necessarily his ability.
by ChiefDJ on
Oct 5, 2008 11:53 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Umm
Not to be snarky, but what strengths? He’s got a strong arm but the Chiefs rarely go downfield with him except in preseason games, which don’t matter (probably because of his questionable accuracy). People said in college that he worked more effectively when he could be a gunslinger (not that he was anything particularly special in college) whereas in the pros he shows zero creativity when he’s running the offense.
I’ve made the point before that I don’t think Croyle’s good and that I don’t think he’ll thrive in any system, but from what I’ve heard about his abilities and his strengths in college, the Chiefs’ offense has never really catered to any of them and in the one game where Huard and Croyle played Huard was more effective running the offense than Croyle was so I’m not giving the offense a pass because Croyle’s out. When the coaching staff says that their problems are because Croyle’s not healthy, it’s just a bullshit excuse…Huard’s still the best QB on their roster (limited though he is) and even he can’t make Herm’s piece of shit offense work consistently.
We only saw Croyle in half the first game of the season and I think its safe to say he outperformed Huards performance today against the Panthers.
This is a b.s. argument that’s got no basis in fact. If you want to go down the hypothetical road, I’ll say that Croyle still wouldn’t have outperformed Huard in this game because Croyle would have gotten knocked out with injury in the first quarter after McIntosh let Charles Johnson run through unchecked to hit the QB…twice.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 6, 2008 7:50 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Yes
And what about Huard’s performance against Denver? Champ Bailey and Dre Bly aren’t terrible cornerbacks.
by CBaller13 on
Oct 6, 2008 11:21 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Agreed
Huard performed capably there. The only reason Croyle getting reinstalled as a starter would be a positive for the Chiefs is if Huard’s injured (which he may very well be). Otherwise, Croyle’s a downgrade at the position regardless of how strong his arm is or how mobile he is (because he’s not accurate enough to be a downfield threat).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 6, 2008 11:24 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Our defense would be a lot better with Jared Allen.
Just sayin’.
by Vince D on Oct 6, 2008 2:34 AM CDT 0 recs
It would seem to me Jamaal Charles
should get more carries. He was the only bright spot in the offense. Huard looked scared at times, didn’t set his feet to throw, etc… He needs to be benched IMO.
I blog the Carolina Panthers at www.catscratchreader.com
by Jaxon on Oct 6, 2008 7:47 AM CDT 0 recs
The only problem
Is that the alternatives aren’t any better.
Huard didn’t play his best game. He looked much different out there.
by primetime 07 on
Oct 6, 2008 8:18 AM CDT
up
0 recs
I Think Huard's Injured
Gannon noted it quite a few times, that Huard looked like he was hurt out there because he wasn’t even doing the things he’s capable of doing.
And if that’s the case, might as well bring back Croyle because we’re screwed no matter who’s out there playing.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 6, 2008 10:21 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Again
It’s the O-Line that needs to be better. Croyle isn’t going to do anything better or different than Huard if he’s doesn’t get SOME protection. Every single injury to Croyle, since he’s been a Chief, can be attributed to a lack of protection. No one is going to stay healthy if the play of our O-line doesn’t improve. And forget about running the ball – there’s nowhere to go – it’s like running (repeatedly) into a brick wall. The lack of a ground game has NOTHING to do w/ LJ or JC. Why continue to run L.J. and risk another injury to another one of our key players.
This shows just how bad Denver’s Defensive front is (was) – and we knew that going in -just like we knew the Panther’s had an excellent defensive front (and they do). There isn’t anything we can do except wait for our front 5 to get better . That’s whre the focus of our concerns should be. Can we get better with the personnel we currently have on the O-line. Will additional practice and playing time together make enough of a difference or are different players required.
Around here I think it’s a concensus that MacIntosh’s spot is temporary – but what about the rest of the crew ?? Can they get better ??
by Cat Stabber on Oct 6, 2008 10:04 AM CDT 0 recs
Holding the Ball
No O-Line can sustain protection for as long as Huard holds the ball in the pocket. It’s exacerbated by the fact that Huard doesn’t have the presence to slide around in the pocket to avoid pressure. Not that Croyle does either. It’s just that this is not all on the O-Line.
Huard is a very bad QB, with no arm, and who continues to panic and make stupid decisions under the slightest of pressure.
by bfos7215 on Oct 6, 2008 10:35 AM CDT 0 recs
I See What You Mean
Quarterbacks who hold the ball for the full two seconds their offensive line gives them in the pocket are obviously the root of the problem.
/sarcasm
Huard was not the problem with that game (or at least not the biggest problem). It was the line…particularly on the right side. Peyton Manning wouldn’t have been able to get 200 yards with the amount of time Huard got.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 6, 2008 10:46 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Don't Blame You
It would be hard to admit you were wrong just a couple of days of singing Huard’s praise. It was certainly everyone else’s fault.
by bfos7215 on
Oct 6, 2008 12:10 PM CDT
up
0 recs
So are you saying
That Croyle would have made a (the) difference or are you just ragging on someone ??
by Cat Stabber on
Oct 6, 2008 12:22 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I'm Saying
That Huard is a horrible QB. It’s not a new development and it’s not because of this fantasy that he had no time every time he dropped back.
by bfos7215 on
Oct 6, 2008 12:34 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I'm not defending Huard
So lets get that straight. So what’s his record as a starter ? I think it’s actually pretty good so horrible might be a little harsh. But I see where you’re going – I agree that we do need a Q.B. I just don’t see the point in trying to get someone (now) before the troubles with the O Line are resolved. There isn’t a Q.B. out there that won’t be “injury prone” behind our current line – at least the way they are playing right now.
by Cat Stabber on
Oct 6, 2008 12:55 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Football Outsiders
Has our O-Line ranked at 26th in passing offense going into this week. It is bad, but there are worse. And there are worse lines with better QB’s. In fact, only Detroit has a QB situation that is as bad as ours. Even at that, I think I’d take all of their QB’s for all of ours in a second.
I really don’t think there is an immediate answer for us. That’s just what happens when your GM and coach have done such a bad job at the position.
by bfos7215 on
Oct 6, 2008 1:15 PM CDT
up
0 recs
26th ??
That’s better than I would have thought – although I don’t know what qualifies FO as an authority (and I mean I really don’t know). I’d bet that rating drops significantly after the Panther game though. I’m not a Herm fan – but I don’t see this as on him entirely. I actually like Kitna – but you’re right, he’s getting killed as well. (BTW – I didn’t mean to imply that I liked Kitna enough to be on our team)
by Cat Stabber on
Oct 6, 2008 1:50 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Detroit
Kitna is a terrible QB this year. He’s injury prone and he’s not hitting his targets, so I wouldn’t give him the benefit of the doubt as being better than Huard. Nor Stanton or Orlovsky. Both have looked pretty horrible…and they’ve got two excellent receivers to throw to with Williams and Johnson (and two decent ones with MacDonald and Furrey).
As for why I defend Huard, it’s not because I think he’s good, it’s because he’s merely the best QB on our roster. And I’m going to emphasize this point because you obviously keep missing it when you skim (as opposed to reading) my comments before responding Brodie Croyle has never outperformed Damon Huard in any way as a quarterback. He is a guy with a strong arm who is a worse downfield passer than Huard because his accuracy is for shit. His on-field performance demonstrates this and so do his stats. So while Damon Huard’s not a good QB, Croyle is worse. And much more injury prone. And I’m not under some delusion that there’s anyone out there available to us now who could do a better job than Huard so you might as well quit blaming Huard for the team’s performance because he’s the only capable QB on this roster, he’s the best option we’re going to have this season, and even a great QB would never be able to produce with Sackintosh pass-blocking for him and Herm running the offense.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 6, 2008 1:58 PM CDT
up
0 recs
OK
I was just saying Huard doesn’t just LOOK like a bad QB because of the O-Line. He really IS bad. Has nothing to do with Croyle.
That said, Huard is no where close to accurate when throwing downfield. In fact, most of his deep ball look more like punts than throws. Huard’s “accuracy” has always come from the <5 yard passing game. Hence, the oft-inflated QB rating.
by bfos7215 on
Oct 6, 2008 2:14 PM CDT
up
0 recs
And I Was Saying
That he’s the best option we’ve got, and that there’s nothing else we’re going to grab off the waiver wire that’s going to be better (especially with that line) so people who want to complain how Huard is the problem are just wasting their breath. It’s like hearing someone bitch about how the carpets are dirty while the house is on fire.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 6, 2008 2:31 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Wasting Breath is What We Are Hear For
We are all talking on a blog about one of the worst teams ever fielded in the NFL. You’re complaints about the O-Line are no more valuable than our complaints about the QB.
So, while I’m bitching about the dirty carpets, you’re bitching about how silly I am to bitch about the dirty carpets and also taking the time to point out that they are really only dirty because the vacuum cleaner we bought from K-Mart is a piece of junk.
by bfos7215 on
Oct 6, 2008 3:09 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Yeah
That was pretty good. Touche. :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 6, 2008 5:55 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Huard > Kitna
Kitna apparently is causing a brouhaha internally.
by primetime 07 on
Oct 6, 2008 2:43 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Wouldn't Surprise Me
Kitna gave me the impression in Detroit of having a real sense of entitlement…like it was his team. Problem is that his performance has never really justified it while he was there.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 6, 2008 2:47 PM CDT
up
0 recs
At Least He's Got Talent
Kitna just sucks this year.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 6, 2008 5:55 PM CDT
up
0 recs
But...
That only makes my hatred for him even greater. A douche bag that big shouldn’t be a good NFL QB.
by bfos7215 on
Oct 7, 2008 9:06 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Agreed
On a side note – where does everyone NOW think the Chiefs will end up record wise and draft position wise? I think we get the #2 pick behind Detroit. I think we go 2-14. The problem is I’m not sure who we will beat for our 2nd win.
by CBaller13 on Oct 6, 2008 11:22 AM CDT 0 recs
Top Five
Remember, St. Louis is still looking every bit as bad as we are. And there’s no guarantee that Jim Haslett will be better than Linehan because Haslett’s defense has been awful across the board.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on Oct 6, 2008 11:26 AM CDT 0 recs
Top 5
And for the most part – many on this site agreed that would be the likely scenario before this season started. We all knew we’d lose a lot this season – but losing like this………. It’s hard.
by Cat Stabber on Oct 6, 2008 11:32 AM CDT 0 recs
I know
I agree that people saw this coming. I just have an extremely hard time accepting a team that isn’t playing hard or even thinking they can win. Rebuilding is fine, but you still go out to win and compete. The players are flat and the game plans make no sense. It’s like everyone is just going through the motions.
As for St. Louis, they have Stephen Jackson, Torry Holt and Bulger so I think they can piece together a few more wins than we can. I see them going 3-13 or 4-12. But top 5 is definately correct.
by CBaller13 on Oct 6, 2008 11:38 AM CDT 0 recs
The problem isn't
the running game, it’s the lack of a passing game! That’s why the BOX is always stacked.
by Ilamuku on Oct 6, 2008 1:41 PM CDT 0 recs
It's The Running Game Too
The line is only able to open holes when the opposing defense can’t stop the run against anyone (which describes both Atlanta’s and Denver’s defense). The passing game and the running game are both the problem, because both are pretty much non-functional against any decent defense.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
by UCrawford on
Oct 6, 2008 2:02 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
New FanPost
