Does a football team going through a massive youth transition need a 35-year old backup quarterback?
The answer is no. No, the Kansas City Chiefs do not need Damon Huard.
The fact that Huard was resigned before the 2007 season is another sliver of evidence that the Kansas City Chiefs front office really did have no idea how bad of shape this team was in. If they did realize the dire straights the team was in, Huard would have been shipped out, to somewhere, for something of value to the Chiefs.
As great as Huard was in 2006 (Insert QB rating line here), a green quarterback would have had as much success as he had in 2007.
Damon Huard went from throwing eleven touchdowns and one interception in eight games in 2006 to throwing eleven touchdowns and thirteen interceptions in ten games in 2007. To be fair, no Chiefs' QB played well last year. This isn't a knock on Huard so much as it's saying - If we're going to struggle, get some future value out of having younger players gain experience.
I don't have access to any behind the scenes information but I've always felt the mentor role was overrated. Do we really want to keep Damon Huard around so he can teach Croyle the ways of the NFL? I don't think so. Game experience is going to be Croyle's learning tool. In fact, Croyle has already started nearly half the number of games Huard has in his entire twelve-year career.
If you're going to make the argument that players like Samie Parker, Ty Law and Casey Wiegmann were let go because their future replacements have more potential value to the Chiefs, you have to say the same about Damon Huard. Tyler Thigpen (pictured) is as valuable a backup as Huard is for the Chiefs.
Brodie Croyle may be the future franchise quarterback of the Kansas City Chiefs. Or he may not be. The Chiefs owe it to their youth movement and the future of the franchise to replace Damon Huard with another young quarterback.