Trent or Brodie?
by Joel Thorman on Jun 4, 2008 6:20 AM CDT
Email
Print
Knowing what we do now, is this question still difficult for many of us to answer?
Trent, 38 years old, is currently with St. Louis Rams. He may be old in NFL years but he doesn't have the mileage on him that many others do.
Brodie has struggled as a starting quarterback, but is anyone ready to give up on him?
Knowing what I know now, I would rather have Trent Green still on the team. Concussed or not, I believe he gives us a better chance to win than Croyle.
But, I'm starting to learn better than that because no Croyle means we are back where we started. Back where we have been for the last 2 decades.
Is there any scenario in which you would rather have Trent versus Brodie?
112 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Our current situation...
I definitely wouldn’t want Trent. Right now, we know Trent wouldn’t be the answer for the future. Brodie has a chance. I’d take the upside any day. “Has a chance” is much better than “REALLY REALLY REALLY washed up….”
I don't see how
Croyle is “where we have been for the last 2 decades”. How many times in the past twenty years have the Chiefs started an unproven rookie?
Also, he’s with the Rams? How did I miss that? What did Miami get for him?
Miami Didn't Get Anything
They released him after the season and he signed with St. Louis as a free agent.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
I will go with Croyle any game
Put Trent Greene behind the open I-70 offensive line we had last year and he would have stunk to high heaven. Likewise, some forget how Damon looked after LJ was out. The coaches and the players believe in Croyle, but some of the fans do not. I will go with Brodie.
Only
If there was some sort of time-warp and he showed up with the entire 2003 offense. That would be great.
Otherwise, hell no.
TOUCHDOWN! KAN-SAH-CITY!!!
Having Trent now
would mean another shot at a quarterback, which might be a plus to those Brodie detractors.
Trent doesn't have the mileage?
Who rolled his odometer back?
His knee injury and two concussions count for something don’t they?
Ok, ok, not a lot of miles unless you count rolling sideways in the ditch writhing in pain.
I like Trent, I also like a tricked out 76 Chevy Nova, but not if it has been banged up and manhandled. Old cars belong in a nice safe garage and old QB’s belong in the booth.
Trent as a mentor/ back-up
I said it before I would rather have Trent as a mentor to Brodie over Damon. I still think if Trent had a line in front of him he would be a servicable QB.
or
as the QB coach, so he wouldn’t have to see any action. :D
by Ochophosphate on Jun 4, 2008 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Good Point
But if it’s either/or, I’d definitely want to have Brodie starting.
I'd Like Trent As QB Coach
I seem to recall Carl Peterson planting the seeds for that a bit with Trent in “Hard Knocks” when the Dolphins were playing the Chiefs. I think Green would be a very good coach and I’d love to see him come back to work for the Chiefs.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Brodie vs Trent
Trent is the past. He served well but it’s the past. Brodie is the future. Some of the fans are like kids today. Want everything now, now, now. Remember Eil Mannings first year, Remember Peyton mannings first year, remember Tom Brady’s first year???
Few rookie quarterbacks walk on the field and take you to the superbowl. Eli haters became Eli lovers because of one season. Brodie’s day will come.
Peyton's 1st year
I’ll take 3,800 yds passing and 26 TDs, even with all the INTs
by Joel Thorman on Jun 4, 2008 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions
Brady's 1st year starting
Started 14 games, nearly 3,000 yards, 18 TDs and a Super Bowl victory
by Joel Thorman on Jun 4, 2008 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions
Eli's 1st year
Didn’t they make the playoffs that year?
by Joel Thorman on Jun 4, 2008 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions
Here's a great read
on a comparison of their first 6 games.
http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2008/06/04/six_games_in/
Who would you take looking at just that?
by Halfbreed5050 on Jun 4, 2008 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions
If Brodie Is Another Eli, We Should Look Elsewhere
If you look at Eli’s numbers over the course of the season, he wasn’t even one of the top 10 QBs in the NFL in 2007. According to this, he was the 27th best passer in the NFL.
http://www.mortgageloancalculating.com/passer_ratings.html
He had a completion percentage lower than everybody except guys like Cleo Lemon, Gus Frerotte, Rex Grossman, David Carr, Vinny Testaverde. He threw almost as many interceptions as TDs. His interceptions have actually increased every season, while his TDs have remained more or less the same. Eli Manning is just a streaky QB who got hot at the right time…and the Giants D and running game had more to do with their success. That’s not a QB that you want to pin your hopes on…especially when Croyle hasn’t even shown us a hot streak.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
It wasn't even streaky
He just stopped throwing INTs up until the NFC champ game.
Not an Eli fan at all. Give me that D-line and see what happens.
And yet, Eli has won a Super Bowl
People get WAY too worked up over stats. Who gives a crap if your QB is in the top 10 in stats. He took them to the Super Bowl, and thats something no QB in 30 years has done for the Chiefs.
Eli didn't win...
Sorry, the only thing Eli did was avoid that sack and chuck it. David Tyree and Asante Samuel won it. That wasn’t even that good of a throw by Eli, just an amazing catch (gotta give him props though for the scramble).
False Dichotomy
Eli didn’t win the Super Bowl…certainly not by himself. The defense and running game had more to do with it than he did. Claiming that a QB’s quality is based on whether he won a Super Bowl is a false dichotomy…there’s a hell of a lot more that determines whether a QB was good than whether he happened to be on a good team. Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl, and yet he was a far superior player to Eli. If you were to take two comparable teams, put one with Eli at QB and one with Marino, Marino’s team would destroy Eli’s team 10 times out of 10.
and thats something no QB in 30 years has done for the Chiefs.
All that proves is that we’ve had a lot of teams that weren’t good enough to win a Super Bowl. Joe Montana won four Super Bowls with the 49ers, and yet he couldn’t get us there. Does that mean he was a terrible QB, or does that mean that the team around him wasn’t good enough to get him past the AFC Championship. I tend to believe it was the latter (especially since our o-line that year let him get a game-ending concussion).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
That means Tom Brady didn't win a Super Bowl either
Be careful you don’t make ridiculous statments trying to prove your point.
Eli is not a great QB, but you dont HAVE to be a great QB to win in the Super Bowl. You have to be a QB that can do whats needed when the time comes. Some people seem to think that if Croyle isn’t the second coming of Joe Montana or Peyton Manning that he’s no good. Thats completetly untrue.
We want to find out franchise QB, but you have to give the guys time to develop to prove that they aren’t the one. Throwing a guy to the wolves with no RB, no offensive line, no offensive coaching or play calling and saying “Well sorry it wasnt ideal, but you couldnt pull off a miracle, so so-long” is crazy. Croyle has all the physical tools and intelligence necessary to become a great QB.
Fair Enough
Brady didn’t win the Super Bowl, the Patriots won a Super Bowl with Tom Brady at the helm. But he’s performed better in Super Bowls than Eli Manning, and he’s been a far superior QB to Manning in the rest of his career as well, and that’s largely why the Patriots have been a better team than the Giants.
Put Eli and Brady on two identical teams and Brady’s team will destroy Eli’s team 100 times out of 100.
You have to be a QB that can do whats needed when the time comes.
Call me crazy, but I think it’s a pretty bad idea to install a mediocre QB as your franchise QB in the hopes that he might get hot in the playoffs. Especially since statistics show it’s very difficult to get your team to a Super Bowl if your QB doesn’t play well enough for you to win the necessary number of games to qualify for the playoffs. Also, because the NFL’s full of mediocre QBs who’ve never gone on a four game hot streak.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Not everybody is a Tom Brady
And you have no proof Brodie Croyle is a mediocre QB.
There is no question Brady is a better QB than Eli. By the time hes done, Brady will probably be considered the best QB of all time.
BUT YOU DONT HAVE TO BE THE BEST QB OF ALL TIME TO WIN THE SUPER BOWL. That is the point about Eli.
Tom Bradys and Peyton Mannings are very rare and not everyone gets one. But if you have a good QB with a good team around him, you still have the chance to win.
Right, But
If your QB hasn’t shown himself to be a franchise QB, there’s absolutely no reason to not bring in competition every year. Because average QBs get replaced by somebody better all the time.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Brodie vs the other QB's
There is a good article on the Chief’s website by Gretz comparing Brodie’s first 6 games to Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, Aikman, Elway, and Roethlisberger. Guess where Brodie ranked? The only one who had better stats through six games was Roethlisberger. If the first six games tell us who is going to be a winner or loser, then some darn good quarterbacks would never have gone on to the HOF.
You're Missing One Important Point
All of the other QBs you named were good enough to take the starting job right out of college…as rookies. They struggled not just because it was their first year as starters, but because it was their first year in the NFL. Croyle was in his second year and he couldn’t even beat out Damon Huard in training camp while playing for a coach who wanted him to start.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Good enough to start? I question that.
You say all these other quarterbacks were good enough to start, but their records clearly indicate otherwise. I suspect the coaches at the time saw their potential and were determined to play them until such time as they gained the needed experience. BTW, I don’‘t know if you are aware of it or not, but Trent Green is one of Brodie’s biggest supporters.
What Do You Expect Trent Green To Say?
You think he’s going to run Croyle down to the press (“The kid sucks and I hate him”)? Not going to happen, even if he did hate Croyle. Trent Green’s opinion means nothing as far as Brodie Croyle’s development goes (nor does the public sentiment of any other player, since you’ll almost never hear them state one objectively in regards to a teammate). What matters is what Croyle produces, and he’s never produced well enough at either the pro or college level to give any indication he’ll be a franchise NFL QB. He might be an average NFL QB, maybe, with a little luck. But if he doesn’t show improvement this year I think the Chiefs should go in a different direction.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
What difference does this make?
Who cares when the guy starts? It used to be that all drafted QBs sat on the bench for 3 or 4 years before they got on the field.
It doesn’t matter how your QB does in his first year starting. What matters is what they do for the following 8 years.
Croyle couldn’t beat Huard out at training camp??? He was playing behind the same offensive line that led us to a 4-12 season, we just didnt know how bad it was at the time. I DVRd the preseason games. Croyle hit the receivers in the hands 9 times out of 10s and they dropped it. How is that Croyles fault?
Huard didn’t “win” the job. He got hurt and inherited it by default because Peterson wanted to take one last shot at the playoffs with a vet QB before he retires.
Check Croyle's and Huard's 2007 Stats
Huard outperformed Croyle in every meaningful category in the regular season except TD/INT ratio (where the difference was negligible). Croyle never at any point in 2007 demonstrated that it was a mistake to give Huard the starting job in 2007 or won the job outright…it was given to him because the season was a loss. Huard was a better QB in comparable playing time and the only legitimate argument for starting Croyle at the start of the season was that the Chiefs weren’t going anywhere so you might as well see what the kid had.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Huard Vs Croyle
Huard also had every defense putting 9 or 10 guys in the box to stop Larry Johnson.
Huard also had 12 years of NFL experience behind Tom Brady and Dan Marino.
Huard also had the confidence of the vets on the team who wanted him as the QB so they didnt have to go through a young guys growing pains.
Huard also played at the beginning of the year when the vets still thought they had a future with the team and not “dead men walking” as most of them were at the end of the season, guys who knew they were just finishing out the year and not coming back.
There is no question Huard was probably going to make fewer mistakes than Croyle, he has 11 years more experience. But are the Chiefs better for the next 10 years by having Huard in than letting Croyle develop?
There is no possible way you can say they will be.
Straw Man
My point isn’t that Huard deserves to start, it’s that Croyle hasn’t demonstrated himself to be good enough for the team to make him their uncontested QB of the future. I’d love to have seen the Chiefs make a play for Brian Brohm this year, but I’m fine with them playing Croyle. Just saying that if he doesn’t make the leap this season, they need to either bring in competition next season or look for other QB options.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Thanks for taking one for the team
And sticking a controversial position out there for some discussion, primetime. :)
Also, nice job looking up the stats on the first year QB examples.
Despite mobar’s specific years and QBs he happened to pick, I catch his drift.
I love the friendly facts that get dug up around here to support/debunk opinions.
When Chris asked me to post something
I sat and thought.
And thought.
And thought some more.
Boring off-season for a team coming off a 4-12 season.
Good Topic
Well chosen, primetime :)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Ummmm....
He may be old in NFL years but he doesn’t have the mileage on him that many others do.
He’s had season-ending concussions the last two years. He had a major knee injury during his last stint in St. Louis. He’s had back problems. Trent Green has a lot of miles for a 38 year old QB.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
I would tend to disagree
Trent Green has a lot of miles for a 38 year old QB.
He didn’t play until what, his 7th year in the league? The last few years have been tough but I wanted to point out that, although he is 38, he doesn’t have the 15 years of hits on him. But the few that he does have were pretty severe…
It's not the number of hits...
...it’s the severity of the hits that he takes that count. Trent Green has suffered two major concussions in the last two years (both ultimately season-ending). He’s had a variety of serious injuries since being in the league. He’s had plenty of mileage for a 38 year old QB, whether he’s played 15 years, 8 years or 3 years. And he hasn’t been a good QB for three years now. I’m not saying that to run Green down, because I think he was an excellent QB, but it’s the truth.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
That makes sense
I haven’t been a Brodie guy since the beginning so I’ve gotten used to laying my allegiances with Green.
It's "My Allegiances Lie With Green"
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
One other stud should be added to the group
We hear all the negative comments regarding Croyle not being able to win the starting job, There is another QB who didn’t win a starting job for 5 years, and in those first five years he only threw 2 touchdowns. And yet, this wizard ended up with a lifetime passing rating of 82.56 and is in the HOF. Hopefully, you can guess his name?
So...
You’re saying that we should wait five years to figure out if Croyle’s going to become a good QB? Sorry, but if that’s the case, the Chiefs are screwed.
Len Dawson at least had to earn his spot…and he kept earning it with his performance. Croyle, on the other hand, is the starter because he doesn’t have any real competition, and he hasn’t outperformed the competition he has had. He completed a lower percentage of passes than Damon Huard, he produced fewer touchdowns than Huard in equivalent playing time, his TD/INT ratio was only marginally better than Huard’s, he had fewer yards per attempt than Huard, and the team won fewer games with him at the helm than with Damon Huard. If Brodie Croyle doesn’t show some serious improvement this coming season, the Chiefs had better be bringing in real competition for that starting job in the next offseason if they want this team to go anywhere, because a QB who can’t outperform his old, injured backup QB (who played behind the same bad o-line) isn’t going to lead his team anywhere and doesn’t deserve a cushion to keep his spot.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
12 Reasons Croyle E. Coyote Could Impress in 2008
1. Solari’s play calling replaced with Gailey’s. (I’m hoping the pro game hasn’t passed Chan by while being in college.)
2. Improving line play.
3. Offensive playbook familiarity. (More experience, plus the changes are closer to his college days)
4. 2007 experience, then time to digest and prepare for 2008.
5. Unquestioned leader. (Not saying he’s earned respect from teammates yet, just that he doesn’t have to walk on egg shells during training camp about whether he’s the quarterback or not.)
6. Renewed team spirit, confidence and communication from people in the same boat starting together from scratch, including a fired up defense coming off the field with an encouraging, “Go get ‘em!”
7. Return of Larry Johnson.
8. Croyle, Bowe and Gonzalez all on same page and vastly improved timing and trust.
9. Jamaal Charles taking the dump off passes instead of Wilson.
10. Kicker who can cap off a drive with points and the feeling of success, breeding more success.
11. Kick return game that helps the offense start with better field position.
12. An even better defense that will put some its own points on the board and give the offense an average of one additional possession per game to score points. (Not that Croyle is the direct cause of improvement, but again, success breeds success and Croyle will ride that wave, which is only fair since he had to get sucked down the drain when things went badly last year.)
On Those Reasons
1. Good point
2. Jury still out…we’ve got question marks at all line positions.
3. I’m not sold on that helping him. Again he was an above-average QB in college, not a great one.
4. Possibly
5. I’ve never bought into this one. Everyone in the NFL is a bad season or two away from losing their job and there’s always somebody looking to move up. If having to compete for your job in the NFL negatively affects your play, then you’re simply not good enough to start. And if you’re able to perform to the best of your ability when you’re competing for your job, how much faith should anyone have in you to perform in pressure situations like playoff qualification, the playoffs or the Super Bowl? Either Croyle’s the best QB on the roster to start or he isn’t…and if he can’t outperform his competition under pressure then he isn’t and someone else deserves the job (because they stepped up under the same pressure).
6. I’ve never bought into “chemistry” arguments either. Unless it’s a situation where everybody’s fighting with each other on the field, chemistry has very little effect on your job so long as you execute at what you’re asked to do (assuming the coaching staff knows what it’s doing). Lots of Chief teams in the last 20 years have had players who got along well, and few of them went anywhere. Competent gameplans, talent and solid execution have much, much more to do with winning than chemistry and a rah-rah attitude.
7. Good point.
8. Maybe…he’s still got to complete passes at a much higher percentage than he did last year (and, frankly, than he did in college). Even in Solari’s terrible offense Huard hit 62%...and he had a higher ypa average than Croyle and his stronger arm.
9. Very good point, although that’s only if they’re running a two halfback set, since Wilson was a fullback (but Gailey might very well do that).
10. We’ll see…the kickers are either rookies or vets who haven’t won a job anywhere yet.
11. Unsubstantiated…getting rid of Drummond was a plus, but nobody else has proven they’re ready to step up yet (and won’t until pre-season at the earliest).
12. Possibly, but we still have to replace Allen’s production and although there are some intriguing prospects the candidates we have for the job are far from a sure thing. We’ve also got young players at a lot of different positions (possibly including both starting CB positions) and young players make mistakes, so the defense may actually regress next year at first (although I suspect they’ll improve as the season progresses).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
5. I’ve never bought into this one. Everyone in the NFL is a bad season or two away from losing their job and there’s always somebody looking to move up. If having to compete for your job in the NFL negatively affects your play, then you’re simply not good enough to start. And if you’re able to perform to the best of your ability when you’re competing for your job, how much faith should anyone have in you to perform in pressure situations like playoff qualification, the playoffs or the Super Bowl? Either Croyle’s the best QB on the roster to start or he isn’t…and if he can’t outperform his competition under pressure then he isn’t and someone else deserves the job (because they stepped up under the same pressure).
6. I’ve never bought into "chemistry" arguments either. Unless it’s a situation where everybody’s fighting with each other on the field, chemistry has very little effect on your job so long as you execute at what you’re asked to do (assuming the coaching staff knows what it’s doing). Lots of Chief teams in the last 20 years have had players who got along well, and few of them went anywhere. Competent gameplans, talent and solid execution have much, much more to do with winning than chemistry and a rah-rah attitude.
Leadership is a QBs most important skill. Tom Brady is considered a great QB because he is the epitome of leadership.
The reason competition at the QB position is bad is because it does not allow any of the QBs to develop that aura of leadership with his teammates. Trent Green had it. He was the unquestioned leader and controlled the huddle and kept guys focused. Its hard for the rest of the players to take criticism or instruction from a guy they think will be replaced after a bad game or two.
QB competition is not just bad for the QBs confidence, it is horrible for the morale of the whole offense.
Tom Brady Completes Passes And Throws A Lot Of TDs, Especially In Big Games
That’s why he’s a leader. Not because of his “aura”.
He was a sixth round pick who worked his way up from fourth-string to beat John Friesz (a decent QB) for the backup position his rookie year. In his second year, he took over for Drew Bledsoe (a fringe Hall of Fame candidate and local icon) and kept Bledsoe on the bench with his performance while leading the Pats to their first Super Bowl win. Think he let his performance be negatively affected because Drew Bledsoe was sitting there to take over immediate if he failed? Please. If a guy is that emotionally fragile that he can’t handle competition, he’s not good enough to be a leader of an NFL team…much less the franchise QB of an NFL team. If Croyle was negatively affected last season because he had to compete with career backup Damon Huard for a job, then the Chiefs should just start looking elsewhere right now.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
It is not about how the competition affects Croyle
It is about how a QB competition affects the whole offense. In 90% of the case where there is a QB competition, the team does horribly. An offense needs to know who its leader is and if they are split between different guys it has a terrible affect on them. You can say they are professionals and all they have to do is play, but it is not that way in real life.
A Few Examples To Rebut
2001 New England Patriots…Tom Brady v. Drew Bledsoe (Super Bowl win)
1987-1992 49ers…Joe Montana v. Steve Young (2 Super Bowl wins)
1995 Chiefs…Bono v. Gannon (13-3)
1997 Chiefs…Grbac v. Gannon (13-3)
The only time that competition for QB is really a negative factor for a team is when neither QB is that good. Which means that even if the job was uncontested the team would probably still struggle.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
#5. I really meant unquestioned QB
ChiefDJ explained my thoughts well. (Great rebuttals, though, UCrawford.)
If a person is the new guy splitting reps equally - like Croyle in last year’s training camp - one must be respectful of the veteran (Huard) because there are players on your offense that respect him. I believe it’s more difficult to call out a receiver, or rally the group around you to diagram the “go deep toward the Buick” play in the dirt if you are splitting time like they did last year.
And last year was particularly dicy because Herm was on record as saying things would be perfectly fair due to Trent Green’s pouting about the team leaning toward youth. (Sorry, Trent.) So there was this artificially tense “fairness” built into the competition. I had a strong feeling that Herm, Huard and Croyle were more concerned about the appearances of fairness and mutual respect than the actual competition. Plus, the situation was compounded by the possibility that the Hard Knocks cameras would capture a non-politically correct phrase. None of those guys could just be themselves. They should have taken lessons from call-it-the-way-I-see-it Gunther.
I can’t actually defend Croyle’s leadership skills—because I believe they’re below average. At least so far. But the team knows they are going to sink or swim with Croyle this season, so they’re giving him their attention. For example, Bowe couldn’t have come out with such high praise of Croyle last year (like he did at the beginning of OTAs this year), because it would have been taken as some form of “favoritism.”
And then, c’mon…you gotta give me #3 and #8. Common sense. You got me on the other unsubstantiated ones. More debate needed. :) C’mon pre-season games!
Sorry
On number 3 the stats in college just don’t bear out that he was a great QB. Completion percentage and TD/INT ratio are the most likely stats to translate and Croyle’s numbers just weren’t that good. His TD/INT ratio his senior season was decent, but not great, and they were almost 1:1 his freshman and sophomore years. His completion percentages were not good freshman and sophomore years, mediocre his senior year. His junior season looked promising because he started on a hot streak but he blew out his knee before you could make a fair assessment (small sample size). In the three full seasons he played he was an above-average college QB…no more, no less. Great NFL QBs usually complete a high percentage of passes in college (over 60%)...Croyle didn’t do that. Guys who complete at his general percentage often tend to struggle in the NFL.
For number 8, sorry, but the stats don’t lie. Huard performed better than Croyle in every statistical category but one (TD/INT, where the difference was marginal), even by ChiefDJ’s flawed use of win-loss record (the Chiefs didn’t win any games Croyle started). Also, Croyle got pretty much the same first team opportunities in 2007 that Huard got in 2006, and Huard was still a better QB than Croyle. The only thing Croyle’s got going for him is that he might get better because he’s young. But that’s a big if and his performance hasn’t done much to prove otherwise.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Put 'em up...
If I catch your reasoning, Croyle was presumably comfortable with the playbook while in college, yet he still never achieved elite results. Hence, comfort with the playbook is not the answer.
I’m projecting forward from the Croyle who I thought had glimmers of excellence during pieces of drives and games in 2007, and have what I believe to be a reasonable hope that he could do very well in 2008, depending on the 12 premises I outlined being mostly true.
8. I’m saying that in the second year of getting a lot of work with the two most reliable targets, both the passer and receiver will know what each other will be doing on a more consistent basis. Croyle will know how each of them will react to different zone coverages. He will have a better feel regarding their speed. And how high Gonzalez can go up to make a catch. That experience and trust will surely lead to better pitch and catch results over the year.I’m not following the Croyle/Huard counterpoint to this one. You may have thought I was making a different case. I do understand that you’re saying the proof of my hypothesis will be an improved completion percentage—at least with those two receivers. That’s fair.
On Number 8
I was just saying that he had good receivers in college that he developed a comfort level with and yet he wasn’t able complete 60% in his best year. I’m not so sure that it’s going to help next year with the Chiefs’ receivers. But on the other hand it might, so I’m willing to concede that our point/counterpoint on 8 is pretty much a draw.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
I can give about 100 other examples of where QB competition hurt the team
The difference in those cases is that you had an already established QB who went down with an injury and the backup came in and played so well they became a starter and won over the team. In those cases the mantle of leadership was passed by what those backups did when they were thrust in the game because the first option was gone.
What you are talking about, having open QB position is up for grabs (like we had last year, but there was no clear winner, Huard took it by default) hurts a team. It hurt Huard last year becaues EVERYONE knew that he was one mistake away from being replaced. Thats horrible for a team. It was horrible for Huard and it showed his last few games when he pretty much fell apart because he was trying too hard because he could feel the end was near.
Every year there are “best man wins” QB compeititions and it never results in anything good for the team. Look what Arizona has going on with Kurt Warner and Matt Leinart. Leinart will never lead that team now because his teammates have no faith in him because he can be replaced at any moment. Look at the QB competitions in Baltimor and New York and any number of other places. If you dont give your young guy a chance to lead and grow into that leadership role, the offense is never going to get off the ground.
Leinart/Warner, Baltimore, Etc.
Leinart didn’t have the faith of his teammates because they wanted to win and Kurt Warner was quite obviously the better QB last season. In fact, Leinart had a really pathetic season in 2007 and Warner was very good. If you’re saying that he deserved to start over Warner, you’re insane because there’s no even semi-rational argument you can make to back that up. Now, if Leinart actually improves his performance, then his teammates will earn his respect, but they’re certainly not going to give it up to a guy who completes 53% of his passes, throws twice as many INTs as TDs and whines about how it should be his team.
For Baltimore’s QB competition, there was no competition. Brian Billick liked McNair and McNair sucked because he couldn’t throw or stay healthy and because Kyle Boller is almost as bad. Like I said, the only time a QB competition hurts a team is when both QBs are terrible. Like in Baltimore in 2007.
New York QB Competition (see Baltimore). Chad Pennington can’t throw downfield and throws interceptions. Kellen Clemens can’t complete enough passes and throws even more interceptions. Neither QB was good. Look at the stats. The running game also sucked. They lost Vilma for the year. It was a bad team. It doesn’t matter which terrible QB you stick on a bad team because it’s still a bad team.
By the way, Pennington’s numbers were still better than Croyle’s.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Croyle played SIX games
You are comparing Croyle to guys that have been playing for 5 or 6 seasons or more and expect him to be playing on that level? Those guys didnt even play on that level at the point Croyle is, THAT is what the stats above tell. If you give up on the young guys, they never develop.
The Colts, Cowboys and Giants left their young QB in there even though they played WORSE than Croyle last year. They stuck with them let them make their mistakes and they eventually developed into great QBs. Which one of them still would have turned out if they had put some vet in there to do a mediocre job to pass by just because they were better at that time?
How well will Leinart ever do if he never gets in there to develop? They want to win now? Why did they take Warner out in the first place and put a rookie in to play?
You dont have a QB competition if you have a great QB in there already. There is never anybody pushing Peyton Manning or Tom Brady for a job to fuel their competitive spirit. You have QB competitions if you dont think any of your guys are any good and youre just trying to find the best one.
That is why QB competitions almost always fail. You assume that Croyle doesn’t have the ability to do it, but how will you really know except for your “gut feeling” if he doesnt play?
Actually
You are comparing Croyle to guys that have been playing for 5 or 6 seasons or more and expect him to be playing on that level?
I compared Croyle to guys that have played for 5 or 6 seasons, and stunk in 2007, and then pointed out that their crappy 2007 seasons were better than Croyle’s 2007 season.
The Colts, Cowboys and Giants left their young QB in there even though they played WORSE than Croyle last year.
What are you talking about? The Cowboys played Romo in 2006 because Bledsoe was horrible and they had no other options, and he was excellent. In 2007 he was one of the best QBs in the league until the last month. Eli’s backup was 300 lb Jared Lorenzen, who is horrible…seriously, seriously horrible. If Kurt Warner had been playing for the NY Giants last year, it was far from a given that Eli would have kept his job.
Colts?
There is never anybody pushing Peyton Manning or Tom Brady for a job to fuel their competitive spirit.
Because their performance is so clearly superior in contrast to the rest of the league that their teams don’t see a need to waste money on a backup who will start when they can free up cap space for some other position. If Tom Brady throws 3 TDs to 20 INTs next season and completes less than 50% of his passes, let’s see how long Belichick lets him be the uncontested QB. Think Belichick will give a damn about his QB’s fragile ego if he can’t perform?
How well will Leinart ever do if he never gets in there to develop?
He did get in there. He split plays with Warner. He stunk…a lot. The difference between them was so great as to be laughable. If he does a better job this year, his teammates will respect him just fine.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Do You Even Read Other People's Comments?
That is why QB competitions almost always fail.
1) I’ve cited four examples off the top of my head of QB competitions that took place on teams that were very successful and 2) I’ve explained that when QB competitions do fail it’s only because neither QB was that good. You’ve yet to provide examples that dispute #1 that aren’t negated by #2.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Green vs Croyle
This seems a ludicrous thought. Would we rather have Trent Green who has played in 3 or 4 games over two seasons because of severe concussions? Or a young up and comer who could potentially turn into a franchise QB?
Hrrmm, let me think real hard about that.
I liked Trent Green alot, and REALLY wish he had been able to stay healthy through last year to tutor Croyle. It would have been much better for Croyles development, but regardless Croyle would be starting this year anyway.
I assume most of you saw Gretz’s article comparing Croyles stats during his first 6 stats to Eli & Peyton Manning and Troy Aikmans first 6 starts. Croyle looks better than all of them. We need to quit this instant gratification BS and let the guy with all the potential in the world develop.
Again...
...you’re comparing the performance of rookies to a guy (Croyle) who had a year to learn his offense (such as it was) and adjust to the NFL.
And although I’ll admit that the jury is still very much out on Croyle and he might develop, I’m sorry but you’re on crack if you think he’s going to be better than Peyton Manning or Troy Aikman. There is absolutely nothing to that except wishful thinking. He might be better than Eli, though.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
How do you know he won't be?
Give me proof that Croyle cannot be a great QB. Everyone says he can’t. I want proof.
The only thing keeping him from being a #1 pick was his injury history. Since you can’t predict he is going to get injured (Trent Green, another injury prone QB started 70 consecutive games for the Chiefs), tell me what else about him means he can’t be good.
Your first starts are your first starts and it doesnt matter if theyre in your first or second year. He had a bad offense around him with no direction from the clueless offensive coordinator and no running game to support him. Tell me how much success the Mannings or Aikman had until they had that? The answer is none as you can see by their first couple years.
I Don't Know
I’m projecting based off what he’s produced so far…both in the pros and college. He matches up poorly with every QB you’ve named as far as development goes. Peyton and Aikman were far superior QBs in college. Peyton and Aikman took the starting jobs for their teams their rookie seasons. By Manning’s second year, he hit 62% of his passes and threw 26 TDs to 15 INTs with a 7.8 ypa average, made All-Pro and cemented himself as one of the top QBs in the NFL.
The real test of your comparison, however, will be this season. By Aikman’s third year in the NFL his completion percentage jumped up over 60% and his TDs outnumbered his INTs. Manning was an All-Pro by his second season as a starter. If Croyle can match what either Manning or Aikman has done in those respects this season, I’ll concede that the comparisons between him and them might have some validity to them.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
College record and Elitle 10
Croyle broke Joe Namath and Kenny “The Snake” Stabler’s records at Alabama. To say he didn’t do anything in college is flat out lying to yourself. In the Elite 10 Drew Brees was the leader when Croyle attended, with Vince Young, and Matt Leinhart. Brees stated, “The best quarterback in attendance was Brodie Croyle, and I am including myself.”
I do agree that this coming year will determine Croyle’s future with the Chiefs.
Omissions
Alabama has traditionally been a program that favored a running attack. Namath as a pro was perhaps the worst QB ever to make the Hall of Fame and if that’s what Croyle’s going to develop into we’re in trouble. Ken Stabler is a better comparison, but in his first season as a starter (his fourth in the league), his numbers were a lot better than Croyle’s (and that’s playing in an era where the NFL was much more hostile to the passing game). His stats as a third year player were actually better than Croyle’s were last year (higher completion percentage, better ypa, marginally better TD/INT ratio).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
As For My Alabama Remark
Just saying that being the passing leader of a program that hasn’t traditionally passed much isn’t a great indicator of NFL ability in itself. You have to look at the numbers he put up within that.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
And that is what is always said
“I don’t know, nothing really, I just dont think he’ll be good”. Thats the only answer i hear.
Not every QB is going to be a Peyton Manning. I think most of us agree that he is a very exceptional QB.
But lets look at Croyles college stats compared to another another great QB.
Croyle 488 / 869 Comp/Att – 56% comp% – 6382 yds – 41TDs – 22 Int
Montana 268 / 515 Comp/Att – 52% comp% – 4121 yds – 25 TDs – 25 Int
I wasnt able to find Tom Bradys stats at Michigan, but I bet they’re not too far off from these either.
Era...You Need To Consider Era
Montana ran an option system at Notre Dame in the 1970s. Croyle played in an era where passing is encouraged.
And Montana and Croyle had comparable playing time in their first two years and Montana still was a far superior QB. And Steve DeBerg was a much tougher guy to win a job from than Damon Huard.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
College Stats
Good luck finding historical college stats. It took me a couple of hours to find Brett Favre’s from Southern Miss. I had to go to some obscure fan site that was like the 12th page on a Google pull. It’s like the NCAA just forgets about football stats once they’re more than 10 years old. Can’t find them for most players.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Good Luck To Them
They’ve got a good site, but honestly I think it’s going to be an uphill battle to compile a comprehensive list of college football stats. From what I can tell, it’s far from a certainty that the schools themselves even keep records of what their own teams did. It’s going to be tough to find stats from before the Internet age (when newspapers were stored on microfiche) especially for the smaller schools.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Tom Brady, Michigan
Junior Year: 61.1% Completion 15 TD’s 12 INT 2636 Yards
Senior Year: 62.8% Completion 20 TD’s 5 INT 2586 Yards
Plus 60% completion rate boded well for him. He dropped because he was skinny and because he only started two years at Michigan. But his numbers were pretty good and his fairly high INTs of his junior year could be written off as a fluke (4:1 TD/INT ratio of senior year is excellent).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Also...
Give me proof that Croyle cannot be a great QB. Everyone says he can’t. I want proof.
Demanding proof of a negative proposition to prop up your argument is a logical fallacy (argmentum ad ignorantium).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Last Post Screwed Up
I was saying that if you want to submit a legitimate argument that Croyle will develop into a star, you’ll need to submit a list of QBs who posted mediocre completion percentages in college, struggled in their first year as a starter, then developed into franchise QBs. To the best of my knowledge, that list started and stopped with Brett Favre.
Stupid computer’s been acting twitchy all damn day and it’s on the verge of getting a size 12 adjustment.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
And saying a guy will be lousey with no proof is also a logical fallacy
Croyle had good stats in college. Broke all his schools records. Its not his fault he played in a conservative run attack offense with no pass protection instead of a spread offense run and gun attack like Dan Marino was in. He worked with what he had and his stats were impressive. As I posted elsewhere they were very similar and often better than Joe Montanas.
Not Really
I’m basing my analysis off of Croyle’s past performance and trends among NFL QBs. That’s a measure of probability. What made yours a fallacy is that you didn’t submit any empirical evidence for your position, you just claimed yours was proven because somebody else couldn’t disprove it.
Also, I never claimed that my position was proven, only that QBs with his numbers generally don’t tend to develop into anything special.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Cale Gundy
Broke all of his school’s records at Oklahoma. Shattered them in fact. How’d his career work out?
I’ve already explained to you elsewhere on this thread the problem with your Croyle/Montana comparison and pointed out how Montana had far exceeded Croyle’s performance at the NFL level.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
6 games is not a big enough sample to project the next 10 years
At one moment you say that the college stats are more important if youre talking about Aikman or Manning. Then you say that with Montana the college stats dont really matter because when he started his first season his stats were a little better.
In the end, there is no possible way that you can predict how good or bad a guy is going to be in six games. He did not go out and throw 28 interceptions in his first year out (which if you break it down to average over 6 games would have been 10.5 interceptions).
He played mediocre on a bad team. As Herm says, lets surround him by weapons and see if he is still mediocre or if he can thrive.
ERAS!!!
The reason I drew a contrast between Montana’s college stats and Manning/Brady’s college stats is that there’s a 20 year difference between their eras. The rules have changed to favor passers in college ball since Montana played. That’s like comparing Davey O’Brien’s stats to a guy who played in an era where the forward pass was illegal.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Also
Then you say that with Montana the college stats dont really matter because when he started his first season his stats were a little better.
Joe Montana’s stats weren’t just a little better in his first year as a starter, they were a lot better. In every single category. And that’s not even taking into account the fact that Montana’s stats were accumulated in a less passer-friendly era.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Montana's legacy
was also pushed by the fact that it wasn’t until the late 80s/early 90s that teams figured out what Bill Walsh did years before. The west coast offense.
He figured out that his percentages of completing a 3-yard pass were just as (if not more) high as attempting a run play. He originated the pass happy offense so any statistical comparisons should use that as the dividing line between eras.
by Joel Thorman on Jun 4, 2008 10:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Also
I think Peyton’s 4 years at UT speak volumes about the potential people saw in him.
Croyle had a few injuries and an unimpressive completion percentage in college….those two stats, games played and comp. %, are the only viable links between success in college and the NFL.
Croyle's numbers in college
Croyle’s passing percentage would have been much higher at Alabama if he would have had a decent OL.
If, If, If
Croyle played for some good teams at Alabama (including one that finished #8 and won the Cotton Bowl his senior season). His line was fine.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Croyle had a lousy line at Alabama.
Yes, the team finished #8 and went to the Cottonw Bowl but the Alabama team had a horrilbe offensive line. You can check and find hundreds of articles on the net, but this paragraph from Scout.com is typical.
“Croyle’s injuries aren’t necessarily a product of his size or skills, either. Just about any player can fall victim to a torn ACL – a bad cut on a run, a lineman rolling on a knee or a blindside hit – every player fears it. And don’t forget that Croyle’s offensive line at Alabama was just as terrible as KC’s current unit.”
Croyles' senior year o-line
It appears that o-line was not a strength of the team. Can’t say it was bad either, from what I found. But only two of the five were returning starters for Croyle’s senior season. It’s possible Croyle put the team at leasts partially on his back in his senior season.
OT Chris Capps - sophomore left tackle. new starter in 2006, currently an UDFA with Houston as a rookie
OG Antoine Caldwell - freshman left guard, obviously a new starter that year, also
C J.B. Closner - 1 of 2 returning starters – Senior center and probably the anchor of the group. Named on a list of about 30 Outland Trophy Watch List people.
OG Mark Sanders - another new starter, Senior who was rated number 108 out of 116 OG’s for the draft following that season.
OT Kyle Tatum - 2nd of 2 returning starters. Decent player now (or at one time anyway) with the Calgary Stampeders
Do the stats bear out that the line was fine?
Not True
Against #5 Florida the line helped Darby get 6.7 ypc and Croyle threw for 283 yards (Alabama won). Against #17 Tennessee, Darby had a mediocre game (3.9 ypc) but Croyle went 17-27 for 190 (Alabama win). Against Arkansas, Darby got 5.4 ypc and Croyle went 13-27 for 273 (Alabama win).
In the two SEC losses, the offensive line wasn’t bad. Croyle went 19/40 for 187 against LSU, but Darby was running for 5 yards a carry. Since it was a close loss (16-13) where LSU came from behind to win, LSU wasn’t conceding those yards to Darby, so that would indicate that it was Croyle was simply having a bad game. Against Auburn Croyle went 13-25 for 107 but Darby went 4.9 ypc. That game was a blowout from the start, but again the offense wasn’t completely stagnant and had enough success in the run game to indicate that it was simply a bad game by Croyle.
All of the other SEC games were wins. And while it doesn’t appear that Alabama’s line was the strength of the team (the defense, led by DeMeco Ryans was pretty dominant), there’s no evidence to show that they were the weakness…in SEC games or otherwise.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teams/schedule?teamId=333&year=2005
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Good job
on the stats. Concede that rushing would be a good indicator of the strength of the line. Seems a little dangerous to assume they were competent pass blockers, but the rushing yards indicate they must have had some ability.
So what did we learn from all this? In looking at Bama’s record against top teams, they did pretty well in Croyle’s senior year. While stats are black and white, they do not always lead to a solid cause and effect conclusion.
Just looking at wins and other numbers, I’d say it’s possible that a senior quarterback on a team that posted wins against three top-20 teams could be considered NFL material. (Wasn’t the premise of this thread whether Croyle could be the QB of the future?) But aren’t there a number of QBs who have college success, but fail to become successful in the NFL? Chris Leak was in Chiefs camp this year. Ryan Leaf and so on. While Croyle had injuries, he played four years at Bama. His completion percentage was 59.6, barely shy of the 60% mark some consider the magic number for success in the NFL, and had 14 TDs to 4 INTs, playing pretty decent competition during the year, against a total of five top-20 teams.
Enjoyed the analysis, facts and opinions in this thread. Good work, UCrawford!
I'll Concede That Applying To Pass-Blocking Might Be A Stretch
But if you look at Croyle’s numbers, his interceptions were cut drastically (only 4 all season). That’s an indicator that defenses weren’t able to get sufficient pressure on him for him to force the ball. Most of the problems with Croyle were in completing passes (his completion percentage dipped under 50 with the better teams). Now that may have been affected by smart play by the QB (throwing the ball away to prevent a sack or INT) or it may have been he just couldn’t hit his receiver. Without watching the actual game (and I’ll admit that I don’t watch a lot of Alabama games) it’s impossible to tell, because measuring linemen’s stats from the box scores is kind of a crapshoot (especially when they don’t include sacks or defensive totals).
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Croyle's stats
Here are Croyle’s stats. Just shy of 60% completion senior year with 14 TDs to 4 INTs.
http://www.footballsfuture.com/2006/prospects/brodie_croyle.html
As a freshman, he threw for 1,046 yards and 5 touchdowns, but also threw 5 picks and completed less than 49% of his passes. Croyle improved on every number as a sophomore, throwing for 2,303 yards at a 53.4% clip, with 16 touchdowns and 13 picks. He was off to a fast start as a junior in 2004, throwing for 534 yards and 6 touchdowns before going down with a season ending ACL tear. Croyle finally made the early hype justified as a senior. He completed 59.6% of his passes for 2,499 yards and 14 touchdowns, to just four interceptions.
How do you know his line was fine? How many were drafted into the NFL, for example? Perhaps Croyle was one of the people carrying others on the team up to the #8 ranking? In a team game, individual stats are a decent starting point, but don’t tell the whole story. (I have no idea what the correct answer are to these questions, but will try to determine if any O-lineman from his senior year team went on to play in the NFL as an indicator of their abilities.
Alabama 2005 Stats
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/teams/stats?teamId=333&year=2005
The starting running back (Kenneth Darby) gained over 1200 yards rushing that year. The top two rushers (Darby and Jimmy Johns) averaged over 5 yards a carry. Parker’s backup hit 63% of his throws and threw 2 TDs in only 11 attempts (although that’s a small sample size so it should probably be taken with a grain of salt). Croyle had a decent number of targets to throw to, the best of which appeared to be D.J. Hall (who was actually a lot better playing with Croyle’s successor, John Parker Wilson)
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Contrasting With The Previous Season
It appears that Croyle’s line was slightly better in the running game in 2005, but generated more TDs from the running game in 2004 (probably because the guy who had to step in when Croyle was injured wasn’t that good so they needed to go to ground more). Not much of a difference, but a line for an SEC team that gets over 5 yards a carry for its running back cannot be classified as a bad line.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
So, UCrawford, I take it you are predicting Brodie will fail?
No sarcasm, just want to get it on record.
Also, Trent had a worse completion percentage than Brodie his first year as a starter with the Redskins. Joe Montana in his first year couldn’t beat out Steve DeBerg and had a worse completion percentage. John Elway had a worse completion percentage for his first 5 years as a starter.
The PARADE’s not putting Brodie anywhere near them, but trying to crackdown on Brodie because of his completion percentage or based on any stats other than 0-6 is, in my opinion, wildly premature.
by Official Arrowhead Pride Parade on Jun 4, 2008 8:07 PM CDT reply actions
My OPINION
I fully agree. At this point we really don’t know one way of the other how Brodie will do this coming season. He could be a bust or a star, or just a serviceable quarterback. Personally, it is my OPINION he will be far better, but in no way would I rank him anywhere near Montana, Brady or Peyton Manning.
Its not about ranking him next to all time greats
Nobody is saying Croyle is the next Montana or Manning or Brady.
What the stats we are comparing says is that even great QBs got off to a rocky start so we shouldnt read too much into Croyles stats last year when the entire offense fell to pieces.
For What It's Worth
I’ll be rooting for Croyle to do well this season and I hope he does prove me wrong. If he stays about the same, though, I’ll be pretty pissed if they give him another competition-free offseason.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Nope
Just saying that I’m not expecting a lot out of him. If he does well, I’ll be very happy.
Good comparisons, by the way. Montana’s playing time was very similar to Croyle’s. However, in Montana’s second year in the league (his first as a starter) he completed 64% of his passes. Croyle completed 56%. And Croyle is playing in a more passer-friendly era. Green was a very good comparable though (seriously, good catch), but if you check out his TD/INT and ypa, he was still quite a bit better than Brodie.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Montana also had Bill Walsh
Croyle had Herm Edwards and Mike Solari.
It doesnt matter. You are trying to compare 6 games and project it out over a career and its impossible to do. In the end it doesnt matter if the QB only completes 49% of his passes, if he wins, hes a good QB. We will find out this year whether Croyle has what it takes.
If A QB Completes 49% Of His Passes And His Team Wins
...it means that the team won in spite of the QB, not because of him.
But yes, we’ll find out a lot about Croyle this year.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
More on Brodie at Alabama
Let’s see, Croyle behind a porous line passed for 6,382 yards at Alabama, had a 4 year QB rating of 128.4, with 41 TD and 22 int. Look at his low interception record of 190 attempted passes without an interception. His passing statistics in all likihood would have been much higher except for the fact he played several games in the 2003 season with a shoulder our of place and two cracked ribs.
Croyle started the 2004 season hoping to help his team improve on their last record of 4–9. Croyle started three games, completing 44 of 66 passes for 534 yards with six touchdowns. But during the third game of the season against Western Carolina University, Croyle tore his anterior cruciate ligament in his other knee. Croyle was forced to sit out the rest of the season, and the team finished with a 6-6 record.
Undaunted, he fully recovered from the injury in 2005 and started all 12 games as a senior; completing 202 of 339 passes for 2,499 yards with 14 touchdowns and four interceptions and one rushing touchdown. Croyle led the Crimson Tide to a #8 national ranking, a 10–2 record, and a 13–10 victory over Texas Tech in the Cotton Bowl, where he earned the game’s Most Valuable Player honors. In his final season at Alabama,
Croyle attempted a school-record 190 passes without an interception and a finalist for the Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award as the nation’s most outstanding senior quarterback. He also became the first Alabama quarterback to start every game in a season since 1996.
His 2,499 passing yards in 2005 were the highest single-season total in Alabama’s school history. His total 202 completions and 339 passing attempts rank as the second-best seasonal marks in school annals. His 2,311 yards of total offense were the third-best seasonal mark in the history of the school, and his 1.18 interception percentage was the lowest single-season mark in school history as well. The 190 attempted passes without an interception says a lot about his ability to read defenses.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
