Arrowhead Pride: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: SB Nation Power Rankings: Week 6 Bar-right-arrows

Trent or Brodie?

Tiny by primetime 07 on

 

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?

1 recs | Comment 112 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

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….”

by EyePod on Jun 4, 2008 6:39 AM CDT   0 recs

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?

by Mully on Jun 4, 2008 6:51 AM CDT   0 recs

Another way to look at it

Since Montana…unproven, inconsistent QB play.

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 7:01 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 12:42 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by GarySpFc on Jun 4, 2008 7:54 AM CDT   0 recs

Stick with Brodie

Trent is one big hit from the nursing home.

Blame my wife!

by sir eccles on Jun 4, 2008 8:07 AM CDT   0 recs

lol..

I think I said the same thing when he first went to Miami….

by EyePod on Jun 4, 2008 7:02 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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!!!

by TheScootness on Jun 4, 2008 8:22 AM CDT   0 recs

Having Trent now

would mean another shot at a quarterback, which might be a plus to those Brodie detractors.

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 8:50 AM CDT   0 recs

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.

by Halfbreed5050 on Jun 4, 2008 9:40 AM CDT   0 recs

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.

by Eric Allen on Jun 4, 2008 10:51 AM CDT   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

Good Point

But if it’s either/or, I’d definitely want to have Brodie starting.

by EyePod on Jun 4, 2008 7:03 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 7:06 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Didn't Carl say

something along the lines of getting Trent’s name up in the Ring of Honor someday?

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 7:36 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I Hope So

He really was a class act.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 9:34 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by rnobar on Jun 4, 2008 11:29 AM CDT   0 recs

Peyton's 1st year

I’ll take 3,800 yds passing and 26 TDs, even with all the INTs

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 11:33 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Brady's 1st year starting

Started 14 games, nearly 3,000 yards, 18 TDs and a Super Bowl victory

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 11:34 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Eli's 1st year

Didn’t they make the playoffs that year?

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 11:35 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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 to parent up   0 recs

Didn't read the link

but Roethlisberger, 15-1, my friend.

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 2:16 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Yup

believe that falls under “few”

by Halfbreed5050 on Jun 4, 2008 2:48 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 12:35 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 2:10 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by ChiefDJ on Jun 4, 2008 5:20 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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).

by EyePod on Jun 4, 2008 7:09 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 8:10 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by ChiefDJ on Jun 4, 2008 8:20 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 8:32 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by ChiefDJ on Jun 4, 2008 9:16 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 9:35 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by GarySpFc on Jun 4, 2008 11:41 AM CDT   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 12:37 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually

I’ll correct myself. Eli Manning was a part-time starter his rookie season…something that Croyle also wasn’t able to do.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 12:40 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by GarySpFc on Jun 4, 2008 1:03 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 3:06 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by ChiefDJ on Jun 4, 2008 5:24 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 5:33 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by ChiefDJ on Jun 4, 2008 5:45 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 10:02 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by sunny D on Jun 4, 2008 12:02 PM CDT   0 recs

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.

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 2:15 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

88 comments

Good thinking.

by sunny D on Jun 4, 2008 9:23 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Good Topic

Well chosen, primetime :)

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 9:36 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 12:15 PM CDT   0 recs

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…

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 2:13 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 3:00 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

That makes sense

I haven’t been a Brodie guy since the beginning so I’ve gotten used to laying my allegiances with Green.

by primetime 07 on Jun 4, 2008 7:45 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

It's "My Allegiances Lie With Green"

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 8:10 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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?

by GarySpFc on Jun 4, 2008 1:18 PM CDT   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 4:12 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.)

by sunny D on Jun 4, 2008 4:38 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 5:26 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by ChiefDJ on Jun 4, 2008 5:37 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 5:54 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by ChiefDJ on Jun 4, 2008 6:06 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 6:21 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

#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!

by sunny D on Jun 4, 2008 7:37 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 8:23 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Put 'em up...
3. My original premise was that Croyle could be better this year based on my opinion that he is more comfortable with the playbook. In part, because of the off-season work he’s been putting in. In part, because he has another year experience with the Chiefs and the NFL. And in part, because Chan’s modifications are reportedly closer to the system Croyle ran in college. So I’m arguing a greatly increased comfort level with the playbook will allow him to do his job more effectibely without thinking about things so much. (Although Croyle told a Star reporter in the first week of OTAs something like, “Don’t start thinking this playbook is all THAT simple. It’s not.”

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.

by sunny D on Jun 4, 2008 9:53 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by UCrawford on Jun 6, 2008 7:31 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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.

by ChiefDJ on Jun 4, 2008 8:28 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Go Ahead

Let’s hear your 100 examples.

Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.

by UCrawford on Jun 4, 2008 8:33 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

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, thr