Arrowhead Pride: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows

Right now the Chiefs have one quarterback on their roster who can win an NFL game — and it ain’t Brodie Croyle or Tyler Wishbone.

It’s Damon Huard, the human fire extinguisher.

Jason Whitlock

Consider the source.

Link 4 months ago Tg_tiny primetime 07 Comment 67 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

If all this happens
Imagine this scenario: Kansas City’s running game is extremely productive, Dwayne Bowe improves on his rookie-year performance, Tony Gonzalez remains Tony Gonzalez, and rookie William Franklin develops as a viable pass-catching option.

then there is no way we lose 14 games, even if Whitlock were playing QB. If our line is good enough for our running game to be “extremely productive”, I think Croyle will have a solid year.

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 17, 2008 10:53 AM CDT   0 recs

Don't Shoot The Messenger

Whitlock’s got his annoying moments but that commentary on the QB situation was completely accurate and fair. I’m sorry, but there’s no way you can look at a QB who just threw for 38 yards against a mediocre defense with a long pass of 7 yards and think that this kid has any business starting a game.

Granted, it’s the preseason and everything’s skewed, but Croyle’s yet to show that Saturday night’s game was atypical of his abilities. And the line was solid enough that you can’t blame them for not giving him time (his backup was far more impressive). Point of fact, aside from not throwing interceptions off his back foot like in the last preseason, Brodie Croyle hasn’t shown that he’s any better than he was last year and that’s troubling.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 10:58 AM CDT   0 recs

At this point

I am much more concerned with Croyle’s decision making than his yardage…there is a reason he isn’t throwing INT’s of his back foot anymore.

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 17, 2008 11:02 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

i understand we are trying to win games, i get that, but will huard win the super bowl for us? probably not, so why not let croyle flounder out there. if he ain’t got what it takes, then you move on. but you have to give him a season or two to let him make mistakes and learn. this is a young team anyway and they are all going to make mistakes. but you have to see if they are going to learn from those mistakes and become better players or are they going to repeat them. if it is the latter, then you get rid of them and get a new set.

but huard is not the answer. i think he proved that last year. and he has proven that by being a career backup.

www.myspace.com/cynemamusic.com

by Cynema the Band on Aug 17, 2008 11:05 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Huard's Definitely Not The Answer

But I’m becoming less and less convinced that Croyle is either. And if he can’t perform at a significantly better level than this (interceptions or not) in the first six or seven games, I don’t think he deserves the entire season to figure out whether he’s the “QB of the Future”. This isn’t a rookie getting tossed into the fire out there, this is Croyle’s third year in the league and he needs to start performing like an NFL-level QB soon.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 11:17 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

And

a big part of the reason I’m so down on his performance is that it’s not just our QB we need to be able to evaluate this season, it’s our o-line, our receiving corps, our running backs besides LJ. All of these guys need a competent QB to be able to figure out what they’re able to produce. And if Croyle keeps performing like he did last night into the regular season we’ll be holding up their development as well.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 11:20 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

So what was so poor about last night?

Croyle did nothing to prevent the offensive line from playing and I thought they did a good job.

Croyle did nothing to prevent LJ and Kolby from making good yardage.

The WRs were having a hard time getting open, which you could say was preventing Croyle from being properly evaluated.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 12:02 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

LJ, Kolby and the line were responsible, not Croyle.

That’s my point. He was simply there. You could have put half the backups in the league in that position and you wouldn’t have had any dropoff in performance.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 1:19 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Read the below breakdown

Croyle was executing the plays that were called and executed them well. Its not his fault if half the plays called are to go to the FB or screen passes to RBs. You can’t reasonably hold that against him.

When he had an opportunity to survey the field, he completed passes and got 1st downs. The only incomplete passes down field was 1 to Bowe early on and 2 to Darling who is yet to make a catch. He comleted passes down field to Bowe, Franklin, Gonzalez and Cottam.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 1:45 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I Can

If the reason the Chiefs are calling those plays is because they can’t trust in the ability of their starting QB to throw anything more than screen passes.

He completed passes down field to Bowe, Franklin, Gonzalez and Cottam.

None over seven yards. Which half the backups in the league would be able to do.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 1:53 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Also

That’s two straight games now where Tyler Thigpen has clearly outperformed Croyle. He turns the ball over too much still, but he’s been able to put the ball into the end zone…Croyle hasn’t.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 11:24 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Thigpen did not outperform Croyle

I find that an odd statment. Theres no possible way you could say Thigpen outperformed Croyle against the Bears and I wouldn’t even consider that he played better against the Cardinals.

Going up against 3rd and 4th stringers that will be out of football next year, you have to take the stats with a grain of salt. I thought Thigpen had a terrible game. It looked like he would much rather just run the ball down the field than actually play QB and pass it. Thats fine in a preseason game against undrafted free agents, but against NFL starters it will get a QB killed. His receivers did a nice job getting open and they caught some nice passes. But there were also a ton of “What were you thinking?!” passes too, including the interception (1 in each game he’s played this preseason) that was run back for the touchdown that put the game out of reach.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 12:07 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

No Offense, But What Are You Smoking?

Croyle’s longest completion of the night was for 7 yards. His total for the night was 38 yards. Croyle sucked by any objective standard of measurement. His best deep throw of the night came on a busted play where he threw the ball out of bounds to prevent a sack. Beyond that he was horrible. No accuracy, no touch, just a guy with a strong arm who can’t complete a pass over 7 yards in distance (and he couldn’t even do that in the red zone). Regarding the Bears v. Cardinals argument, Croyle performed at a subpar level versus the Bears (who have a good defense). He performed at a pathetic level versus the Cardinals (who have a mediocre defense). This is not a sign of progress on his part.

As for Thigpen, he had an extremely inconsistent game (and yes, I agree his stats were padded by weak competition and that he’s probably not a good candidate as a starting QB) and he made some definite “What the f#&% throws”, but at least he could get the ball to the receivers downfield. Croyle couldn’t even do that, while working with the first-string receivers.

It comes down to the ability to complete passes downfield, basically…and in two years Croyle hasn’t shown he can do that. He couldn’t do it in the regular season last year and he can’t do it in the preseason this year. And if he can’t do it in the first six or seven games of this season, I think the Chiefs might as well make Thigpen their starter or give the job back to Huard because if Croyle hasn’t got the ability to throw deep passes by now he never will.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 12:32 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Go watch the game again if you have it recorded

Keep track of the circumstances when incompletions occurred. There were some overthrown balls, no question. That happens to every QB. But to say no accuracy? You’re paying TOO much attention to stats and 13 passes is a small sample.

Croyle is probably never going to get 400 yards passing in a game because thats not what they are going to ask him to do. So if that is your measure of whether he will be succesful or not, you’ll never be happy.

What they ARE asking him to do is lead the team on sustained drives and put some points on the board. So far he has done that.

Don’t you think that the difference in competition they were facing had something to do with Thigpens ability to get the ball down the field? I mean if the 4th stringers don’t cover the guy well he’ll be open right? And likewise if the starters ARE covering their guys well, there won’t be as many guys open.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 12:52 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I've Already Stated What I Think Croyle Needs To Do To Prove Himself

60% or better completion percentage, YPA and YPC on a par with league average, double-digit TDs, and more TDs than INTs. So far he’s performed close to that standard in one preseason game, which he immediately followed up with a stinkbomb against a team with a worse defense.

But I’m curious about something…what would it take for you to admit that Croyle’s not good enough to be a starter in the NFL? I’ve named my standards for what I think he needs for success, but so far all you’ve done is claim that the standards I hold him to are unreasonable without presenting any of your own (and no, I’m not saying that these standards need to be met in the preseason…I’m talking about what would he need to do in the regular season for you to admit he’s not good enough).

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 12:58 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Eventually
60% or better completion percentage, YPA and YPC on a par with league average, double-digit TDs, and more TDs than INTs.

You want Croyle to do that this season? That would be great…I’ll be happy if he does that by 2009. The Chiefs will keep working with him unless he doesn’t do that by 2010 (his third full season)

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 17, 2008 1:05 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

That's A League Average Performance

If your QB can’t hit 60% of his throws in today’s NFL, he’s not very efficient. If your QB can’t hit league average for YPA and YPC he’s not very accurate. If your QB can’t throw 10 or more touchdowns with at least one more TD than INT, he’s not very good. If your QB can’t do these things by his third year in the league, it’s time to find yourself another QB.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 1:09 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

TD/INT

Basically, if a QB in a ball-control offense is throwing away the ball more than he’s putting it in the end zone, he’s the problem. A non-productive QB who has more turnovers than TDs is exceptionally problematic if your team is one that relies on a shorter passing game and takes less aerial shots at the end zone, because a) a strong running game and shorter passes should decrease the need to gamble and produce INTs and increase a player’s completion percentages and b) it’s more difficult for such a team to overcome those turnovers because it forces them to do things that stray from their game plan.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 1:14 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree

and I’m counting this as Year 1…

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 17, 2008 4:39 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

+1

as counting this as year one, and I’m only giving him 2 and a half till I make my decision…

by KCFanatic on Aug 17, 2008 6:23 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Circumstances

So here’s a breakdown of the drives Croyle was QBing:

1st Drive
1st Down – Run
2nd Down – Complete Pass to Cottam
3rd Down – Complete Pass to Franklin – 1st down
1st Down – Incomplete Pass to Bowe – Overthrown
2nd Down – Complete Pass to Gonzalez
3rd Down – Complete Pass to Bowe – 1st Down
1st Down – Run – 1st Down
1st Down – Run – 1 yd gain
2nd Down – Run – 3 yd gain
3rd Down – Designed Screen Pass to Kolby Smith – 3 yds.
4th Down – Field Goal

So the 1st drive Croyle was 5/6 and play ended because of 2 runs and a screen pass. I think its tough to say Croyle played poorly on this drive.

2nd Drive
1st Down – Run
2nd Down – Run
3rd Down – No one open – Complete Check Down pass to Kolby Smith
4th Down – Punt

Croyle is 1/1 passing in this drive. No receivers were open on the only pass and he checked down to the RB who was unable to get the 1st down.

3rd Drive
1st Down – Incomplete Pass to Darling – Overthrow
2nd Down – Run – 1 yd.
3rd Down – Incomplete Pass to Darling – Overthrow

Croyle only threw 4 incompletions that he didn’t purposely throw away, two of them were to Darling, who is yet to catch a pass, on this drive. Is it just bad luck that Croyle overthrew him both times or is there something going on with Darlings route running?

4th Drive
1st Down – Run – 1st Down
1st Down – Run – 1st Down
1st Down – Run – 1st Down
1st Down – Run
2nd Down – Complete Pass to FB – Designed Play – 1st Down
1st Down – Run
2nd Down – Run
3rd Down – Run – 1st Down
1st Down – Nobody Open – purposely thrown away
2nd Down – Nobody Open – purposely thrown away – Offensive Pass Interference penalty
2nd Down – Incomplete Pass to RB – Designed Play (may have thrown too hard)
3rd Down – Run
4th Down – Field Goal

Croyle is 1/3 passing this drive, but two of the incompletions were purposely thrown away because no one was open.

Looking at the surrounding circumstances, I think its difficult to honestly say that the Chiefs drove “in spite of” Croyle. Its clear the coaches were focusing mostly on the running game tonight and the RBs and O-line played well.

Croyle overthrew Darling twice, but its difficult to tell if it was a problem with Draling or if Croyle just had a bad series. Aside from those two bad throws, he consisitently was hitting his target receivers. Most of the passes were short yardage, but that is more a result of the design of the plays called than Croyle not finding the open receivers.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 1:37 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Croyle
Most of the passes were short yardage

ALL of his completions were short yardage. He didn’t complete a pass over seven yards all night. And I’m not sure how you’re coming to the conclusion that going 7/13 with 38 yards is somehow indicative of a good performance. Fact is, he didn’t complete any of his downfield throws and he was working with the best receivers on the team.

Croyle overthrew Darling twice, but its difficult to tell if it was a problem with Darling or if Croyle just had a bad series.

So if he has a rotten year, it’ll be the receivers’ and playcallers’ fault?

Its clear the coaches were focusing mostly on the running game tonight and the RBs and O-line played well.

They did…no arguments here. Johnson looked very good, especially. Of course none of that had much to do with Croyle because he certainly wasn’t stretching the field for them or presenting the threat of a passing TD to the opposing defense.

My question remains, DJ…what would it take during this regular season for you to admit that Brodie Croyle is simply not cut out to be a good QB?

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 1:48 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Croyle

I’m not saying its all the receivers fault those passes were incomplete. Im just saying it takes two guys to complete a pass and Croyle has completed them to everyone but Darling.

There were only a handful of plays where he even had the option to stretch the field. Most of the plays are designed to be short yardage plays. They are that way BY DESIGN. There are several plays designed to have teh TE or FB get lost in the O-line D-line junk so they dont have anyone covering them, thats why theyre wide open sometimes. There were plays where the ball is thrown out to the WR at the line of scrimmage and other WRs are picking his defender.

This is all playcalling, not options. The few times the option was there, nobody could get open. How is that all Croyles fault? Would you rather he threw it down there and threw an interception instead? Because thats what it sounds like youre asking him to do.

what would it take during this regular season for you to admit that Brodie Croyle is simply not cut out to be a good QB?

He has to be able to lead the team on drives, preferrably of extended length as Herms philosophy calls for, and get points on the board. Thats it. Thats all the coaches are asking him to do.

I don’t care what his stats look like. I dont really care if he doesn’t have a pass over 10 yards. Yeah, thats exciting, but its not required to win a game. A QBs job in the Herm Edwards offense is to sustain drives and score points. As long as he is doing what he is asked to do, I don’t see how you can say he’s a poor QB.

Brodie is a house framer and that’s all his employer has asked him to do is take 2×4s and build the framework of a house. He has been doing a good job at doing that.

What you are doing is asking why the house framer isn’t making intricate wood carvings to decorate the inside. Is he incapable of making intricate wood carvings? Not necessarily. But thats not what his employer is asking him to do.

So can you really criticize Croyle because he’s not doing something his coaches are not asking him to do, but rather are following along with their plan?

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 3:01 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

You Didn't Answer My Question

Until then this is a pointless argument because you’re basing your position that Croyle will succeed on faith, not reasonable expectations. You can be as dismissive of stats as you want, but the fact remains they’re still the best measure of whether a QB is doing what he’s asked to do.

I dont really care if he doesn’t have a pass over 10 yards.

You should. It is virtually impossible for a quarterback who can’t regularly complete passes of 10 yards or more to win games for his team. If he can’t stretch the field, other teams will just load up the box on us.

As long as he is doing what he is asked to do, I don’t see how you can say he’s a poor QB.

Are his stats a factor of Croyle merely doing what’s asked of him? Or is the coaching staff asking very little of him (by calling ultra-conservative plays) because they have no faith in his ability? I have this sneaking suspicion as we go through the season that we’ll find it was the latter.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 4:01 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Why are you treating Croyle

like a third year veteran?

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 17, 2008 4:40 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Because He Is A Third-Year Veteran

Why do the pro-Croyle folks insist on treating him like he’s a rookie? Most quarterbacks in the NFL don’t get a starting gig until their third year, because that’s the average development time…and because rookies who get thrown in usually struggle and can get themselves injured.

Croyle didn’t get thrown into the fire as a rookie, he was given room to learn. In his second year in a lost season, he was given starts with no real pressure to do anything except stay healthy (because that team wasn’t going anywhere). Now he’s a third-year vet, he was given the leadership of the team and an uncontested starting job and he needs to perform like a starting NFL QB because, frankly, it’s time for him step up. And being unable to complete a pass over 7 yards in a preseason game is not stepping up.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 6:37 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Ridiculous

I’ll start treating him like a third-year veteran after his 32nd start…

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 18, 2008 8:30 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

What is basing it on faith?

You seem to be having a tough time with the concept that because he doesn’t throw a pass for more than 10 yards with the idea he can’t. His long pass against Chicago was 22 yards. Did he magically lose the ability to do that between last week and this?

As long as he is doing what he is asked to do, I don’t see how you can say he’s a poor QB.
Are his stats a factor of Croyle merely doing what’s asked of him? Or is the coaching staff asking very little of him (by calling ultra-conservative plays) because they have no faith in his ability?

Again, I find the idea of this argument ridiculous considering the Chiefs did not draft, nor seek out a free agent to take Croyles place if they didn’t have faith in him. The mere fact that they didn’t do those things proves they think he can.

I don’t know where you’ve been, but ever since Herm has been here the Chiefs have done short yardage, high percentage passing. Its part of the philosophy. So again, you are leaping to huge (and ridiculous) conclusions saying they have no faith in this guy they made absolutely no move to replace during the offseason.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 7:55 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Do they have more faith in Thigpen?

Then Thigpen was in they did down field passing. Does that mean they think Thigpen will be a better QB?

No. When the starters were on the field, they had certain plays they wanted to see and thats what they called. That explains why they concentrated so much on the running game and why they threw multiple passes targeted for Darling who they haven’t gotten to see do anything yet.

When Thigpen and the backups were out there, they were looking for individual performances which explains why Price was targetted several times and why they were running Savage 3 or 4 plays in a row with only 4 minutes left in the game and down by two scores.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 7:59 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Consistency
His long pass against Chicago was 22 yards. Did he magically lose the ability to do that between last week and this?

Apparently so because he didn’t hit any of his attempts over 7 yards this week. :)

Actually, it’s not so much magic as it is Croyle is just an often inaccurate quarterback who has trouble throwing deep. Some weeks he might make those throws, but most of the time he won’t. He didn’t hit them last year. He was an inconsistent passer in college. That’s just Croyle.

Again, I find the idea of this argument ridiculous considering the Chiefs did not draft, nor seek out a free agent to take Croyles place if they didn’t have faith in him.

There weren’t any free agent QBs on the market worth grabbing this offseason. The only one was Derek Anderson and Cleveland locked him up quick. All of the others either had significant baggage or weren’t better than Huard.

As for the draft, I’ve got no problems with who the Chiefs grabbed where they drafted. I was irritated that they didn’t grab Brohm, but then they needed a CB so Flowers was a fine pick and it’s not like Brohm was likely to be stepping in immediately.

The mere fact that they didn’t do those things proves they think he can.

Sorry, but I’ve been following this team way to long to believe that a QB prospect is good just because management thinks he’s good (because I heard the same kind of crap about Matt Blundin, Mike Elkins, and Steve Matthews). So far, what has Croyle done as a quarterback to prove he’s good enough to be a starter (regardless of what the team thinks of him)?

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 8:19 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

You're stretching
Some weeks he might make those throws, but most of the time he won’t. He didn’t hit them last year. He was an inconsistent passer in college. That’s just Croyle.

No, thats just most young NFL QBs.

There weren’t any free agent QBs on the market worth grabbing this offseason. The only one was Derek Anderson and Cleveland locked him up quick. All of the others either had significant baggage or weren’t better than Huard.

As for the draft, I’ve got no problems with who the Chiefs grabbed where they drafted. I was irritated that they didn’t grab Brohm, but then they needed a CB so Flowers was a fine pick and it’s not like Brohm was likely to be stepping in immediately.

Come on. Herms favorite guy Pennington. Favre. There were plenty of free agents they could have had. You know Pennington would have come here in a minute if Herm had asked him to. They didn’t even seek them out because they believe in Croyle.

As for the draft, you think getting a CB is more important than a franchise QB? Come on. There were still other good Cover 2 CBs available in the 3rd round. They had 3 3rd round picks, they couldn’t trade up to get a franchise guy? They had every opportunity in the world to get Brohm or Flacco or whoever they wanted. They didnt want them. They believe in Croyle.

Sorry, but I’ve been following this team way to long to believe that a QB prospect is good just because management thinks he’s good

Thats a completely seperate issue. You have not been saying up till now that managment thinks he’s good. You’ve been saying they have no faith in him and just kept him around because they had no better options. Which is it?

(because I heard the same kind of crap about Matt Blundin, Mike Elkins, and Steve Matthews)

Who were NEVER going to get an opportunity to start because the coaching staff had no interest in developing a young QB. Hell, Schottenheimer didn’t even want an early 1st round pick like Rivers.

what has Croyle done as a quarterback to prove he’s good enough to be a starter

What had Troy Aikman or Peyton or Eli Manning done after 6 starts and 2 preseason games? Young QBs need game time to develop. Very few of them step in and are pro bowlers right off the bat.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 8:31 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

"It comes down to the ability to complete passes downfield, basically…"

Why? I don’t think that is the focus of our offensive system? Would it be nice if we could do that all the time? yes…will it be okay if we can only do that occasionally? yes…

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 17, 2008 1:02 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

I'd Settle For Consistently When The Opportunity Arises

I realize that we’re a ball control offense so we’re not going to be heaving it downfield, and I think that’s smart. But we still need a QB who can consistently complete the deep pass when it’s necessary and Croyle hasn’t shown that he can do that. From what’s been demonstrated so far he’s got a strong arm, but not the accuracy.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 1:05 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Here we go again

Croyle is considerably better than last year. Who cares that he threw for 38 yards? LJ ran for 61 and Kolby for 37. When the running game is going, you don’t need the passing game as much.

What matters is that they had sustained drives. They got bogged down on the first one, which happens and Tony Gs offensive pass interferrence penalty killed the next one. Last week against Chicago, they were able to overcome that, but it didn’t happen Saturday.

Croyle did not have a spectacular game like he did against Chicago, but he didn’t have a terrible game either. He was 7 of 13 and 3 of those incompletions were purposely thrown away because no one was open. Last week he drove the team for a TD on 1 of 2 opportunities. This week he drove the team to Field Goals 2 out of 4 opportunities. I don’t care what anyone says, thats an improvment.

The point is, Croyle doesnt HAVE to prove himself during the preaseason. He has all year to improve.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 11:59 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

To Fisk Your Remarks
Croyle is considerably better than last year.

The only thing he’s improved on is not throwing ridiculous interceptions. And it appears he’s done that at the expense of being able to move the ball downfield at all. Croyle hasn’t improved, he’s regressed.

Who cares that he threw for 38 yards?

Any competent coach or offensive coordinator who’s worked in the era of the forward pass should care a lot, actually. Especially when those 38 yards came on 13 attempts (of which he completed approximately 50). If your QB throws for 38 yards and he can’t complete 90-100 of his throws, he sucks

LJ ran for 61 and Kolby for 37.

You’re right, LJ and Kolby had great games. And the Chiefs probably would have been able to do something with that excellent running game had their quarterback been able to throw for more than 2.9 yards per attempt.

What matters is that they had sustained drives.

Achieved in spite of Croyle’s performance, not because of it.

Croyle did not have a spectacular game like he did against Chicago

He was spectacular against Chicago? You’ve got a low standard for “spectacular” in your dictionary. Croyle threw for 82 yards and zero touchdowns. That’s not spectacular, that’s merely competent.

He was 7 of 13 and 3 of those incompletions were purposely thrown away because no one was open.

Funny how it’s always someone else’s fault when Brodie falls short. Last year it was the offensive line’s fault that Brodie was one of the worst QBs in the NFL. At Alabama it was his “horrible” line (which actually wasn’t horrible) that caused his mediocre numbers. This year it’s that nobody could get open. I suppose after this season, if Brodie’s one of the worst QBs in the NFL, there will still be people saying that it’s the line’s fault again, or it’s because he wasn’t given three more years to figure out how to play in the NFL, or it’s because he just had to adjust to the new system. Anything except that Brodie Croyle isn’t very good at completing passes, can’t throw many touchdowns, and isn’t consistent enough to be a good starter in the NFL.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 12:52 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

What matters is that they had sustained drives.
Achieved in spite of Croyle’s performance, not because of it.

Even though the drives were sustained by 3rd down pass completions by Croyle it was in spite of him. I find that a very interesting statment.

Croyle did not have a spectacular game like he did against Chicago
He was spectacular against Chicago? You’ve got a low standard for "spectacular" in your dictionary. Croyle threw for 82 yards and zero touchdowns. That’s not spectacular, that’s merely competent.

I define a QBs success by their ability to score points, not by how sexy their stats look. Croyle has led the team on scoring drives 3 out of 6 tries. That is marked improvment from last year.

Funny how it’s always someone else’s fault when Brodie falls short.

Funny how no matter what he does you think he’s terrible.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 12:56 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Sigh
I define a QBs success by their ability to score points, not by how sexy their stats look. Croyle has led the team on scoring drives 3 out of 6 tries. That is marked improvment from last year.

I define a QBs success by their ability to put their team in the endzone consistently. Croyle hasn’t done that…at all. He’s thrown zero TD passes so far, even with a good running game backing him up.

QBs who can hand the ball off and get the team into field goal range aren’t franchise QBs…they’re journeymen and scrubs, and they’re a dime a dozen in this league.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 1:02 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

How many passes are called to throw the ball in the end zone?

The TD they got last week the play called was a running play and he got in. He did very well throwing completions last week and when they got in scoring range, Gailey called running plays. How can you hold that against Croyle?

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 1:42 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Because

 also see the choice of playcalling as not just a factor of the Chiefs having a decent running game so far, but of them having no faith in Brodie Croyle’s ability to execute TD passes inside the red zone.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 1:50 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

If they have no faith, why did they not pick up another QB

You are jumping to conclusions that are not backed up by the actions of the team. If they had no faith in Croyles ability, they could have drafted a QB, they could have gone after Herms former favorite Chad Pennington, they could have picked up Culpepper or Leftwich or any number of other QBs floating around out there.

They didn’t because they DO trust Croyle. Croyle has thrown TD passes in the red zone before. He had 6 last year.

The Chiefs run a conservative offense. That means they run plays that have a high percentage chance of being complete. They are throwing the ball to their 7’ Center instead of throwing up 3 pointers all game long, to use a basketball analogy.

We have playmakers all over the field. Croyles job is to get the ball to the playmakers and let them make the play.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 3:07 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

No Clue

Other than they didn’t have any of the QBs in the draft rated high enough on their board when they were picking.

Fact of the matter is, though, that they apparently don’t trust him enough to run deep passing plays. And he hasn’t shown that he can consistently complete deep passes. And Carl Peterson’s Chiefs have a pretty horrific record in the QBs of the future they put their faith in.

The Chiefs run a conservative offense. That means they run plays that have a high percentage chance of being complete.

He completed just over 50% of his passes. So while the plays they’re running may be designed to be high-percentage they aren’t turning out that way when he’s running them. Again, if he’s not throwing more than 7 yards downfield, his completion percentage should be 10-20 points higher, not the same as someone who’s throwing 10-15 yards downfield.

they could have drafted a QB, they could have gone after Herms former favorite Chad Pennington

Pennington wanted to start. Miami offered him that opportunity, we didn’t. So it’s extremely unlikely he was considering us with Miami’s offer available even if we’d attempted to sign him. As for Culpepper and Leftwich, neither were good last season, both have well-deserved reputations as problem children in the locker room, so there was no reason to sign either of them when Huard’s probably just as good and less likely to cause problems.

Croyles job is to get the ball to the playmakers and let them make the play.

Great, and when’s that going to start happening? Soon I hope. :)

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 6:57 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

What QB of the future has Peterson ever drafted?

The Chiefs have NEVER drafted a QB with the thought of developing him into a starter since Peterson has been here. Neither Schottenheimer nor Vermeil had any inclination whatsoever to try to develop a young QB. So I have no clue what you’re talking about.

Pennington wanted to start. Miami offered him that opportunity, we didn’t

Why not? If they don’t trust Croyle as you claim, why would they not offer a guy that Herm has such a close relationship and that has been succesful in the past the job? That logic makes no sense.

Croyles job is to get the ball to the playmakers and let them make the play.
Great, and when’s that going to start happening? Soon I hope. :)

There has been no problem of getting the ball in the hands of the playmakers. Only your preconceived notions have prevented you from seeing that. Every QB throws incompletions. The numbers are further skewed by purposely thrown incompletions rather than risking interceptions.

You also refuse to acknowledge that the entire team is learning a brand new offense. That explains several incompletions where the receivers obviously ran the wrong route and it was later acknowledged by coaches. No doubt there have been cases where Croyle threw to the wrong place as well. All the players are learning the offense all over.

I think you are being super critical because you have already made up your mind about the guy.

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 8:12 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Go Read The Chiefs Draft History
The Chiefs have NEVER drafted a QB with the thought of developing him into a starter since Peterson has been here.

Mike Elkins, 2nd round, 1989
Matt Blundin, 2nd round, 1992
Steve Matthews, 7th round, 1994
Steve Stenstrom, 4th round, 1995

Four QBs of the future…two of them selected with second-round picks. Not a single one of whom ever amounted to anything as an NFL player, either with the Chiefs or anyone else.

I think you are being super critical because you have already made up your mind about the guy.

It’s not completely made up, yet, but we’ll say that if he performs in his first three or four regular season games like he did last night, I’ll probably write him off pretty quickly.

Sorry, but I’ve got zero faith in a Peterson-led team’s ability to find a capable quarterback to develop. So far he’s 0-4 and Brodie’s done nothing to make me think the Chiefs have suddenly figured this out.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 8:31 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Again...

This is just like you reading the stat numbers without taking into consideration the circumstances surrounding them.

They drafted QBs, the coaches never had any intention of playing them. Schottenheimer didn’t even want to play Rivers and he was an early 1st rounder. Just because they draft the guy does not make them a QB of the future.

Mike Elkins – Games – 1 GS – 0 Pass Attempts – 2 Completions – 1
Matt Blundin – Games – 3 GS – 1 Pass Attempts – 9 Completions -2
Steve Mathews – Games – 2 GS – 1 Pass Attempts – 43 Completions – 28
Steve Stenstrom – Games – 0 GS – 0 Pass Attempts – 0 Completions – 0

These are the stats of these players in their entire career in K.C. Sure sounds like they believed they were QBs of the future and gave them a shot huh?

by ChiefDJ on Aug 17, 2008 8:41 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

And After They Left The Chiefs

Nobody else thought they were anything special either since nobody picked them up once the Chiefs got rid of them. So it’s not just a matter of the Chiefs not giving them playing time, it’s also a matter of them nobody else thinking the were a salvageable project either. And if you’ll note the years they were drafted, all of them were here in the Marty Schottenheimer years, and Schottenheimer had a pretty decent record with developing young quarterbacks (Kosar, Rivers, Brees). So if Marty Schottenheimer felt they weren’t good enough to give playing time to, it’s probably because they weren’t good enough to give playing time to.

My point is, you can call a guy a “franchise QB” or a “QB of the future” or “the face of the franchise” all you want, but at some point that player needs to start performing like it. Until then it’s just talk. This is Brodie’s third year with the team and he’s yet to perform like a league average QB, much less a franchise guy…not like a guy who’s the possible weak link in the Chiefs’ offense.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 18, 2008 8:22 AM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Writing off Brodie
It’s not completely made up, yet, but we’ll say that if he performs in his first three or four regular season games like he did last night, I’ll probably write him off pretty quickly.

It’s pretty obvious to me that you’ve already written him off UC. You told me at one point in a different thread that you were willing to give him this year before you started calling for his head, and here we are, first preseason game that his numbers aren’t up to your standards and you’re crying off with his head. Most of us here have heard your opinions of his likelyhood of succeeding in the NFL as a QB, and respect it, but please give him an entire season before passing judgement.

You’re a smart guy, you’re probably correct in your assessment of the statistics and he won’t make it, but give him a chance for a season, or at least a few games, or at a minimum one regular season game playing a team that lost a game last year =)

by KCFanatic on Aug 18, 2008 5:12 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

He was spectacular against Chicago? You’ve got a low standard for "spectacular" in your dictionary. Croyle threw for 82 yards and zero touchdowns. That’s not spectacular, that’s merely competent.

now lets’ not be dishonest…that’s pretty good for 20 minutes of game time – 246 yards passing in a game (82 times all 60 minutes) is probably what any QB in this system would be asked to do.

by PVChiefsfan on Aug 17, 2008 1:06 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

It Was A Competent Performance Against Chicago

But he didn’t put the ball in the end zone. 246 yards is a decent performance, not a spectacular one.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 1:15 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

At Least

Next season Cleveland’s likely going to have to part ways with either Derek Anderson or Brady Quinn so there’ll be a starter-quality QB available for us to snag.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 11:50 AM CDT   0 recs

And

If Brodie fails this year at least that means Carl Peterson will probably be fired. He built the team this offseason so heavily off the premise that Brodie Croyle was the answer at QB that I don’t think there’s any way he keeps his job if Croyle bombs.

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

by UCrawford on Aug 17, 2008 11:55 AM CDT   0 recs

Disappointed

You know, I have been on here reading for a while to see what everyones opinions are of the chiefs and the various players and it very disappointing what I have seen. This is supposed to be a Fan site and there are many people on here that just look for ways to dog our own team. We know that they all need work, we all know it wont be a great season, but come on, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU LOOK FOR EVERY NEGATIVE THING YOU CAN FIND TO b*&% about. Last time I checked, when you are a fan you support regardless most of you just b*&%$ and complain and things that are more or less out of Brodies hands. Do you think that he holds all responsibility over the play calling? Do you honestly think that the Chiefs staff doesnt believe he can throw the ball down field? You people are crazy and make me sick. They are evaluting players so they know who they can keep or not. They arent going to show the league all our plays in preseason, I mean how smart would that be. I think you all need to figure out if you are really fans or just here to complain and then once they do start doing well, you jump on the bandwaggon.

by hugechiefsfan on Aug 17, 2008 2:34 PM CDT   0 recs

Supportive and analytical

I’ve enjoyed reading the comments in this thread and the site in general. HugeChiefsFan, I appreciate your desire to cheer for the home team. I get the feeling everyone on this site wants the Chiefs to do well. I rarely read comments here like, “I hope the Chiefs collapse in order to prove my point and they get rid of fill-in-the-blank.” I appreciate the fact that such an energetic discussion can have two strong, opposing opinions yet not resort to name calling. There may be some people who are too analytical for others to enjoy reading. I get that. I hear people voicing their opinions that support their hopes and strategies for the team doing well. Glad you spoke up, as well, Huge.

by sunny D on Aug 17, 2008 6:02 PM CDT to parent up   0 recs

Croyle

is performing to what Herm and Chan want hi