Coach Herm Edwards is hinting that the Kansas City Chiefs may go with some sort of two-quarterback system while Brodie Croyle is sidelined with a separated shoulder.
Backup Damon Huard will start this week against the Raiders, relieving an injured Kansas City quarterback for the third time in three years. But Edwards made clear that third-teamer Tyler Thigpen, who was waived by Minnesota last September and has attempted only six passes in the NFL, will also get on the field in the next few weeks.
over 3 years ago
Joel Thorman
56 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Why in the...
hell can’t we just go all or nothing. Damon or Thiggy or Ingle. Pick one and go with them dammit.
As long as it isn't telegraphed
You know what I mean. Jared Allen as an eligible receiver twice, gets thrown to twice, gets two TDs. I am surprised anyone fell for it the second time.
Thigpen on, is it a QB sneak?
Blame my wife!
with our coaching staff...
they may even know the snap count when thiggy steps on
Naming my son Brodie Damon
I'm actually excited
for real. After yesterday, this is a breath of fresh air. Why? Because it shows the coaches are willing to think outside the box. Which is great. This makes everybody happy. Okay, maybe not happy, but not as monumentally depressed. Huard still gets to complete 60% of his throws throwing flat passes to the line of scrimmage for the Huard supporters, and Thigpen brings an element of athleticism. Will it work? Of course not! This is the NFL! Multi-quarterback systems haven’t been effective in as long as I can remember! But it shows we’re willing to do whatever we can to find a spark for this offense. What’s the worst that can happen, we suck? We already suck! We might as well suck in a really interesting way!
Think of it. We put in I-formation with Huard on first down. Obviously we’re running. We give it to LJ, who runs into the backs of his linemen for 2 yards. On second down, we put in Thigpen in a two back set, and either run the toss sweep with Charles or let Thigpen do his thing, which is probably throw incomplete. On third down, we run the shotgun draw with Huard because he’s less likely to make a mistake, who of course makes the nice safe decision and passes in the flat to LJ, who’s tackled after a gain of 5. We punt.
There, that’s the exact same result as we’ve seen over the last year, but it’s much more interesting! I’m pumped! Free Tyler!
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 11:42 AM CDT reply actions
nah you forgot
on 3rd and 8 Huard thinks he reads a blitz and rather than letting that tricky pressure force a mistake huard starts the play by freezing like a deer before safely tucking the ball away under his arm and hitting the deck for a loss of 6
Naming my son Brodie Damon
That might be kind of interesting
but if we’re talking about a 2 quarterback system like that, I would say Huard on first and second and Thigpen on 3rd when people are going to be blitzing, because he can run around, throw on the run, and scramble for the first down.
only problem there
is that 1. the defense will be expecting it and will spy him if he’s even the least bit effective, and 2. if it’s a 3rd and long situation he’ll be too tempted to throw downfield to make it happen, and not forcing it is essential to the scheme, it would seem.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions
“Huard still gets to complete 60% of his throws throwing flat passes to the line of scrimmage for the Huard supporters..”
“Huard Croyle still gets to complete 60 50 of his throws throwing flat passes to the line of scrimmage for the Huard supporters..”
There, much better.
See
now I’m trying to be positive today. Why you gotta be like that?
I’ve been contemplating this, and I don’t know the answer. DJ’s of course right when he says that I have an inherent bias against Herm. It’s huge. I keep waiting for him to do things to turn my mind around on it, but instead he reinforces it. I don’t like conservative football. I’m not for Vermeil’s all-O no-D approach either, I just like balanced football. In all things moderation. And the fact that repeatedly I see so many designed passes to the flat, where there’s not even a read progression down field makes me nuts. Same with the 3rd and 15 shotgun draw plays. I understand it’s part of the plan, but I hate it. Hate it. I’m willing to give him time to change my mind and I’m trying very hard not to judge him before the year’s out.
But I wonder how much of that impacts the Croyle situation. Last year, when we started to get excited about Croyle, it was because he came in during his first drive when Huard went down and threw downfield. We didn’t score. But we drove. We went downfield. Brodie was running out of the pocket and throwing downfield, which we hadn’t seen in months. That’s why we got on board with him.
This is where the Herm question comes in.
It’s not that I’m staunchly a Croyle supporter. Really it’s not. I had doubts all offseason about whether he could be the guy. Honestly, I never thought when we drafted him that he would ever see the field. He seemed like a flyer pick to me. Why not? But when we got in this mess, I saw that he had attributes that Huard doesn’t, just like Huard has some that Croyle doesn’t, like a smarter head, more confidence, and 4 more wins in the last 13 months. But Croyle also showed the arm last year, and that’s what got us excited. If we could temper that arm, work it into a system, get the weapons in position to use it, we could really have something. It wouldn’t be good, per say, because our O-line is terrible, but it would be something.
From the Croyle hater and Herm support standpoint, this is entirely on Brodie. He’s just a failure. Doesn’t get it. Doesn’t have the talent. Isn’t a winner. Sucks at life. Kicks puppies. Doesn’t complete enough of his passes. And we can make all the comments about how much worse the team was at the end of the year than the start (which I think we can all agree was true) and about how good the Patriots defense is (which it is) and about how many drops his receivers had last weekend (which were countless). But for the anti-Croyle Herm support crew, it comes down to simply, he didn’t get it done. And that’s a perfectly reasonable approach. This is a results league, and he’s not getting results. So in with Huard, out with Croyle.
The other side is where we start to question what the hell happened to the kid that even if he wasn’t the most confident or dominating QB on the field, at least looked like a gunslinger with an arm, and how he turned into a molten pile of suck that doesn’t roll out and doesn’t look downfield. I know, Chan Gailey’s running the offense now. But does anyone really believe that Herm isn’t an integral part of the offensive scheming? He knows what kind of football he wants, and he’s not going to let Gailey come in and run some effective, high flying offense that scores a lot. That’s not what he wants. He wants control. And to keep control over the offense you have to exert control at the top. So you have to wonder, from our point of view, why he’s keeping the kid so locked up. The common response from the other side is “oh, well, the coaches must see that he can’t be trusted.” But what do we care about trust? What’s worse, a dumb throw into double coverage at the 10 that’s intercepted or a punt from the 45 that goes for a touchback? Does it really matter?
Yeah, Huard has a higher completion rate after being 10 years older than Croyle. He makes fewer mistakes, it seems like, even though we don’t know what Croyle’s INT ratio would look like because he can’t stay healthy. And both sides have an argument. Croyle can’t stay healthy so he can’t be QB, or Croyle can’t stay healthy in the pocket so lets’ roll him the hell out of the death trap that is our O-line.
I just have a hard time believing that a young guy that wants to prove himself is looking to go to the flat on every pass. Versus Huard, who just wants to do what he’s told, not turn the ball over, and make the smart play and who at times last year acted like every time he threw to Kris Wilson for a 2 yard gain, angels sang. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions
An addendum
this doesn’t necessarily mean that I don’t think ANY quarterback can be succesful in this system. I think if Herm were to get a quarterback who manages the game AND has actual athletic talents and an arm, like Trent Dilfer back in 2000, this team could be efficient, which is what he’s looking for.
Yes, I’m advocating that we find the next coming of Trent Dilfer. It’s statements like that that concern me about the scheme. But I go through the suspects of players to model the QB after.
Tom Brady: Lightning in a bottle, never going to find something like that, too much of an overall package.
Peyton Manning: Again, too much talent. Some people are just freaks at sport. Also, his preference to throw downfield could be an issue.
Carson Palmer: Stretches the field too much and takes too many chances.
Ben Roethlisburger: Closer to the model, and has some athleticism to boot, but also gets trigger happy downfield.
Derek Anderson: Big gambler. No go.
Donovan McNabb: Could potentially work, especially with his experience in terrible receiver corps. LIkes to throw downfield a little much, but with his age, might be okay with just throwing based on progression.
Vince Young: Not enough throwing smarts. Mobility isn’t necessarily a bad thing in the system, but it’s obviously not a good thing either.
Jay Cutler: Now we’re talking. Cutler would have worked pretty perfectly in this system. One, two, three, throw a rope to the sideline.
JaMarcus Russell: Incomplete.
Jeff Garcia: Veteran, which is good, scrambler, which is bad, not a great arm anymore, which is okay, injury prone, which is bad.
David Garrard: Could probably work very well, except for that damn penchant of throwing downfield. This would be another good model, though.
Matt Schaub: Injury prone.
Who do you guys think the model should be? Besides Huard of course.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions
well you even kind of missed your own point a little
early in the first post you said,
“But I wonder how much of that impacts the Croyle situation. Last year, when we started to get excited about Croyle, it was because he came in during his first drive when Huard went down and threw downfield. We didn’t score. But we drove. We went downfield. Brodie was running out of the pocket and throwing downfield, which we hadn’t seen in months. That’s why we got on board with him.”
To me, that would serve as proof that the kid isn’t AFRAID to go downfield, it isn’t an issue of confidence, its something else. We didn’t see the rollouts on Sunday and thats clearly a play calling issue. We found what worked in that Colts game, and we quickly departed, dusting ourselves off and hoping no one had noticed our progress before dipping back into the mediocrity we seem to aim for.
Naming my son Brodie Damon
11/19 with 3 drops
equals 50%?
times like these remind me why Im not a math major
Naming my son Brodie Damon
well when you make a strawman argument
the strength of argument does actually suffer. its true
Naming my son Brodie Damon
No no
stats only matter if you’re talking about Huard being better than Croyle Everything else is irrelevant. You obviously have not been reading the Book of Huardation, Chapter V, Verse IV.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions
just to be clear
that wouldve been a 73% completion rate, had bowe not had the dropsies early on.
Naming my son Brodie Damon
so
the blame should be shifted to bowe? or is croyle responsible for poor WR play as well?
Naming my son Brodie Damon
It's not Croyle's fault
It’s the offensive line’s fault, Bowe’s fault, lack of other star WRs, the system’s fault and Herm’s fault.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 11, 2008 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions
youre right
dropped passes are definitely on brodie.
i really dont know what i was thinking
Naming my son Brodie Damon
His Point Being
That every time Croyle has a substandard performance, people always seem to find an excuse to make for him why he couldn’t get the job done. Did dropped passes hurt Croyle last game? Sure. But what about his crappy performance before that where he couldn’t outplay Huard (who had the same line and same receivers as Croyle). Eventually there comes a time when your run out of excuses and you have to accept that for whatever reason Brodie Croyle is simply not a better QB than his backup. Primetime’s hit that point. I’ve hit that point. At some point you’ll probably hit that point too.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
i dont think he's better now
i think he’ll be better given time. and i think he played poorly in the past, but as for sunday, i dont think he did as bad as everyones saying he did. thats all.
Huard is as good as he’s going to be. Croyle, i think, has potential to be better than huard IF he can stay healthy.
Naming my son Brodie Damon
Real question
Why do you think Croyle will get better?
by Joel Thorman on Sep 11, 2008 7:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Arm strength, mobility, PHYSICAL TALENT.
There is something to be said for the fact that this has to do with athletic sports. You need athleticism and Damon Huard has about as much as the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons. He’s a tree stump with arms. If Croyle didn’t have the mental aspects to grasp an offense he wouldn’t have been given the starting position on a professional football roster. His performance issues are troubling bordering on damning, but there is sitll the possibility of him using the physical tools he has to improve and be a better quarterback than the ungifted “manager” that is Damon Huard.
That would be why.
And the fact that we have no one else on roster.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 12, 2008 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Athleticism
What, you mean like Michael Vick? He was one of the best athletes in the NFL but he was a rotten QB.
Physical tools are good, but they’re not a substitute for skills (like being able to complete a pass). So who honestly cares if Brodie Croyle’s got a stronger arm than Damon Huard when he can’t complete more passes than Damon Huard? Who cares if Brodie Croyle can beat Damon Huard in a footrace when it’s even odds that Croyle goes out with an injury if he takes a serious hit outside the pocket while Huard can stay healthy?
At some point you’ve got to ask why, if a player’s got such better physical tools than his backup and has had more time working in an offense than his backup, he’s still not able to outperform his backup. And the answer will be that “athleticism” alone does not make a good football player.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
You're Not Serious
If Croyle didn’t have the mental aspects to grasp an offense he wouldn’t have been given the starting position on a professional football roster.
So in other words, by virtue of being given the starting spot someone is automatically talented enough to be a starting quarterback? Is that your position? Because if you want to go that route, I can bitch-slap that argument down with a laundry list of QBs who’ve started NFL games and demonstrated they had absolutely no business being on an NFL roster, much less being a starter…with plenty of them being athletic “tools” guys.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Hell, I'll Start Now
“Athletic” quarterbacks who had no business starting an NFL game, but did:
Quincy Carter, Mike McMahon, Bobby Douglass, Chad Hutchinson, Ryan Leaf, Drew Henson, Rick Mirer, Vince Young, Todd Blackledge, Shawn Moore.
That’s 10 off the top of my head…all of whom started games in the NFL, none of whom were capable of running an NFL offense.
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Correction
Shawn Moore actually didn’t start any of the three games he sucked in, so I’ll substitute Gary Marangi instead…he was a mobile QB with good “athleticism” and he was plenty shitty in his 7 starts.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MaraGa00.htm
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
And yet this argument
qualifies Damon Huard…
*slams head into desk.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 12, 2008 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions
He Completes Passes
Like it or not, being a good athlete does not automatically make one a good pro football player. Nor does being a mediocre athlete automatically exclude one from being a capable football player.
Hell, look at Brad Johnson, he’s had a very good career and the guy’s got one of the weaker arms in football.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JohnBr00.htm
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting something evil.
Vince Young?!?!
But he’s so good in Madden how could he be a had NFL QB? :)
by Joel Thorman on Sep 13, 2008 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Tree stump with arms
6’5" 230 lbs – that’s the size I would prefer in a QB.
by Joel Thorman on Sep 13, 2008 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions
When i think of the number 4..
I dont think about a certain Brett Farve, Jim Harbaugh, or Steve Walsh.. I think of THE Sir Tyler Thigpen..
ugh.
Are there any lengths you won't got to to defend Brodie?
The guy’s a joke. Can’t win, can’t stay healthy, won’t be able to stay in the league.
Oh
well I didn’t know it was as simple as that. Thanks for enlightening me. It wasn’t even necessarily a Brodie defense, but a question that’s become the chicken and the egg around here. Does our system suck because of the personnel or does our personnel suck because of the system. Answer’s probably somewhere in the middle.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions
Or
Do they both suck? I think that’s about as middle as it can get.
I don’t know what I was expecting them to do, but a 2-QB system seems…. ridiculous. If they’re going to go, might as well go all the way. Pick a guy to stand in for these 4 weeks Croyle is gone, and then the 4 weeks after that when he comes back and gets injured again. I thought he looked ok leading up to the injury, but I am not seeing what the organization is in him. He could be a backup, but then again, he can’t stay healthy so it’s still a moot point.
have you seen my baseball?
As for the 2 QB system
what do we have to lose? Ridiculous? We lost to the Patriots without the greatest player in team history. We’re staring down the barrel of 3-13 or worse. Ridiculous ain’t a part of our vocabulary, hombre, it’s our nationality at this point. Huard doesn’t have the mobility, speed, agility, arm strength, or elusiveness to create plays, Thigpen doesn’t have the brains to manage an offense. We might as well form some sort of Frankenstein out of the dead pieces we have lying around.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions
you just want an easy answer
even if its wrong. and you point to the QB, just like most people would before they really look at it. its not as simple as wins/losses at this stage
steve young for instance, went 3-15 as a starter in Tampa Bay. Anyone wanna guess why?
Naming my son Brodie Damon
Wasn't at you, playboy.
That one was at our Bama’ fan friend. For some reason the reply function doesn’t work on my work pc like it does my personal. But seriously, Brodie’s days in the NFL are over.
1 game?
We’re 1 game into the season homeslice. I’m with you that things look dire fore the Brodester, but it’s not like we’ve got a lot of options at this point. Wouldn’t it help us out to hold out hope that he could turn it around instead of proclaiming DamonsDay?
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions
1 game this season plus all of last season.
As a season ticket holder, I’ve seen enough of Brodie. I’d rather have them stick with Huard this season and bring in at least 3 fresh faces next year. I tried being a Brodie Believer, didn’t work out so well.
But Huard makes you happy.
I’d say that you’re hard to please with Brodie, but that’s not true because you’re fine with Huard. I’d say you’re easy to please with Huard, but that’s not true because of Brodie.
So, essentially 0-1 with the possibility for improvement is not as good to you as 4-5 with no possibility of improvement. Got it. HIV 2 That Idea.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions
But he's not possibly the answer long term.
You’re looking at Huard who has a 0% chance of developing into what we need, versus Brodie who has a 2% chance, at worst. You can say he sucks, but that doesn’t really matter because our whole team sucks outside of about six players.
by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 10, 2008 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions
+100000000.
Exactly.
Even if you think Croyle is terrible and that he will always be injured and never be able to perform even when healthy, he has enough talent to at least having some chance. 2% sounds good. Damon Huard’s upside is non-existant.
So, why would you go for the 0% again?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
