Who should finish the year?

by TheQ on Sep 30, 2008 9:13 PM CDT Comment 25 comments

Let the debate begin! If Huard continues to give this team steady Quarterback play ,and lets say we manage a win or two with him at the helm, should he continue to be our QB? Or should we put Croyle in to see "what we've got "? I do want to know if Croyle can be the guy, but it will be very hard to make a change if the ship has been stabilized.

I am not a Croyle believer, and therefore I am fine seeing Huard get his time in the sun. But only if our plan is to get through this season and Draft/Trade/Sign a new quarterback or two in the offseason.

It appears Herm is not detouring from the rebuilding plan, and seems ready to put Croyle back at the helm as soon as possible.

If the decision were up to you Chiefs fans, which quarterback do you make our starter for the rest of the season?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

1 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I vote Huard

Until he proves he doesn’t belong. If Huard can be part of our “success” (or, rather, not screwing it up) and give us more positive days like last Sunday then I’m all about it.

by primetime 07 on Sep 30, 2008 9:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It is nice winning

but we still have to play Croyle. If we decide not to let him play, then we need to plan on not playing him at all. The team hasn’t quit on the youth movement. They can’t quit the Croyle experiment just yet. This year isn’t going to get any better. The way we ran the ball on sunday would have helped any qb. We ran more than we passed and were successful. We are giving Huard way to much credit for this win.

by cmpotter on Sep 30, 2008 9:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I really want Croyle to do well

so then we won’t have to draft a QB this year, or if we do then we can develop him before throwing him to the hounds.

by Vince D on Sep 30, 2008 10:08 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Croyle when healthy

I don’t see the upside with Damon. Croyle probably sucks, but we need to find out for sure, so Carl or whoever is in charge in the future can either go with Croyle, or begin looking for the next Chiefs QB.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 30, 2008 10:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Huard

Although I’m not going to be too bothered if they give Croyle back the job. I don’t really see him lasting too long in it.

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

by UCrawford on Sep 30, 2008 10:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Croyle

Croyle’s not tough enough. Give the ball to Huard and continue looking for a real QB.

by FanSinceLen on Sep 30, 2008 11:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

starter

I think it’s a no brainer. Start Croyle when He is healthy. Why are people so quick to give up on him? He has not had near enough time to be evaluated. What is Huard starting going to accomplish, a 7-9 season instead of 5-11. I doubt it. Look at the history of most really good quarter backs they needed a lot more time. I don’t have the stats in front of me but, has’nt it been covered on this sight adnauseum. I t is a different story if he is not availible ie injured again.

by dklogue1 on Oct 1, 2008 12:18 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

How many

games has he started vs how many has he should have started?

Why bring the franchise down for him when he’s out like a light after 3 quarters

have you seen my baseball?

by IISaiNtII on Oct 1, 2008 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Reason I Don't Like Croyle

Is because in playing time in comparison Huard, he hasn’t been close to the QB that Huard’s been. He was worse than Huard last year, and he didn’t demonstrate that he was much better in his extremely limited playing time this year (Huard was the one who got us in position to win that game against New England, not Croyle). Then when you add in the injury factor, I think automatically handing the job back to Croyle just further destabilizes an already too-unstable QB situation. I mean, even if Croyle is able to stay healthy the rest of the year, considering the substantial number of injuries he’s already incurred in his brief career do you seriously believe he’s someone we should be betting on to be our starting QB past this season? Because I don’t…he’s always going to be a major injury risk, and as such I don’t think it’s as important to develop him this season as it is to develop everybody else on offense. And that requires that we put the best performing QB out there and for this season that’s Damon Huard.

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

by UCrawford on Oct 1, 2008 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ride it...

I say if Croyle is healthy but Huard is still effective then they should ride the hot hand and just keep listing Brodie as questionable or something…They should NOT declare Huard the starter with an obviously healthy Croyle due to what that would do to the mentality of the team and of Croyle himself…Sounds a little far fetched, but I think it is what they will do if that is the case.

WITH THAT SAID (I say that alot on here): I think we should not forget what happened last season when Huard WAS named the starter. He was a different kind of injury prone in that he always had something nagging. His calf, his shoulder…etc….He is just an old….mediocre…quarterback. He is good in a backup role when he just has to fill in for a game or two…but he is NO starter….

by woodman212 on Oct 1, 2008 4:36 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Trade Disco Hu

When Croyle is 100% again, assuming that that is before the trade deadline, they should trade Huard for a draft pick and sign another QB to be the backup. It was reported last week that the Patriots would give up a conditional 5th rounder for Huard. Maybe we could get a 4th plus whichever of their backups they would cut to make room for Huard, since they are hurting at QB, he looked decent last week, and he’s played in their system a lot.

by Offense of the 70s on Oct 1, 2008 7:37 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Hell no

because if Glass Jaw Croyle goes down again, we’ll have Tyler “Hey, the other team needs to catch some passes too” Thigpen in there.

Croyle should be the starter as soon as he is healthy.

by PVChiefsfan on Oct 1, 2008 8:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not Thigpen

Actually under the scenario I proposed, Thigpen would be the #3 at best. (I’d dump Pigpen right now anyway and give a shot to someone else, but that’s a different topic.)

If we traded Huard, we’d start Croyle until he got hurt again, and then have some other scrub like Matt Guitierrez in there for however many games Croyle misses. (The Patriots would dump one of their QBs if they made the trade, we could just let them decide which one and make him part of the trade if we wanted to.)

So it’d cost us the difference between Huard and some other scrub for a few games to pick up a 4th or 5th round pick.

Not that it matters anyway, unless you really really want to go 6-10 instead of 4-12.

by Offense of the 70s on Oct 1, 2008 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who reported

that the Pats would give up a 5th rounder for Huard? I didn’t hear anything about that? Just curious…

by TheQ on Oct 1, 2008 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Peter King, take it for what it's worth

Last week, he mentioned it here:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/peter_king/09/23/mail/index.html

As a 5th rounder or higher based on performance. Maybe he made it up or something, but I could see the Pats being interested in Disco Hu.

by Offense of the 70s on Oct 1, 2008 8:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm a little surprised

they didn’t jump on that to get another pick for next year? Oh wait, that would have meant we would have seen more of
Thigpen and the angry lynch mob outside of Carl’s office!

by TheQ on Oct 1, 2008 8:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Peter King

Commenter Sir_eccles linked it for us some time ago.

by primetime 07 on Oct 1, 2008 8:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Have to go with Croyle

I’m no longer sold that Croyle can stay healthy long enough to be a starter, but he still has more years ahead of him than 35 year old Damon Huard. If we were in the midst of a playoff hunt, I would say stick with Huard, but we’re not, we’re in the middle of a rebuilding year where we’re trying to find out about the young players.

Even if we go ahead and draft a young QB with a highish draft choice (which I think we should) that young guy isn’t going to be ready to just step in and run with it. I think we need to give Croyle the rest of this season and probably next while the drafted QB develops.

If he gets injured or plays poorly, no big deal, Damon will probably still be there to back him up until the drafted QB is ready.

If he stays healthy and plays well though, we have will have a good QB leading the team for the future and a young one developing behind him for the future as well. That is the ideal situation.

Going with Huard as your QB is the worst possible option. It essentially means we have given up on developing a young QB for a year or two. Even if he plays really really well, he’s probably only got two years left in him. Then if you’ve drafted a young QB, the entire future is riding on his shoulders alone and if he fails, we’re sunk.

Despite the problems and doubts, we NEED to give Croyle a chance if for no other reason than we’re trying to throw as much against the wall for the future and see what sticks.

by ChiefDJ on Oct 1, 2008 9:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs