Shhhhh...The Kansas City Chiefs Have a QB Controversy

by Chris Thorman on Sep 17, 2007 11:20 AM CDT in 2007 Campaign Comment 20 comments

Throughout the preseason, the big question was: Will Damon Huard or Brodie Croyle start the season for the Chiefs? After convincing himself that Huard "gives us the best chance to win", Herm Edwards gave us just a little taste of the impending QB controversy in Kansas City.

Q: So who’s your guy next week?

EDWARDS: "Right now it’s Damon. I haven’t decided anything. I haven’t looked at the tape."

Star columnist Joe Posnanski is the first to really stir the QB pot with this story after the game:

This doesn’t have anything to do with panic. OK, well, yeah, it might have a little something to do with panic. The Chiefs are 0-2. They should feel a little panic. They are the only team in the NFL that hasn’t won a game yet going back to the preseason. They have looked miserable on offense. Hopeless. This is a team heading for a long, dry season unless something drastic happens.

As Chiefs tight end Tony Gonzalez said, "Something’s gotta be done."

Again, the question of direction comes up. What direction are the Chiefs headed in? I'm not really sure. Damon "Best Chance to Win" Huard isn't living up to that horrible nickname I just gave him (Its not sticking, don't worry).

AP's very own marcusallenwasking put it brilliantly as well in the comment section today:

One of my problems is that we're trying to do two things at once. We want to win now, but we're supposed to be patient while our team improves. It's one or the other. Either we're trying to put together a run with LJ, Tony, Edwards, and Law, or we're building for the future with Croyle, Bowe, DJ, and Pollard. Going both ways is not an option. And Damon Huard isn't going in either direction. It's a lot like his passing game. Completely lateral.

Which is it Chiefs? "Winning" now with Huard while Croyle sits on the sidelines? Or are we going to develop our very own drafted QB for the first time...ever?

The QB controversy in KC hasn't grown much. But it will if Damon Huard is unable, yet again, to move the ball offensively against next week's opponent the Minnesota Vikings. Damon Huard, as far as I'm concerned, has one more game to show us he's able to "manage the game". I'm hesitant to call this an impending QB controversy because frankly I think Damon Huard will play poorly enough that giving the ball to Croyle will be our only option, however ready he may be.

I can hear chants of Brodie Croyle faintly in the distance. They'll get louder. Trust me.

Poll follows so click through...

Poll

Brodie Croyle

Start him this week against the Vikings

75 votes

Give Huard one more game then we'll see

21 votes

Huard is our man. I'll stick with him.

19 votes

115 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 20 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

After some reflection

I believe its important for the starting QB to earn the spot. Croyle did not do that in the preseason. That is why Huard got the start.

The reason I'm not calling for Brodie to start right is because Damon still hasn't "lost it". More than likely, he will have done a poor enough job by next week to have lost the job, thereby putting Brodie in driver's seat.

I want Croyle in bad. But it needs to be the right situation too.

by Chris Thorman on Sep 17, 2007 11:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

True besides Huards lack of down field

throwing he has "managed the game" pretty well. Two of his interceptions have been weird ones. The tipped ball in the end zone, a good throw but bad judgment seeing it was 3rd and 1, and the Texans defensive tackle getting completely stoned at the line so he takes a step to the side and the ball hits him in the hands. If Huard would just throw 6-9 yard passes he would be fine. I believe he has enough arm to hit a 7 yard out.

by TXroyal on Sep 17, 2007 11:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

If you're waiting for Huard to have a bad game

before giving Croyle the job. . .then you'll be waiting longer than next week. I can pretty much guarantee that.

Quarterback controversy. . .hell, at least you guys HAVE quarterbacks. Le sigh. . .

The Daily Norseman - Yeah, it's awesome.

by GonzoDN on Sep 17, 2007 12:48 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Obsessing Because That's What A Chiefs Fan Does

The direction thing is really important, considering where we're at.

Are we happy with going (at best) 10-6, eeking into the playoffs, then getting obliterated by the Patriots/Colts (again)? Do we feel that making the playoffs and getting the snot kicked out of us like we didn't even belong there will be a building block for next season (like last season was supposed to be)? How about if we go 9-7, and miss the playoffs. Does that mean that we took strides this season? Because if we get to the end of the season and we're right back where we were at the end of last season, all we've done is put ourselves in the dreaded 12-18 pick range for the draft.

If we go 9-7, but we end on a winning streak and Brodie looks like he's going to be at least good, then that's okay. But if Huard keeps the job and we go 9-7, too late to get a good quarterback in what is going to be one of the best QB drafts in YEARS (Brohm, Woodson, Brennan, Booty), then we'll have once again sentenced ourselves to five more years of mediocrity.

I'm not looking at what gives us the best chance to win against the Minnesota Vikings in week 3 of a season where we're the laughing stock of the NFL so far (at least the Raiders have been close). I'm looking at what's going to give us the best chance to win a freaking playoff game, much less a SuperBowl.

by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 17, 2007 1:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

huard not croyle

Huard has not had a bad season... i would say by game 7 it huard hasn't helped us and we have losing record, then you put in croyle. He won't do worse for us. But you can't put the last couple of games against Huard.

by drecord on Sep 17, 2007 9:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

here is my thinking...

huard has played pretty good thus far. nothing groundbreaking though, which is what we need from our QB. we dont need a freaking QB to "manage games", you are only successful with a QB like that with a phenomenal defense (read: baltimore and trent dilfer).

put croyle in, let him play out the rest of the season. hopefully he plays well enough to be our QB of the future, but if not our record likely sucks and we are in a position to draft a QB (my favorite is andre woodson, brohm will be gone) for the future.

the thing with this team is that we are only 3 or 4 holes away from seriously competing for a superbowl IMO, a solid corner, a great LT (there are also tons of good LT's in this year's draft, so hopefully croyle can stick it and we can use our 1st rounder on someone like sam baker or jake long), a good QB (hopefully croyle can be the guy) and probably another O-lineman or two. so, we dont need to go into a rebuild but just build for NEXT YEAR this season.

this season is a lost cause, true, but next season we have a legitimate shot of winning the division and winning games in the playoffs IMO, as long as we improve our o line and croyle is for real.

but playing huard makes no sense...

by rockchalk on Sep 17, 2007 10:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

0-2 an already they bail

Lost cause? Our offense is currently pathetic, yes (somewhat due to Solari/Huard running the ball on 3rd and 8 and throwing a 30 yd fade pass on 3rd and 1), but does anyone remember how many points we scored against Denver in game 2 last year? Our defense looks so much better than last year and I see several promising things about the defense in particular. 1) Derrick Johnson is a stud and has made an immediate impact this year. 2) We are actually getting pressure on the QB with our DT's so Allen and Hali can be more effective 3)We are forcing turnovers and 4) both Harris and Edwards are all over the place. Now if we can just stop penalizing ourselves into the ground and hold on to the ball, there is no reason to call this season a lost cause...if in a month we are 1-5, then maybe I'll concede...maybe.

by PVChiefsfan on Sep 18, 2007 7:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not a lost cause...

just not likely.

and anyways, i think croyle gives us a better chance to win right now. if we stretch defenses, that opens up that much more room for gonzalez and, more importantly, LJ.

by rockchalk on Sep 18, 2007 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

We don't need a quarterback to win games, just not to lose them. I do believe we need a QB to manage games. Solid running game + good (and getting beter) defense = championships

by Joel Thorman on Sep 18, 2007 7:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Solid running game?

Yes we did have a solid running game for the past couple years, but there has not been any indication through our play that we'll have another solid running game this year? Is herm afraid LJ will break if he touches the ball more than 20 times? Can anyone name one time our line opened up a hole for either running back to get through?

I understand Herm's philosophy of ball control and clock management, but Huard's not making the greatest choices out there, who's to say Croyle wouldn't either. Ok, obviously the bad play on 3rd and 1, but anyone notice that on the TD that got called back Huard had a man 15 yards field wide up coming from the middle towards the sideline and he chose to throw to Bowe where there were 2 defenders? Huard isn't making great reads, he manages the games well, and its plays like those that will lose games. I'm not trying to say Croyle makes the right reads in either situation, but I thought the whole reason Huard was in there was that he was proven he could make those reads, and I have yet to see it this year.

by Chiefs n Chopper on Sep 18, 2007 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not saying we can't win 7-10 games

We can obviously do that. Look how we bounced back last year? I was 100% convinced we should have left Huard in control last year (mostly because I really worried about Trent's health. The man should NOT be playing football after what happened to him), and was comfortable with that. And you know, if LJ gets in gear and our special teams start playing with an ounce of intelligence, then yeah, we can wins some games.

But ask yourself this.

Can the Kansas City Chiefs win a Superbowl this year, with Damon Huard (or Brodie Croyle) at Quarterback?

Don't get me wrong, I hate Ben Roethelisburger as much as the next guy, but I'll admit that even he's better than our two starting QBs. I think it's possible that Croyle could grow into a great QB.

But if we're not competing for a championship, what are we playing for?

I'm no longer satisfied with 9-7, 9-7, 10-6, 9-7, 8-8, 10-6. It's been 38 years since we last won a Super Bowl. I don't want to watch us sneak into the Wild Card on a tiebreaker because somebody else choked on the last day of the season.

I totally agree that we have the pieces to win a championship. We have a young, talented, athletic defense led by gifted veterans. We have an All-World running back who plays with a mean streak. We have the best tight end in the history of professional football. And we finally, FINALLY have an athletic wide receiver to catch the friggin' ball. I agree that we need to shore up our O-Line (and can in this draft). But the quarterback issue cannot wait. We can't hang around, trying to figure out what's going on while our young players get older, and we inevitably lose guys to free agency. If Herm shows he has a plan, the players will rally towards it.

Otherwise, it's another decade of getting bitch slapped in the first round. Again. Over. And over.

Sorry, for me, "winning a few games" and "being respectable" just isn't good enough any more.

by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 18, 2007 11:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree

I think that we need to find out if Croyle is our future. I don't understand why we don't just start him and suffer through some of the growing pains. The Broncos did it with Elway and the Colts did it with Manning (and BTW I don't think we would go 3-13 with Croyle as the Colts did in Manning's rookie season) and they ended up winning Super Bowls. My aim isn't even that high...I just want them to win a postseason game.

by PVChiefsfan on Sep 18, 2007 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree 100%

basically exactly my view.

if we want to capitalize on our team's best players age (donnie edwards, tony G, LJ, etc.) then we need to scrap this year and develop FOR NEXT SEASON!!!

WE WILL NOT WIN A SUPER BOWL THIS YEAR!!! the soonest we can win one is in 2008, next year, so lets see if croyle is the QB who can lead us there.

unless you have an all-time great defense, like the bucs or ravens a few years back, you dont win a super bowl without a great QB. you just dont. hopefully croyle is that guy, but if not we need to know NOW so we can find someone who is.

by rockchalk on Sep 18, 2007 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

a quarterback needs blocking

and currently, the Chiefs QB gets none.

the Offensive line overall has not been good at all. They apparently stand aside when the defense approaches.

LJ could use a bit of blocking to get a run started. Not often he gets it.

Weigmann and Waters are the only two I saw even making a difference on the field in the last 2 games. What are the others doing, standing aside watching?

Also, the defense is doing well enough, but it helps if the offense stays on the field for more than 2 minutes a pop. Defensive players get tired too, and spending the majority of the game on the field doesn't help.

Damon Huard needs to get some team support before we can determine if he can get it done or not.

Big Bear

by bigbearomaha on Sep 18, 2007 11:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The Line

Bear's got a point, We are tied for 3rd worst in sacks allowed. But I would maintain from watching the games that throws have been there, and Huard has not taken them, because he can't make the throw, or elected to dump it off to LJ or Chris Wilson. Over. And Over.

I vehemently disagree that we don't need a quarterback to win games. Last four champions.

Manning.
Roethelisburger (who is sub-par, but at least takes shots)
Brady
Brady

Before that you've got Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer in 2 of the next 3 years, but does anyone here think our defense is as dominant as the Ravens and Bucs were?

We need a balanced attack, because defenses are starting to figure out, "Huh. If we put 11 guys in the box, LJ can't get more than 5 yards. That's funny..."

by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 18, 2007 2:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

offense as a whole

Huard is an ok quarterback in nfl terms. To expect him to be a great quarterback, catching everything, making stand out plays, isn't fair to him.

yes, he has let opportunities go by, can't argue with it.

I was a lineman, played every position on the O line. I probably pay more attention to the O line than most.

offensive games are fail and succeed 90% of the time before the QB gets the ball based on the performance of the line.

If they don't do their job better than the rest, every time out there, the backs will never get their chance to make the great passes, catches and runs we all like to see.

mssrs Wiegmann and Waters are two of the best in the league. I follow their play as often as the cameras allow.

the others are not performing.

I was impressed by croyles play in the bears game, only after the O line let him take the sack for his first play. and yes, they let him take the hit.

call it initiation or whatever you want. that one was almost deliberate.

KC can pull a goo team out of this if they up their play. mr edwards (who I admit, I am not a fan of) does not pay them the attention they need in terms if getting them to work cohesively.

Big Bear

by bigbearomaha on Sep 19, 2007 8:48 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Good points

Welcome to the site.

by Chris Thorman on Sep 19, 2007 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not expect him to be a great quarterback

um... new contract. $3.75 million this season. The starter job. Yeah, I do expect him to make plays. I'm not asking him to be Payton freaking Manning, but if that O-Line is breaking down, he needs to roll out and move, instead of waiting for the inevitable sack or throwing dumb interceptions to, I dont' know, Mario Williams.

by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 19, 2007 10:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Play Huard

Keep Damon in the saddle for now. Putting Brodie in the starting role at this point would only ruin his chances of developing into a quality NFL QB (which he may never become). Think about it, Brodie would be sacked/hurried continuously causing him to throw more picks (he already has a bit of a gunslinger mentality). If by Week 10-12 Damon just is not getting wins and the pressure to make the playoffs is gone because of our record, then play Brodie. In all honesty we are nowhere near playoff caliber or even 8 win caliber, but folks are still placing playoff expectations on this team, so why not be sure we put Croyle in when the pressure to win is less?

I miss Wilie Davis....

by The Willie Davis Era on Sep 19, 2007 4:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Because We Don't Know

We don't know what kind of QB Croyle will be. He's not a sure thing. We didn't go out and get him and say "Croyle will be our starting quarterback of the future." We grabbed him, Trent got hurt, we decided to go in another direction, and Croyle is what we have.

I like Croyle's play. He's got an arm, he's got some mobility, he's got a good history of working a system.

But if we play him in week 12, that give us 5 games to evaluate him. I'm not sure if that's enough. It'll take him three games just to get used to the game at full speed. We need to know going into next year's draft and free agent season if we need another QB now.

Again, I keep waiting for Huard to shove this in my face and light someone up for 285 and 3 TDs. I'd be happy if that happened for more than 2 games.

by Ridiculous Matt on Sep 20, 2007 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs