Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I like everything but I'm not sold on the idea of spending a top-3 pick on a QB. You can get ≈value at #6 or #10 or later in the first round. If the Chiefs get the #1 pick, I'd like to see them trade down a few spots and pick up a 2nd or 3rd rounder for their trouble. Furthermore, if there is some kind of "can't miss" franchise lineman or DB available there (Michael Oher? Andre Smith??), I think the Chiefs would be remiss to pass him up.
Too early to tell where the value is. Also, if they get the #1 pick, it is a safe bet they will have to use it.Who wants to give up a draft pick to give a ridiculous contract to a kid? The #1 pick is almost untradeable right now.
And who would you like throwing the ball next year? Ingle Martin?
This is true and not only does KC need to find the QB of the future in the off season, they need to find a good backup right now. The KC players need a reason to put forth an effort even though this is a bogus season. They need something to use as a yardstick so they can tell if they're improving. If the team is never "in" a game meaning a close game, then nobody learns anything this year.massraider said:
Sounds like a good plan but I highly doubt that Peterson will release LJ now or in the future. We knew what he was when he was holding out and Carl signed him to that ridiculous contract and we all knew right then that KC had no offensive line and wouldn't be able to run the ball with LJ. So why would Carl Peterson change his mind now, even though he's been proven wrong??? He's a very stubborn man (read idiot).
I'd take Croyle plus a franchise O-lineman rather than a 50% shot at getting Joey Harrington or Ryan Leaf.
WOW....we have very differing opinions then.Croyle is done in KC -- KC brass always thought more highly of him than the evidence showed. Were just stubborn.And you conveniently leave out the myriad of QBs drafted in the top 5 who were great. Any draft choice is a risk, but it is not as if you do it blindly. You have GOOD scouting, and make an informed decision. Could you be wrong? Sure, but you could also be wrong on an OL while you bring some 30-year old journeyman to QB.The Chiefs won under Marty with journeymen QBs because they had a stud OL, a dominant defense and a great coach (albeit in the regular season).Even under Vermeil they won with a journeyman because they had a great OL, great RB and good coach.This KC regime has non of those qualities -- they have a bad OL, a bad defense, and bad coaching. They have a good punter and that is it.None of this talk matters unless the GM and coach change. Everything I have said based on those two changes being made.
Top-7 picks from 1990-2006:Jeff George - bust (for team that drafted him, at least)Andre Ware - bustDavid Klingler - bustDrew Bledsoe - goodRick Mirer - bustHeath Shuler - bustTrent Dilfer - servicableSteve McNair - goodKerry Collins - servicablePeyton Manning - goodRyan Leaf - bustTim Couch - bustDonovan McNabb - goodAkili Smith - bustMichael Vick - good (for a couple years, at least)David Carr - bustJoey Harrington - bustCarson Palmer - goodByron Leftwich - servicable for a couple yearsEli Manning - goodPhilip Rivers - goodAlex Smith - bustVince Young - on his way to being a flopSo, that's 12 flops out of 23 picks. And I'm not talking about guys like Dilfer or Collins (who might have been mediocre but could still start for a playoff team). I'm talking about "so bad that they're out of the league in 5 years" busts.How many of those guys are true "franchise quarterbacks"? Seven? Out of 23? And you want to risk the first pick in the draft on that? If it pays off, great. But if it doesn't, you set your franchise backwards at least 2 years (because of all the time and money you invested). How much better would Detroit be right now if they had just built prudently by solidifying their O-line and defense instead of taking a bunch of high risk/high reward players?And let's not forget that the best QBs in KC over the past 20 years have ALL come from Free Agency! When was the last time KC drafted a QB that was a legit NFL starter?
This point always sounds good, in a vacuum. But if the hit percentage on top 10 QBs is 33%, and the hit percentage on FA QBs is 20%, and late round QBs is 8%, then that 33% looks a lot better.A lot of people make this same statement, yet forget to address how the team should go about filling this position.
Personally, I think Croyle gets a bad rap. IMO, he's too thin to take a pounding and his injury history shows this, but I don't think he's as bad as some people make him out be. He was effectively a rookie last year and didn't do THAT bad... G CMP ATT PYD Y/A PTD INT RSH YD Y/R TD9 95 197 1043 5.3 6 9 6 35 5.8 010 127 224 1227 5.5 6 6 7 18 2.6 0Guess which one was Brodie's? And guess which one was Eli's? (And certainly Eli had a better supporting cast than the Chiefs did last year.)Just saying.
And in that same time span, how many SB's has KC been in?NoneAgain, the reason they have been the best QBs is because they had other great parts around them. This team has NO parts! Now, maybe a new coach will change the performance level of the current players, but that is TBD.Look, I see your point...it is a risk, but every pick that high is a risk....and you can't keep trading down because you are afraid of making the wrong decision. People who function that way have no place in a NFL front office.The trend in the last three SB winners is a first-round QB running the franchise. No reason to think that a NEW GM, etc in KC, coupled with a pretty good QB class, couldn't find his franchise QB.
Gradkowski wants a job and would work for peanuts.
Why Gray and not Ingle Martin? Gray was never in camp with KC, was he?
he's never won a game
I don't think Martin was either. I believe he was signed off the Titans practice squad.
This is true...And at least Gray has some halfway decent NFL experience.....he almost knocked KC out of the playoffs in Week 17 2006.
So? As I said, the Chiefs were not and are not a good team, and certainly you can't pin that on him. They haven't won many games without him this year either. My point gets a bad rap in terms of his ability to be a starting QB in the NFL. I personally think he's got ability, but doesn't have the physical stature to hold up.
How is that blown off with "so"? QB is the leader of the team and they can't win with him for 3 years13 losses in 3 years, games without him:2006 9-52007 4-62008 1-3that's 13-14 almost .500 without himDo you think of the Chiefs as a .500 team?
He played in 2 games in 2006 - 3 kneeldowns when they were beating SF 41-0 and a couple of series against PIT when they were losing 45-7. The Chiefs weren't 9-5 without Croyle - if you're going to count either, they were 8-6, but obviously the right answer is that they were 9-7.The first game he started in 2007 was week 11 vs. Indy, a game they lost 10-13 after getting blown out the week before against Denver. He played in the fourth quarter of a loss in Week 2 loss to Chicago and in the fourth quarter of a 17-0 loss to Jacksonville. Neither of those count against his record.The first game you *might* be able to pin on him in 2007 is Week 10, but he came in the third quarter when they were already down and Huard was knocked out with a concussion.The way I see it:2006: Other QBs 9-7, Croyle 0-02007: Other QBs 4-5 (maybe 4-6) through week 11. They already started a slide by the time Croyle took over, who went 0-5 (maybe 6 if you pin the DET game he started). (Losses to Indy, Oak, Den, Ten, and NYJ). He left the DET game early in the second after hurting his wrist trying to make a tackle on an INT he threw.In 2008, he played in two games that he left early for injury - against NE and Ten. He was 11 of 19 for 88 yards against a tough NE defense and kept them close pre-Brady injury. In the other he was 9 of 10 against a very tough TEN defense, without Larry. Huard and Thigpen were 14 for 27 combined. Just saying, it's not fair to blame him. Of course you expect Huard to play better - he has game experience. Every young QB has growing pains. As the Mikey said, this team needs a lot of help. My point was that Croyle was progressing well for a young QB and you can't pin those losses on him.[scooter] said:Way to skew the stats in your favor by including the 2006 season when Croyle didn't even play.Bri said:
he did play threw almost as many INTs as completions.he played in 2 games, but I will absolutely concede your point. I was at PFR looking up those and...I don't know, brainfart? Sorry, really didn't notice that. In fact I hate when people do that so there's probably a lesson learned in there too.It throws off that whole .500 thing for sure.Regardless though, if I'm a GM and I have a franchise QB I'm hoping will lead my team in the future, he has to win a game. Clearly he won't win any this year. In April of 09, it's 3 years after they made him their supposed QB of the future. I really don't see how they can NOT draft a QB. 3 years is a long time for development with very little promising results. He's 65% this year which is like a breath of fresh air til ya notice he's only thrown for 151 yards total with zero touchdowns.Herm's unexplainable love for Thigpen aside, he's going to be tied to Brodie if he's there in 09 and they don't get another QB. It's not so unlike Nolan and Alex Smith. The Chiefs and Niners have some real promising young players but, QBs are so vital to a team's NFL success that Herm could run out of time here. When those promising youngsters are part of a good team, will he be there? will Brodie? I don't think either will. It would be sooooooo enormous for the whole Chiefs organization if somehow Ingle Martin is excellent. Oh it's probably a 1 in a million shot but, he was a highly rated prospect, he's been learning for years...it would really be a bright spot.Way to skew the stats in your favor by including the 2006 season when Croyle didn't even play.
What does "effectively a rookie" mean? He wasn't a rookie. Comparing him to someone who actually was younger and was a actually a rookie is inappropriate. Better to compare to players who were also "effectively" rookies because they were about 24 years old and did not play in their true rookie seasons. If you do this, you will find he compares favorably to guys like David Klingler and Koy Detmer. The only quarterbacks who posted a sub-6.3 ypa in their "effectively but not actually" rookie years and went on to have what might be considered an acceptable NFL career as a starter later on were:Wade Wilson (5.23 in 1984 at age 25)Steve DeBerg (5.20 in 1978 at age 24)Chris Miller (6.08 in 1988 at age 23)Drew Brees (6.24 in 2002 at age 23)Croyle was 5.5 in 224 attempts at age 24.In contrast, the following guys all had a sub-6.3 ypa in their actual rookie years and went on to good careers
onovan McNabb, Richard Todd, Troy Aikman, Drew Bledsoe, Joe Ferguson, and Dan FoutsEli Manning's start as a true rookie is not a good comparable. The Chiefs cannot hold out hope that when he manages to stay healthy, Croyle is more DeBerg or Wilson at some point in the future, and less all the lost causes that put up similar numbers at the same age.This team needs to move on.
this is a very
beyond the stats, anyone that watched Croyle for a few games could tell he was not the answer. Croyle was erratic, and could not be effective with any consistency. In 2007 and 2008, the stat that stood out to me was that the Chiefs lost every pass Croyle had a pass completion.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
