PDA

View Full Version : Chris Simms appears to be going to be cut..



CHIEFCANNON
06-20-2008, 01:01 PM
With Chris Simms getting closed to being cut... is he better than what we've got on the books now to give him a look.

Seek
06-20-2008, 02:35 PM
Nope. The only reason you would be mentioning his name is because of his Daddy.

Coach
06-20-2008, 03:26 PM
Is he better that what we currently have? Yes, probably. Will they go after him, probably not. I don't think he is the answer for any team at QB. If he was, TB wouldn't release him, they would try to trade him. It's not like TB is stacked with great QB's.

chief31
06-21-2008, 04:48 AM
I don't think he is any better than waht we have.

Chiefster
06-21-2008, 01:13 PM
With Chris Simms getting closed to being cut... is he better than what we've got on the books now to give him a look.


Dude; quit lurking and start posting more! :D

milkman
06-21-2008, 01:31 PM
I don't think he is any better than waht we have.

Before he injured his spleen (Is that what it was?, I can't remember for sure), he looked like he was just starting to get it.

I don't know that he'll ever amount to anything, but I do know that Huard has never amounted to anything.

I would not be opposed to going after him and letting him compete in camp for the vet backup spot.

Who knows, maybe in the right system he could still have some potential.

Chiefster
06-21-2008, 01:33 PM
Before he injured his spleen (Is that what it was?, I can't remember for sure), he looked like he was just starting to get it.

I don't know that he'll ever amount to anything, but I do know that Huard has never amounted to anything.

I would not be opposed to going after him and letting him compete in camp for the vet backup spot.

Who knows, maybe in the right system he could still have some potential.

Career backup; that's it.

m0ef0e
06-21-2008, 01:36 PM
Before he injured his spleen (Is that what it was?, I can't remember for sure), he looked like he was just starting to get it.

I don't know that he'll ever amount to anything, but I do know that Huard has never amounted to anything.

I would not be opposed to going after him and letting him compete in camp for the vet backup spot.

Who knows, maybe in the right system he could still have some potential.

He did help us get to the playoffs.

Chiefster
06-21-2008, 01:44 PM
He did help us get to the playoffs.


True, but I kinda think that six or seven other teams losing had a little more to do with that.

m0ef0e
06-21-2008, 02:05 PM
True, but I kinda think that six or seven other teams losing had a little more to do with that.

Also true, but I hate seeing people get down in the mouth about Huard when he came in and did his job-- probably better than expected by most. I imagine people would be singing a different tune had he not been totally screwed out of playing-time in that playoff appearance against the Colts and was able to help the Chiefs find a win.

Remember, we decided to get off the horse we rode there. I think Huard was treated unfairly by the organization and to slam him for being a career backup just continues that trend. Give the guy a break.

He was our backup QB-- as he always has been, his entire career. When he was called upon, he did what was asked of him. He's not a franchise player, nor is he the kind of guy that is going to carry a team to a championship. However, he is a consistent veteran who will keep mistakes to a fair minimum which will allow the rest of the team to step up and give themselves a chance to win. Sure, he's not starting material. He's a backup-- and a damn good one, IMO.

milkman
06-21-2008, 02:23 PM
Regardless of what Huard might have done, or how he is perceived, this is a team building for the future, and a career backup in his last years with no conceivable upside has no place in that rebuild.

Chiefster
06-21-2008, 02:28 PM
Also true, but I hate seeing people get down in the mouth about Huard when he came in and did his job-- probably better than expected by most. I imagine people would be singing a different tune had he not been totally screwed out of playing-time in that playoff appearance against the Colts and was able to help the Chiefs find a win.

Remember, we decided to get off the horse we rode there. I think Huard was treated unfairly by the organization and to slam him for being a career backup just continues that trend. Give the guy a break.

He was our backup QB-- as he always has been, his entire career. When he was called upon, he did what was asked of him. He's not a franchise player, nor is he the kind of guy that is going to carry a team to a championship. However, he is a consistent veteran who will keep mistakes to a fair minimum which will allow the rest of the team to step up and give themselves a chance to win. Sure, he's not starting material. He's a backup-- and a damn good one, IMO.


Regardless of what Huard might have done, or how he is perceived, this is a team building for the future, and a career backup in his last years with no conceivable upside has no place in that rebuild.

Points well taken. :sign0098:

m0ef0e
06-21-2008, 02:41 PM
Regardless of what Huard might have done, or how he is perceived, this is a team building for the future, and a career backup in his last years with no conceivable upside has no place in that rebuild.

I agree. The team is going younger and looking to the future. Huard probably shouldn't have a spot on the roster any more. His spot could be used to evaluate young talent. However, that's no reason to bash the guy.

milkman
06-21-2008, 02:45 PM
I agree. The team is going younger and looking to the future. Huard probably shouldn't have a spot on the roster any more. His spot could be used to evaluate young talent. However, that's no reason to bash the guy.

If you think saying that Huard will never amount to anything is bashing him, then you are in for a rude awakening when I do actually bash someone.

Chiefster
06-21-2008, 02:48 PM
I agree. The team is going younger and looking to the future. Huard probably shouldn't have a spot on the roster any more. His spot could be used to evaluate young talent. However, that's no reason to bash the guy.

Again true, but I think milkman was simply stating his opinion of Huard; I don't know that doing so is bashing him, necessarily, any more then pointing out his accomplishments can be considered homerism. JMHO

m0ef0e
06-21-2008, 02:52 PM
If you think saying that Huard will never amount to anything is bashing him, then you are in for a rude awakening when I do actually bash someone.

I'm saying he has already amounted to something and got screwed. Bashing or not aside, I personally like the guy and appreciate what he did for us.

Chiefster
06-21-2008, 02:56 PM
I'm saying he has already amounted to something and got screwed. Bashing or not aside, I personally like the guy and appreciate what he did for us.

Personally, I too like him, and think he has a wealth of experience; perhaps he will make a very good QB coach one day.

milkman
06-21-2008, 03:12 PM
I'm saying he has already amounted to something and got screwed. Bashing or not aside, I personally like the guy and appreciate what he did for us.

I don't know that I can explain this, but I'll do the best I can.

Among various other reasons that Joe Montana was, and still is the greatest QBs ever, IMO, is the fact that he was both extremely accurate and threw a very catchable ball.

I don't understand the mechanics of this aspect of throwing a football, but if you've ever caught passes from different people, some just threw a "heavier" ball.

Huard has that more catchable ball, but he's terribly inaccurate, and for that reason, his receivers in '06 made some outstanding catches.

Kennison and Parker both made some spectacular catches, and these are guys who couldn't hold onto balls from Green that hit them right in the hands.

The problem is, however, he consistently put his receivers in exposed positions to get hurt.

He did a nice job of managing games, but because of his weak arm and inaccurate passing, the playbook was limited.

You can win some games in that scenario, but you can't expect to advance in the playoffs unless you have an all time great defense.

Canada
06-22-2008, 12:14 AM
I don't know that I can explain this, but I'll do the best I can.

Among various other reasons that Joe Montana was, and still is the greatest QBs ever, IMO, is the fact that he was both extremely accurate and threw a very catchable ball.

I don't understand the mechanics of this aspect of throwing a football, but if you've ever caught passes from different people, some just threw a "heavier" ball.

Huard has that more catchable ball, but he's terribly inaccurate, and for that reason, his receivers in '06 made some outstanding catches.

Kennison and Parker both made some spectacular catches, and these are guys who couldn't hold onto balls from Green that hit them right in the hands.

The problem is, however, he consistently put his receivers in exposed positions to get hurt.

He did a nice job of managing games, but because of his weak arm and inaccurate passing, the playbook was limited.

You can win some games in that scenario, but you can't expect to advance in the playoffs unless you have an all time great defense.

Which receivers got hurt?

milkman
06-22-2008, 08:59 AM
Which receivers got hurt?

Nobody got hurt, but I would rather not have Huard out there continuing to tempt fate.

Canada
06-22-2008, 09:10 AM
Nobody got hurt, but I would rather not have Huard out there continuing to tempt fate.

I gotta go with Moefoe on this one. He won us a lot of games, his TD/INT Ratio was pretty good, his QB rating was pretty good and all for a guy people call a career backup. Sure there were some passes that weren't the best, but the ball got there, our receivers caught it and did not get hurt, he didn't give the ball away and gave us a chance in every game. He rarely got blown out. Not bad for a back up QB. I am not saying he should be our starter this season, but I am all for keeping him on the team.

CHIEFCANNON
06-22-2008, 09:27 AM
Dude; quit lurking and start posting more! :D

It takes me a while to get up the guts to say something ... you know, being shy and all.:yahoo:
:sign0103:

milkman
06-22-2008, 09:30 AM
I gotta go with Moefoe on this one. He won us a lot of games, his TD/INT Ratio was pretty good, his QB rating was pretty good and all for a guy people call a career backup. Sure there were some passes that weren't the best, but the ball got there, our receivers caught it and did not get hurt, he didn't give the ball away and gave us a chance in every game. He rarely got blown out. Not bad for a back up QB. I am not saying he should be our starter this season, but I am all for keeping him on the team.

He did a good job in '06.
He sucked *** last year.

He couldn't even win the starter's job in Miami over Jay Fieldler.

Jay freakin' Fieldler.

I'm not saying to simply throw him out with the garbage.

I'm saying let's bring in Chris Simms and let him compete, and if Simms win the vet backup position, then let's throw him out with the garbage.

Canada
06-22-2008, 09:36 AM
He did a good job in '06.
He sucked *** last year.

He couldn't even win the starter's job in Miami over Jay Fieldler.

Jay freakin' Fieldler.

I'm not saying to simply throw him out with the garbage.

I'm saying let's bring in Chris Simms and let him compete, and if Simms win the vet backup position, then let's throw him out with the garbage.

Simms? Wow...ok. He sucked in '06 and did not play in '07. And last I saw, our entire team sucked in '07. Not just one guy. I say we take the guy who knows the team as opposed to spending more time letting Simms take snaps that would be much more valuable to any other QB on our team. If CP came up with the same idea you guys would be ****tin' your pants for wasting time on Simms.

milkman
06-22-2008, 09:49 AM
Simms? Wow...ok. He sucked in '06 and did not play in '07. And last I saw, our entire team sucked in '07. Not just one guy. I say we take the guy who knows the team as opposed to spending more time letting Simms take snaps that would be much more valuable to any other QB on our team. If CP came up with the same idea you guys would be ****tin' your pants for wasting time on Simms.

"You guys"?

Simms was starting to play well before he ruprtured his spleen.

And one thing he showed was that's he tough, finishing that game when he ruptured his spleen.

One of the things I absolutely despise about Huard is his lack of toughness, which he put on full display last year, falling into the fetal position whenever a defender breathed on him, and getting "hurt" everytime he made a mistake.

As far as I'm concerned, a guy like that can't be flushed fast enough.

CHIEFCANNON
06-22-2008, 09:52 AM
This wounded horse has been beating to death about Huard. "At the end of the day" all of our QB's suck,...sucked in the recent past. The lions share of the resposibility glaringly, rest at the front line of one of the worst O-lines in the NFL. Joe Montana ... Brady.. couldn't play with this dog plie.

You need a veteran QB in this league... you really need two QB's. Huard, we all seem to forget did a pretty damn good job .... WHEN?... he had the last remnants of the old Chiefs line blocking for him.... after that a train wreck for both Croyle and Huard. From what I've read, we don't want Croyle and Thigpen to be our 1 - 2 combo for this season. Booting Huard to the curb .. a mistake.

Huard, I suspect will shine... to everyone's dismay ... because his is a drop back passer that now won't be running for his life in 1.2 seconds. Croyle with benifit as well ... I would not be suprise to see ..... Yes.. oh my God.. Huard... the Starter for the Chiefs.. Croyle's bigest problem is his head... if he dosen't do well this year ... we will be drafing a QB next season and the Croyle experiment will go the way of the Boomer one.

Canada
06-22-2008, 10:00 AM
"You guys"?

Simms was starting to play well before he ruprtured his spleen.

And one thing he showed was that's he tough, finishing that game when he ruptured his spleen.

One of the things I absolutely despise about Huard is his lack of toughness, which he put on full display last year, falling into the fetal position whenever a defender breathed on him, and getting "hurt" everytime he made a mistake.

As far as I'm concerned, a guy like that can't be flushed fast enough.

"You Guys" who have all the answers and have enough insight to blame management for everything.

Maybe Simms was tough, maybe he was dumb enough to finish the game after rupturing an organ. Either way, why waste time picking up a QB that does not have enough talent to be a TB QB, and teaching him our offense just to sit him on the bench behind the younger guys? I am not knocking Simms, he may be an alright QB, I feel the same way about him as I do about Damon. No one would have been standing strong in the "pocket" last season with our O line. I don't see too many guys take a pounding like Damon did and keep laying. I am just saying that we need to commit to a young QB. I do not want to hear the discussion "...should we put in Huard/Simms in week8?" Put Croyle in and see what he can do. If he completely sucks by Week 7 then give Thigpen a chance or some other prospect. I see no point in putting Simms in to play mid season and Huard already knows the offence (along with the rest of the league) and he knows the guys on the team. wt rid of him now. Besides the fact that you don't like him. You say he could not beat out Fiedler...I believe it was Craid Morton who beat out Roger Staubach for a while in Dalls. Just because a guy won a starting job one year, does not make him good.

milkman
06-22-2008, 10:03 AM
This wounded horse has been beating to death about Huard. "At the end of the day" all of our QB's suck,...sucked in the recent past. The lions share of the resposibility glaringly, rest at the front line of one of the worst O-lines in the NFL. Joe Montana ... Brady.. couldn't play with this dog plie.

You need a veteran QB in this league... you really need two QB's. Huard, we all seem to forget did a pretty damn good job .... WHEN?... he had the last remnants of the old Chiefs line blocking for him.... after that a train wreck for both Croyle and Huard. From what I've read, we don't want Croyle and Thigpen to be our 1 - 2 combo for this season. Booting Huard to the curb .. a mistake.

Huard, I suspect will shine... to everyone's dismay ... because his is a drop back passer that now won't be running for his life in 1.2 seconds. Croyle with benifit as well ... I would not be suprise to see ..... Yes.. oh my God.. Huard... the Starter for the Chiefs.. Croyle's bigest problem is his head... if he dosen't do well this year ... we will be drafing a QB next season and the Croyle experiment will go the way of the Boomer one.

Ughhh......................

milkman
06-22-2008, 10:22 AM
"You Guys" who have all the answers and have enough insight to blame management for everything.

Maybe Simms was tough, maybe he was dumb enough to finish the game after rupturing an organ. Either way, why waste time picking up a QB that does not have enough talent to be a TB QB, and teaching him our offense just to sit him on the bench behind the younger guys? I am not knocking Simms, he may be an alright QB, I feel the same way about him as I do about Damon. No one would have been standing strong in the "pocket" last season with our O line. I don't see too many guys take a pounding like Damon did and keep laying. I am just saying that we need to commit to a young QB. I do not want to hear the discussion "...should we put in Huard/Simms in week8?" Put Croyle in and see what he can do. If he completely sucks by Week 7 then give Thigpen a chance or some other prospect. I see no point in putting Simms in to play mid season and Huard already knows the offence (along with the rest of the league) and he knows the guys on the team. wt rid of him now. Besides the fact that you don't like him. You say he could not beat out Fiedler...I believe it was Craid Morton who beat out Roger Staubach for a while in Dalls. Just because a guy won a starting job one year, does not make him good.

Simms still has potential upside, Huard does not.

Back in the day, QBs almost always sat on the bench for a couple of years before they were given a chance to start, and Morton was actually a pretty good QB.

I agree with you that Thigpen should be given a shot if Croyle bombs.

And you are right, there aren't many QBs that could have performed behind that abortion of an O-Line last year, but in spite of his fragility, Croyle didn't curl up in a fetal position and suck his thunmb when he felt pressure like Huard did.

There's no reason that Simms couldn't compete for the #2 spot and play if Croyle sucks, because he still young and still may have potential to start.

Huard, on the other hand, offers jack.

He isn't the QB of the now, and he isn't the QB of the future.

I want to put players on this roster that have the potential to be a part of the future, where ever possible.

Simms isn't given a chance in TB because Gruden likes old washed up vets, and even though Simms was starting to get before he got hurt, and Gradkowski showed some upside, they weren't given any real opportunity by Gruden.

milkman
06-22-2008, 10:25 AM
Oh, and in '70, I think, Staubach and Morton shared the QB position, rotating by quarter sometimes, and in a couple of games, rotating by series.

Landry was a hell of a coach, but that was one of the stupidest things I've ever seen any coach do.

milkman
06-22-2008, 10:30 AM
Oh and another thing, if by "management" you are also including ownership, then yes, I blame management for 37 years of sucktitude and mediocrity.

I don't have all the answers.

I do know, however, that we've seen a lot of change over the years in roster, but only one change in the front office, and none in ownership, until this last year when Lamar died.

Who do you think should get the blame?

Canada
06-22-2008, 06:52 PM
Oh and another thing, if by "management" you are also including ownership, then yes, I blame management for 37 years of sucktitude and mediocrity.

I don't have all the answers.

I do know, however, that we've seen a lot of change over the years in roster, but only one change in the front office, and none in ownership, until this last year when Lamar died.

Who do you think should get the blame?

Some of it should go to the millionaires who actually play the game. I am not saying that management is not at fault, but at some point there was a championship calibur team on the field that did not produce. I believe we went 13-3 three times to be bounced out in round 1. Management again?

milkman
06-22-2008, 07:54 PM
Some of it should go to the millionaires who actually play the game. I am not saying that management is not at fault, but at some point there was a championship calibur team on the field that did not produce. I believe we went 13-3 three times to be bounced out in round 1. Management again?

Really? Championship calibre?

Steve Bono at QB?
And who the hell were the WRs?

Lockett? LaChapelle?
Hell, I can't even remember.

And then you had Paul Hackett go away from what was working and decide to let Bono throw the ball around?
Why?

And how about Marty waiting until late in the game to make a change at QB, then relying on an unreliable kicker?

That wasn't a championship calibre team, just a championship calibre defense.

Then there was the '97 team.
Elvis and who again were the receivers?

Marty's decision to play Elvis after only one game back from injury.

Again, another championship calibre defense but not a championship calibre team.

And that '03 team with a nearly historically bad defense.

Those teams failed because they were incomplete.

Hell I might even give you the '97 team, except that it was Marty, and Marty's approach allowed teams to stay in games.

That works in the regular season, but in the playoffs, good teams that stay in games will more often than not find ways to win, especially when they have all time greats at QB.

But, again, in the end, they were all incomplete teams, and that is on management.

Canada
06-22-2008, 08:57 PM
That's what I thought. The game is played on paper. The players never really need to perform. They had the ability to go 13-3 but not win a playoff games. That is the players man. Keep telling yourself it is all management and not the players. Hire Simms and then blame management when he sucks too. 13-3 and can't win a playoff game. All management. They must have strategically picked players that would perform really well during the regular season and then **** the bed in the playoffs. Those guys are hard to find, but CP did it!! Way to go!!

milkman
06-22-2008, 10:48 PM
That's what I thought. The game is played on paper. The players never really need to perform. They had the ability to go 13-3 but not win a playoff games. That is the players man. Keep telling yourself it is all management and not the players. Hire Simms and then blame management when he sucks too. 13-3 and can't win a playoff game. All management. They must have strategically picked players that would perform really well during the regular season and then **** the bed in the playoffs. Those guys are hard to find, but CP did it!! Way to go!!

The Chiefs of the 90s were incomplete, which is a big reason they would win 9-10 games most years.

They had a couple of years where a lot of things bounced their way, and they finished with 13 wins, but those teams without a couple of lucky bounces were not the best teams in the conference, and I can tell you at that time I was telling people those teams could not advance to the SB because they didn't have the offense, and because of Marty.

That '03 team got where they did because of the offense and Dante Hall, but they were another team they never had any chance in the playoffs to advance to the SB.

In order for any of those teams to get anywhere in the playoffs, everything would have had to fallen just right.

You can't go into the playoffs and expect to beat good teams with half a team.

Maybe we should have won the Indy game in '95, but there isn't any way they advance beyond that.

They didn't have the talent on on side of the ball or the other to overcome mistakes.

We had to many suckass players

milkman
06-22-2008, 10:52 PM
Oh, and yes the players have to perform.

But those players performed as I expected them to perform.

milkman
06-22-2008, 11:15 PM
And further, I've always complained the approach the Chiefs have taken to building this team.

I am one of the rare people who believed, and still believe, that trading for Montan was a mistake.

I believed, and still believe, that it didn't serve the long term interests of the team.

It was a low risk, short term reward move.

And in the end it didn't achieve the goal.

Signing Simms would be a low risk move that could potentially have high rewards.

If it didn't work out, I wouldn't ****** because I'm not expecting anything.

CHIEFCANNON
06-23-2008, 01:37 AM
Simms still has potential upside, Huard does not.

Back in the day, QBs almost always sat on the bench for a couple of years before they were given a chance to start, and Morton was actually a pretty good QB.

I agree with you that Thigpen should be given a shot if Croyle bombs.

And you are right, there aren't many QBs that could have performed behind that abortion of an O-Line last year, but in spite of his fragility, Croyle didn't curl up in a fetal position and suck his thunmb when he felt pressure like Huard did.

There's no reason that Simms couldn't compete for the #2 spot and play if Croyle sucks, because he still young and still may have potential to start.

Huard, on the other hand, offers jack.

He isn't the QB of the now, and he isn't the QB of the future.

I want to put players on this roster that have the potential to be a part of the future, where ever possible.

Simms isn't given a chance in TB because Gruden likes old washed up vets, and even though Simms was starting to get before he got hurt, and Gradkowski showed some upside, they weren't given any real opportunity by Gruden.

Enlighten us all as to how Huard has no upside or Jack! Huard never was the QB of the future .. he's a veteran "Back-up" that can run a team when the rookies can't think. He's nothing but, stable insurance with a stable 0-line as a caveat' to him performing at the starting level. Why do teams sign Testaverde at his age?

greg3564
06-23-2008, 02:19 AM
I don't believe any player should be brought in to strictly be a back-up. If Simms was brought in, it would be for that purpose. He won't be a starter again in the NFL.

He was an average QB at Texas who could kill weak teams and get killed by good ones. He put up good numbers but would lose critical games that counted the most. He was also criticized for no leadership ability and is known as a whiner.

I think the whole "I'm the son of Phil Simms" factor has made him a primadona and it showed both at Texas and at Tampa Bay.

hermhater
06-23-2008, 02:54 AM
Some of it should go to the millionaires who actually play the game. I am not saying that management is not at fault, but at some point there was a championship calibur team on the field that did not produce. I believe we went 13-3 three times to be bounced out in round 1. Management again?

I hate Peyton Manning.

Quit yelling at our players Canada.

:sign0104: :bananen_smilies046:

chief31
06-23-2008, 03:28 AM
"You guys"?

Simms was starting to play well before he ruprtured his spleen.

And one thing he showed was that's he tough, finishing that game when he ruptured his spleen.

One of the things I absolutely despise about Huard is his lack of toughness, which he put on full display last year, falling into the fetal position whenever a defender breathed on him, and getting "hurt" everytime he made a mistake.

As far as I'm concerned, a guy like that can't be flushed fast enough.

Seriously, the worst offensive line in the NFL. And you want to blame the only QB on the team who was able to win behind it. You also want to blame the other QB for playing poorly under constant pressure.

Have you ever heard of the o-line? Those are the guys that turned Pro-Bowl Larry Johnson into Lawrence Phillips, in no time flat.

What I saw of Huard in '06 was nothing short of amazing. Nit-pick it all you want, but he put up numbers that were rivaled by only Peyton Manning.

Then in '07, he managed to win games with Chris Terry, Damien McIntosh, John Welbourne, no running game, a rookie at #1 WR, Mike Solari, and Herm Edwards. That's at least very close to amazing also.

Yet you want to poke fun of the position he was on the ground in, following most of the sacks that his league-leading o-line allowed? (Most sacks allowed in the NFL)




Simms still has potential upside, Huard does not.

Back in the day, QBs almost always sat on the bench for a couple of years before they were given a chance to start, and Morton was actually a pretty good QB.

I agree with you that Thigpen should be given a shot if Croyle bombs.

And you are right, there aren't many QBs that could have performed behind that abortion of an O-Line last year, but in spite of his fragility, Croyle didn't curl up in a fetal position and suck his thunmb when he felt pressure like Huard did.

There's no reason that Simms couldn't compete for the #2 spot and play if Croyle sucks, because he still young and still may have potential to start.

Huard, on the other hand, offers jack.

He isn't the QB of the now, and he isn't the QB of the future.

I want to put players on this roster that have the potential to be a part of the future, where ever possible.

Simms isn't given a chance in TB because Gruden likes old washed up vets, and even though Simms was starting to get before he got hurt, and Gradkowski showed some upside, they weren't given any real opportunity by Gruden.

How did that choice work-out for Gruden?

From 4-12 cellar-dwellars with Simms, to 9-7 division winners with "old, washed up vet".

Step back from the tree, and realize that you are lost in the forest.:D J/K

milkman
06-24-2008, 12:10 AM
I am not blaming Huard for playing poorly.
I am blaming him for being a ***** when he started to feel some pressure.

Croyle sucked *** last year, but he never displayed the kind of fear that Huard showed last year.

And that choice for Gruden worked out much the same as the same kind of choice for the Chiefs in the 90s.

Mediocrity and a quick exit from the playoffs.

Three7s
06-24-2008, 02:25 AM
Seriously, the worst offensive line in the NFL. And you want to blame the only QB on the team who was able to win behind it. You also want to blame the other QB for playing poorly under constant pressure.

Have you ever heard of the o-line? Those are the guys that turned Pro-Bowl Larry Johnson into Lawrence Phillips, in no time flat.

What I saw of Huard in '06 was nothing short of amazing. Nit-pick it all you want, but he put up numbers that were rivaled by only Peyton Manning.

Then in '07, he managed to win games with Chris Terry, Damien McIntosh, John Welbourne, no running game, a rookie at #1 WR, Mike Solari, and Herm Edwards. That's at least very close to amazing also.

Yet you want to poke fun of the position he was on the ground in, following most of the sacks that his league-leading o-line allowed? (Most sacks allowed in the NFL)
I would like to point out that the defense did play pretty darn good in the games Huard won! Not that Huard played bad either, I'm sure a better O-line would help both him and Croyle. That's just not gonna happen.

chief31
06-24-2008, 07:04 AM
I am not blaming Huard for playing poorly.
I am blaming him for being a ***** when he started to feel some pressure.

Croyle sucked *** last year, but he never displayed the kind of fear that Huard showed last year.

And that choice for Gruden worked out much the same as the same kind of choice for the Chiefs in the 90s.

Mediocrity and a quick exit from the playoffs.

I saw Huard take a real beating last year, eventhough he started the season with an injury. I have not seen many QBs take that kind of abuse and remain standing tall in the pocket, when the pressure just kept coming.

So if you want to hate the guy for being as human as the next, good luck with that.

So, as long as they did'nt win the Super Bowl, then they may as well finish in the cellar? There's no difference between 4-12 and 9-7?

Doesn't that make the entire regular season a waste? Why bother even watching that garbage, if it doesn't mean anything? Why bother even reaching the playoffs if you aren't going to win the Super Bowl? Basically, the entire NFL seems to be worthless then. There's only one good team per season?

That is just funny.

Three7s
06-24-2008, 07:08 AM
I saw Huard take a real beating last year, eventhough he started the season with an injury. I have not seen many QBs take that kind of abuse and remain standing tall in the pocket, when the pressure just kept coming.

So if you want to hate the guy for being as human as the next, good luck with that.

So, as long as they did'nt win the Super Bowl, then they may as well finish in the cellar? There's no difference between 4-12 and 9-7?

Doesn't that make the entire regular season a waste? Why bother even watching that garbage, if it doesn't mean anything? Why bother even reaching the playoffs if you aren't going to win the Super Bowl? Basically, the entire NFL seems to be worthless then. There's only one good team per season?

That is just funny.
You know, a lot of people say that. I don't mind, as long as we put out a competitive team on the field. Of course, the goal is always the Super Bowl.

chief31
06-24-2008, 07:11 AM
You know, a lot of people say that. I don't mind, as long as we put out a competitive team on the field. Of course, the goal is always the Super Bowl.
Yeah, it's funny. I actually watch some of the games, even if the teams in the game have already been eliminated from Super Bowl contention.:D

milkman
06-25-2008, 01:19 AM
I saw Huard take a real beating last year, eventhough he started the season with an injury. I have not seen many QBs take that kind of abuse and remain standing tall in the pocket, when the pressure just kept coming.

So if you want to hate the guy for being as human as the next, good luck with that.

So, as long as they did'nt win the Super Bowl, then they may as well finish in the cellar? There's no difference between 4-12 and 9-7?

Doesn't that make the entire regular season a waste? Why bother even watching that garbage, if it doesn't mean anything? Why bother even reaching the playoffs if you aren't going to win the Super Bowl? Basically, the entire NFL seems to be worthless then. There's only one good team per season?

That is just funny.

And I've seen QBs take beatings and continue to stand tall in the pocket and attempt to make plays.

I have my doubts about Croyle, but he took as much punishment as Huard last year if not more, and he didn't ***** out the way that Huard did.

There is only one champion.

If you are a team on the rise with a QB, then even if you aren't the champion, then it doesn't mean you're you aren't successful.

However, as we saw all through the 90s with the Chiefs, and in the last decade with the 'Skins, if you aren't on the way up, then you're nothing more than stagnant and mediocre, especially if you're using old washed up or scrub QBs.

I'd take 9-7 this year if we are growing from there.

But if I were a Buc fan, I wouldn't be thrilled with that team's direction from there.

Pro_Angler
07-02-2008, 09:06 PM
we have a frikin QB stop talking this nonsense!!!!!!!!!!!!!

chief31
07-03-2008, 03:26 AM
And I've seen QBs take beatings and continue to stand tall in the pocket and attempt to make plays.

I have my doubts about Croyle, but he took as much punishment as Huard last year if not more, and he didn't ***** out the way that Huard did.

There is only one champion.

If you are a team on the rise with a QB, then even if you aren't the champion, then it doesn't mean you're you aren't successful.

However, as we saw all through the 90s with the Chiefs, and in the last decade with the 'Skins, if you aren't on the way up, then you're nothing more than stagnant and mediocre, especially if you're using old washed up or scrub QBs.

I'd take 9-7 this year if we are growing from there.

But if I were a Buc fan, I wouldn't be thrilled with that team's direction from there.

But the Giants won, and they were pretty close to washed-up, mid-way through the season. They were ready to give up on ELI and call him washed-up too.

The Ravens won without a QB. The Bucs won with Rob Johnson.

The Bears went to a Super Bowl with Rex Grossman. The Raiders took a career backup there.

Look back on some Super Bowls and you will find that there are a whole lot of mediocre teams that have won it, and been there.

And the Bucs had a pretty good shot at it last season. Especially when you consider that the equally mediocre Giants wound-up winning it.

milkman
07-04-2008, 12:23 AM
But the Giants won, and they were pretty close to washed-up, mid-way through the season. They were ready to give up on ELI and call him washed-up too.

The Giants were a team on the rise at the tail end of the season, because Eli Manning really started to get it.

I also don't believe that the Giants were ready to give up on Manning, because he was the first overall pick in the draft just 3 years prior.

The media nad the fans were ready to give up, but the Giants had too much invested to give up just yet.


The Ravens won without a QB. The Bucs won with Rob Johnson.

The Bears went to a Super Bowl with Rex Grossman. The Raiders took a career backup there.

Those are the exceptions rather than the rule.
BTW, just for clarities sake, that was Brad Johnson.


Look back on some Super Bowls and you will find that there are a whole lot of mediocre teams that have won it, and been there.

A whole lot?

Not hardly.


And the Bucs had a pretty good shot at it last season. Especially when you consider that the equally mediocre Giants wound-up winning it.

They had a pretty good shot at it?

Your opinion, and I strongly disagree.
That team sucked ***.

Three7s
07-04-2008, 12:26 AM
The Raiders took a career backup there.
I think I'll point out that Gannon was FAR better than a career backup. That was all because the Chiefs were idiots.

Chiefster
07-04-2008, 01:21 AM
I think I'll point out that Gannon was FAR better than a career backup. That was all because the Chiefs were idiots.


I agree, I have often said that the Chiefs held onto the wrong QB when they let Gannon go.

OTR Chiefs fan
07-04-2008, 01:28 AM
I agree, I have often said that the Chiefs held onto the wrong QB when they let Gannon go.

I agree. Why not bring Simms into camp and see what he does? :D

Chiefster
07-04-2008, 02:09 AM
I agree. Why not bring Simms into camp and see what he does? :D

May as well. I just hope Hope Herm stays out of the offense this year.

OTR Chiefs fan
07-04-2008, 11:03 AM
May as well. I just hope Hope Herm stays out of the offense this year.

We'll see. My guess is that he'll have his fingerprints all over it. :D