PDA

View Full Version : Chiefs have QB decision ahead



Guru
08-02-2007, 06:28 AM
Chiefs have QB decision ahead

By ADAM TEICHER

The Kansas City Star
http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2007/08/01/22/951-CHIEFSCAMP_SP_072707_DRE_395f_08-02-2007_SOTQ0CV.embedded.prod_affiliate.81.jpg (http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2007/08/01/22/315-CHIEFSCAMP_SP_072707_DRE_395f_08-02-2007_SOTQ0CV.standalone.prod_affiliate.81.jpg)
Will Kansas City pick the potential of Brodie Croyle (left) or the experience of Damon Huard?




RIVER FALLS, Wis. | When forced to choose a starting quarterback between Brodie Croyle and Damon Huard, the Chiefs will have hour after hour of practice video to aid in the process.


Some of that video will be more valuable, like that from two joint weekend practices with the Minnesota Vikings. The teams will get together Friday night at Vikings camp in Mankato, Minn., and then have a return engagement in River Falls the following night.


After almost a week of training, the Chiefs have come to know themselves too well. Cornerbacks recognize pass routes and can jump into passing lanes without fear of getting burned. Quarterbacks recognize pass coverages and can avoid trouble.


Against the Vikings, everything is new.


“Those practices definitely will help us,” said Dick Curl, the Chiefs’ quarterbacks coach. “All of a sudden you’re going against a different team and they’re going to do some different things than we might be doing. We’ll see maybe some different looks, different types of schemes. That’s good for us. In some ways, it’s like a preseason game.”


Publicly, the Chiefs are being noncommittal about what they’ve seen from Croyle and Huard through the first week of training camp. Work between the two has been split almost evenly.


The Chiefs are also trying to give them similar plays so they can better make a side-by-side comparison.
“We’re trying to be fair to both of those guys,” Curl said.


Privately, the Chiefs are so pleased with Croyle that it’s hard to imagine he won’t be their choice as long as he continues his current arc. He has demonstrated a better ability to make all of the necessary throws than any Chiefs quarterback in a long time.


An example came in a recent practice with the Chiefs inside the opposing 10-yard line. Croyle had the narrowest of windows in which to fit a pass to Jeff Webb over the middle. His release, zip and accuracy were all perfect and the Chiefs had a touchdown.


Former Chiefs starting quarterback Trent Green certainly couldn’t have made the throw. Huard probably couldn’t, either.


“Not only did he get rid of it real quick, but he put the ball in a position where only Jeff could catch it,” Curl said. “His accuracy has been really good. The thing that will determine a lot of how far we can go with him is his decision-making when he has (defenders) running at him.”


Croyle didn’t fare so well in a recent practice with blitzing safety Bernard Pollard running at him. Croyle tried to force his pass to Michael Bennett, but Pollard tipped and intercepted it.


“It’s little things like don’t try to force things down the field when you have a back who can get you to second and 5,” Croyle said. “I’ve probably been told that more times than anything in this camp.”
Huard has been hanging on in the NFL for several years, so it’s wise never to count him out. He played better than the Chiefs dared hope last year when they lost Green.


“Certainly there’s a sense of urgency for me,” he said. “Like every other year I’ve gone to training camp, you’re always fighting for something. Whether it’s to be the backup or make the team, or this year to be the starter. I’ve been in this situation before, so it’s kind of what pro football is about. It’s all about competition.”


Croyle’s potential and inexperience make him the riskier pick. Huard is the safer choice. The Chiefs are certain what they would get from him.


“You believe in yourself and more importantly your teammates know they can win with you,” Huard said. “I hope that gives me an edge. But again, I’m 34 and Brodie’s 24. That’s the reality of it. We’ll go out there and compete every day and both of us probably are going to have to play this season at some point anyway. We both know we’re fighting to learn the system and the gain the respect of our teammates and make this team better every day.”


Coach Herm Edwards hasn’t set a date for deciding on a starting quarterback but has said he would like to have one halfway through the four exhibition games.

“You’ll see the separation as we go through the preseason,” he said.

wolfpack
08-02-2007, 10:21 AM
let Brodie start. cant learn from the bench and if he is the future ket it be now while we are "retooling"

Chiefster
08-02-2007, 12:58 PM
let Brodie start. cant learn from the bench and if he is the future ket it be now while we are "retooling"


Agreed; although the Chiefs have been big on experience in the past with the noted exception of the Grbac/Gannon combo.

I may well be losing some ArrowCash on this one.

stlchief
08-03-2007, 01:56 AM
I say let Huard have a shot. The finished 5-3 (albeit against a soft part of the schedule).

I'm not ready to say "rebuilding" yr this yr. Let it be next year when we have more draft picks and at least one big name veteran will probably be gone (Allen / Johnson).

I want to take a shot this year....

m0ef0e
08-03-2007, 11:01 AM
I say let Huard have a shot. The finished 5-3 (albeit against a soft part of the schedule).

I'm not ready to say "rebuilding" yr this yr. Let it be next year when we have more draft picks and at least one big name veteran will probably be gone (Allen / Johnson).

I want to take a shot this year....


Amen! I feel the same way.

luv
08-03-2007, 01:10 PM
There's a reason why KC has never developed a rookie QB. Refusal to take chances. It's apparent that most Chiefs fans have taken on the illusion that playing it safe equals playing it better. That has proven to be false for how many years now? Just sayin'....

m0ef0e
08-03-2007, 02:48 PM
There's a reason why KC has never developed a rookie QB. Refusal to take chances. It's apparent that most Chiefs fans have taken on the illusion that playing it safe equals playing it better. That has proven to be false for how many years now? Just sayin'....


I agree it seems to be the staple of the Chiefs to start QB's that have been in the league for a long time who have seemingly never really gotten their shot. I'm not one to complain after the success we've had with it in the past, however.

Joe Montana had a good year here. Just one, but a good year nonetheless.

When Trent first came in, he was lights-out. I will always love Trent Green for those good years he gave us.

I'm hoping that we see more of the same from Huard if he gets the nod. We will just have to wait and see though.

luv
08-03-2007, 02:55 PM
I agree it seems to be the staple of the Chiefs to start QB's that have been in the league for a long time who have seemingly never really gotten their shot. I'm not one to complain after the success we've had with it in the past, however.

Joe Montana had a good year here. Just one, but a good year nonetheless.

When Trent first came in, he was lights-out. I will always love Trent Green for those good years he gave us.

I'm hoping that we see more of the same from Huard if he gets the nod. We will just have to wait and see though.
I think we're going to have a mediocre season either way. People say they want Huard because they still want a shot this year. I don't think we'll get it with or without him. Why not take a chance on an already second year rookie? Add a little excitement. Huard's been an excellent backup. Let him continue doing so.

m0ef0e
08-03-2007, 02:58 PM
I need to correct myself a little bit here. Joe Montana definately had his shot before he came here. He was just a little past his prime.

m0ef0e
08-03-2007, 03:00 PM
I think we're going to have a mediocre season either way. People say they want Huard because they still want a shot this year. I don't think we'll get it with or without him. Why not take a chance on an already second year rookie? Add a little excitement. Huard's been an excellent backup. Let him continue doing so.


I just think Croyle seems kind of frail. He doesn't really seem to me like a guy that can take the hits that will probably be delivered on him this year with all the changes on our o-line.

luv
08-03-2007, 03:04 PM
I just think Croyle seems kind of frail. He doesn't really seem to me like a guy that can take the hits that will probably be delivered on him this year with all the changes on our o-line.
I heard he's been doing really well in camp, and that he's been bulking up.

I don't know, I just don't think Huard is the superstar that people made him out to be during his partial season starting. He either simply gave the ball to LJ (causing a record number of touches), or he had WR's who were able to make great catches. Seems like WR's either had to turn around to catch the pass behind them (underthrown) or had to jump or dive to make a catch (overthrown). Huard had awesome stats, but I'm not a believer that stats tell the whole story. He definitely had help.

m0ef0e
08-03-2007, 03:13 PM
I heard he's been doing really well in camp, and that he's been bulking up.

I don't know, I just don't think Huard is the superstar that people made him out to be during his partial season starting. He either simply gave the ball to LJ (causing a record number of touches), or he had WR's who were able to make great catches. Seems like WR's either had to turn around to catch the pass behind them (underthrown) or had to jump or dive to make a catch (overthrown). Huard had awesome stats, but I'm not a believer that stats tell the whole story. He definitely had help.

Good! I hope the guy has a good career in front of him. I'm a hard sell on a guy, though, who is not really proven yet, in my opinion. I agree Huard had some help last season (especially in the form of LJ) but I also feel that the playcalling was so conservative last year because the coaches were skittish about Huard throwing the ball.

As far as receivers go, if they need an imperfect pass to actually make the damn catch, I say stretch em over the middle or throw it short or high every time. It was sooo painful to watch Trent come back last year and get a few passes right on the money, just to watch somebody drop it. Trent was obviously struggling after the concussion, but when he DID uphold his end of the bargain, somebody else was dropping the ball, it seemed.

luv
08-03-2007, 03:17 PM
Good! I hope the guy has a good career in front of him. I'm a hard sell on a guy, though, who is not really proven yet, in my opinion. I agree Huard had some help last season (especially in the form of LJ) but I also feel that the playcalling was so conservative last year because the coaches were skittish about Huard throwing the ball.

As far as receivers go, if they need an imperfect pass to actually make the damn catch, I say stretch em over the middle or throw it short or high every time. It was sooo painful to watch Trent come back last year and get a few passes right on the money, just to watch somebody drop it. Trent was obviously struggling after the concussion, but when he DID uphold his end of the bargain, somebody else was dropping the ball, it seemed.
I definitely agree with the entirety of this post. I guess I'm just a little more easily sold on Croyle since I'm ready to see some major changes, or at least us having the guts to do so.

I absolutely can't wait to go to the Dolphins preseason game. I want to see how the crowd reacts to Trent, and I'm dying to see both Croyle and Huard go up against him. It will probably be a telling game, even if it is only a preseason game.

m0ef0e
08-03-2007, 03:19 PM
Yea, that one's going to be interesting to say the least.

stlchief
08-03-2007, 05:03 PM
I think Huard had great numbers in spite of Herm's predictable run / run / pass philosphy. You throw in the dropped passes we had, and he had a great year.

If you think we will have a mediocre season w/ him. Why not give him the first 6 games? If we go 3-3, pull him and rebuild. If we hit 4-2, or 5-1, then make a run for it.

Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't think Croyle has looked that good in mop-up time. Practice is one thing, but to say he performs well in 9 on 7's is not enough to say put him in and let him go.

So my recommendation: Huard to start. If 6 games in he is not on fire, start building and developing Croyle.

m0ef0e
08-03-2007, 05:25 PM
I think Huard had great numbers in spite of Herm's predictable run / run / pass philosphy. You throw in the dropped passes we had, and he had a great year.

If you think we will have a mediocre season w/ him. Why not give him the first 6 games? If we go 3-3, pull him and rebuild. If we hit 4-2, or 5-1, then make a run for it.

Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't think Croyle has looked that good in mop-up time. Practice is one thing, but to say he performs well in 9 on 7's is not enough to say put him in and let him go.

So my recommendation: Huard to start. If 6 games in he is not on fire, start building and developing Croyle.

Makes sense to me.:sign0098:

Chiefster
08-03-2007, 09:07 PM
I say let Huard have a shot. The finished 5-3 (albeit against a soft part of the schedule).

I'm not ready to say "rebuilding" yr this yr. Let it be next year when we have more draft picks and at least one big name veteran will probably be gone (Allen / Johnson).

I want to take a shot this year....


I agree; this will bode well for my Arrowcash prospects. :D

luv
08-04-2007, 04:02 AM
I think Huard had great numbers in spite of Herm's predictable run / run / pass philosphy. You throw in the dropped passes we had, and he had a great year.

If you think we will have a mediocre season w/ him. Why not give him the first 6 games? If we go 3-3, pull him and rebuild. If we hit 4-2, or 5-1, then make a run for it.

Maybe I am wrong, but I didn't think Croyle has looked that good in mop-up time. Practice is one thing, but to say he performs well in 9 on 7's is not enough to say put him in and let him go.

So my recommendation: Huard to start. If 6 games in he is not on fire, start building and developing Croyle.
aka playing it safe.....again.

BORING!

If Huard isn't doing well, why put some no name rookie in to botch things up even more? If he wasn't good enough to beat out Huard, then he's got to be terrible (if Huard is doing that bad). If Huard does well, he still won't get play time. If Croyle doesn't start, he won't all season.

Start developing a rookie QB in the middle of the season whenever you've been developing other young players at other positions who have gotten used to Huard? You won't be rebuilding just a QB at mid-season, you'll be starting from scratch with the entire friggin' offense!

I say take the above scenario, only reverse it. Start Croyle. If he doesn't cut it, then put in Huard. He's already a proven BACKUP. Still throws the offense off, IMO, but at least with a bit of a more experienced QB and not a rookie mid-season.

Chiefster
08-04-2007, 11:19 PM
aka playing it safe.....again.

BORING!

If Huard isn't doing well, why put some no name rookie in to botch things up even more? If he wasn't good enough to beat out Huard, then he's got to be terrible (if Huard is doing that bad). If Huard does well, he still won't get play time. If Croyle doesn't start, he won't all season.

Start developing a rookie QB in the middle of the season whenever you've been developing other young players at other positions who have gotten used to Huard? You won't be rebuilding just a QB at mid-season, you'll be starting from scratch with the entire friggin' offense!

I say take the above scenario, only reverse it. Start Croyle. If he doesn't cut it, then put in Huard. He's already a proven BACKUP. Still throws the offense off, IMO, but at least with a bit of a more experienced QB and not a rookie mid-season.

AMEN! My Chiefs sister! That is your best reply ever! Rep...again!

stlchief
08-04-2007, 11:44 PM
aka playing it safe.....again.

BORING!

If Huard isn't doing well, why put some no name rookie in to botch things up even more? If he wasn't good enough to beat out Huard, then he's got to be terrible (if Huard is doing that bad). If Huard does well, he still won't get play time. If Croyle doesn't start, he won't all season.

Start developing a rookie QB in the middle of the season whenever you've been developing other young players at other positions who have gotten used to Huard? You won't be rebuilding just a QB at mid-season, you'll be starting from scratch with the entire friggin' offense!

I say take the above scenario, only reverse it. Start Croyle. If he doesn't cut it, then put in Huard. He's already a proven BACKUP. Still throws the offense off, IMO, but at least with a bit of a more experienced QB and not a rookie mid-season.


I don't follow at all... If Croyle IS good enough to be the future of the team -- which you have to accept as fact by giving him the job day one and working on developing him -- then why stop at 6 games if he doesn't cut it? Are you going to then release him at the end of the season?

If he is our future, and we are saying we would be willing to sacrifice the season to develop him, then give him 16 starts. If you go 0-16, from you reasoning, then it was worth it because we are investing in a career, not a season.

I think the two different philosophies are:
1) Start Huard & try to get to the play-offs and see what happens. If it doesn't look like a play-off season, spend the rest working on developing Croyle.
2) Start Croyle and say he is the future, come what may. Let him have the season.

These are both valid and have some sense behind them. I happen to be for the first option, but I can understand the second.

But the idea of giving Croyle a few starts and if he struggles yanking him for a "proven" backup... WHY??? There is no gain there. If Huard is not good enough to get us to the play-offs, why bring him in to finish a season. The whole idea of starting Croyle is to get him experience and develop him. If a season is over (meaning no liklihood of play-offs), why take away the remaining experience?

The reason I like #1: You have a squad that went to the play-offs. You have Allen & Johnson (probably) both for one more year. The team seems to be improved. You have a guy who was 5-2 and should NOT have lost his starting job.

The potential is there for another play-off year.

Want to trade that potential play-off game for a sure-fire development QB and probably less likely play-off run? I just don't follow....

luv
08-05-2007, 01:53 AM
I don't follow at all... If Croyle IS good enough to be the future of the team -- which you have to accept as fact by giving him the job day one and working on developing him -- then why stop at 6 games if he doesn't cut it? Are you going to then release him at the end of the season?

If he is our future, and we are saying we would be willing to sacrifice the season to develop him, then give him 16 starts. If you go 0-16, from you reasoning, then it was worth it because we are investing in a career, not a season.

I think the two different philosophies are:
1) Start Huard & try to get to the play-offs and see what happens. If it doesn't look like a play-off season, spend the rest working on developing Croyle.
2) Start Croyle and say he is the future, come what may. Let him have the season.

These are both valid and have some sense behind them. I happen to be for the first option, but I can understand the second.

But the idea of giving Croyle a few starts and if he struggles yanking him for a "proven" backup... WHY??? There is no gain there. If Huard is not good enough to get us to the play-offs, why bring him in to finish a season. The whole idea of starting Croyle is to get him experience and develop him. If a season is over (meaning no liklihood of play-offs), why take away the remaining experience?

The reason I like #1: You have a squad that went to the play-offs. You have Allen & Johnson (probably) both for one more year. The team seems to be improved. You have a guy who was 5-2 and should NOT have lost his starting job.

The potential is there for another play-off year.

Want to trade that potential play-off game for a sure-fire development QB and probably less likely play-off run? I just don't follow....
I completely agree with this. Everyone was talking about switching up QB's mid-season, I just wanted to throw out another scenario. I'm all for starting Croyle and letting the season be his. Everyone calls him the QB of the future. With the Chiefs, the future never seems to get here.

Chiefster
08-05-2007, 05:02 AM
I completely agree with this. Everyone was talking about switching up QB's mid-season, I just wanted to throw out another scenario. I'm all for starting Croyle and letting the season be his. Everyone calls him the QB of the future. With the Chiefs, the future never seems to get here.


This is a good point. Elway's first season with the Donks was miserable IIRC.

stlchief
08-05-2007, 10:44 AM
That's why I say 2 choices:

1) If Herm feels Huard is bettter: try to win now with Huard and if he fails, switch to Croyle.
2) If Herm feels Croyle is better: let Croyle have the season, even if he struggles.

If you don't make the play-offs, there is not much difference for next season between 8-8 and 5-11. So gain from the experience, move up a few slots in the draft, have 3 easier games next year and take your lumps.

But just don't start Croyle and bring in Huard in the middle after the play-offs are out of reach. Long term there is no gain...

luv
08-05-2007, 12:52 PM
This is a good point. Elway's first season with the Donks was miserable IIRC.
So was Brett Favre's.

AkChief49
08-05-2007, 01:27 PM
I'm all for the youth movement especially at the QB position, but as the knock that has been on him, can BC go the distance? 16 games in the NFL...I mean I have not really seen him this year. you all are alot closer, has he truly bulked up some? Personally I hope it works out for him. I'll pull for whoever is at the helm,as long as he bleeds red and gold!!!!! on another note:
When Joe Montana (http://www.profootballhof.com/players/mainpage.cfm?cont_id=99895) joined the 49ers as a rookie from Notre Dame in 1979, fellow draftee Dwight Clark mistook him for a free-agent kicker. Who wouldn't? By NFL standards, Montana looked a bit fragile, and his unassuming demeanor hardly demanded attention. -Phil Barber cbssportsline

Chiefster
08-06-2007, 12:27 AM
So was Brett Favre's.

Yup; and last year it looked as if he had come full circle, but in the middle of that circle is a Super Bowl win.

m0ef0e
08-06-2007, 12:46 PM
That's why I say 2 choices:

1) If Herm feels Huard is bettter: try to win now with Huard and if he fails, switch to Croyle.
2) If Herm feels Croyle is better: let Croyle have the season, even if he struggles.

If you don't make the play-offs, there is not much difference for next season between 8-8 and 5-11. So gain from the experience, move up a few slots in the draft, have 3 easier games next year and take your lumps.

But just don't start Croyle and bring in Huard in the middle after the play-offs are out of reach. Long term there is no gain...

I agree. :sign0098:

sling58
08-06-2007, 12:56 PM
This is the only thing I hate about Pre-Season. Not knowing who is going to start. I like to know things now.

Guru
08-06-2007, 01:14 PM
So was Brett Favre's.
So was Troy Aikman's

luv
08-06-2007, 02:00 PM
So was Troy Aikman's
WTF are you doing up in the middle of the day?

Guru
08-06-2007, 03:33 PM
WTF are you doing up in the middle of the day?
Monday is like a Sunday for me. I stay up all day and take a nap before work that night.

Chiefster
08-06-2007, 03:35 PM
Monday is like a Sunday for me. I stay up all day and take a nap before work that night.


Yeah; third shift has a way of screwing up your work week.

sling58
08-06-2007, 03:37 PM
I couldn't work that shift

Guru
08-06-2007, 05:05 PM
I couldn't work that shift

Try working 2nd with a family. You will be begging for 3rd then.

sling58
08-06-2007, 05:05 PM
I am good with the onle I got. 6am to 5pm

chief31
08-06-2007, 10:26 PM
I do O.k. with third shift. As Guru said, second would be anightmare, with a familiy.

Chiefster
08-06-2007, 10:31 PM
Try working 2nd with a family. You will be begging for 3rd then.

Yup, and...


I do O.k. with third shift. As Guru said, second would be anightmare, with a familiy.
...yup!!!

Canada
08-06-2007, 10:32 PM
I am 730 to 730 days or nights

Chiefster
08-06-2007, 10:37 PM
I am 730 to 730 days or nights
Are we talkin 12's or 24's??

Canada
08-06-2007, 10:40 PM
12....

Chiefster
08-06-2007, 10:41 PM
12....

I read ya bud; I work the 12's too.

Canada
08-06-2007, 10:42 PM
I like it, get more time off. I only work 14 days a month and i get a week off every month. I can work part time fire on my days off!

Chiefster
08-06-2007, 10:58 PM
I like it, get more time off. I only work 14 days a month and i get a week off every month. I can work part time fire on my days off!

Heh! i spend my spare time.....well ya know how I spend my spare time. :lol:

luv
08-06-2007, 11:59 PM
I do O.k. with third shift. As Guru said, second would be anightmare, with a familiy.
Second can be a nightmare without a family, too.

Guru
08-07-2007, 12:01 AM
Second can be a nightmare without a family, too.

I view second as a nightmare no matter what the situation. of course, second here is 2:30pm to 10:30pm. A single person would probably not mind that. STill time to party.

Chiefster
08-07-2007, 12:02 AM
Second can be a nightmare without a family, too.


It just blows your whole day out the window!

luv
08-07-2007, 12:02 AM
I view second as a nightmare no matter what the situation. of course, second here is 2:30pm to 10:30pm. A single person would probably not mind that. STill time to party.
3:45pm-12:15am

Guru
08-07-2007, 12:06 AM
3:45pm-12:15am

Yep that sucks. Parties are ending around then. At least on weekdays.

luv
08-07-2007, 12:06 AM
Yep that sucks. Parties are ending around then. At least on weekdays.
I don't party anyway, but still.

Chiefster
08-07-2007, 12:07 AM
I don't party anyway, but still.

That aint what I hear. :p:lol:

Canada
08-07-2007, 07:49 AM
I don't party anyway, but still.

Me neither...quiet nights with a good book!! :drunkhb:
:beer:

Chiefster
08-07-2007, 08:16 AM
Me neither...quiet nights with a good book!! :drunkhb:
:beer:


:bananen_smilies046::toast2:

hermhater
11-20-2007, 06:33 PM
aka playing it safe.....again.

BORING!

If Huard isn't doing well, why put some no name rookie in to botch things up even more? If he wasn't good enough to beat out Huard, then he's got to be terrible (if Huard is doing that bad). If Huard does well, he still won't get play time. If Croyle doesn't start, he won't all season.

Start developing a rookie QB in the middle of the season whenever you've been developing other young players at other positions who have gotten used to Huard? You won't be rebuilding just a QB at mid-season, you'll be starting from scratch with the entire friggin' offense!

I say take the above scenario, only reverse it. Start Croyle. If he doesn't cut it, then put in Huard. He's already a proven BACKUP. Still throws the offense off, IMO, but at least with a bit of a more experienced QB and not a rookie mid-season.

I guess you guys still didn't doubt Herm's decision making abilities enough, back then.

Basically whatever Herm decides to do is wrong.

I wish it hadn't taken getting Huard so beat the hell up that we started Brodie.

The kid has talent, let him use it Herm!

Chiefster
11-21-2007, 12:09 AM
I guess you guys still didn't doubt Herm's decision making abilities enough, back then.

Basically whatever Herm decides to do is wrong.

I wish it hadn't taken getting Huard so beat the hell up that we started Brodie.

The kid has talent, let him use it Herm!

...Won't happen; we might accidentally score more then ten points a game.

hermhater
11-21-2007, 12:22 AM
I guess you guys still didn't doubt Herm's decision making abilities enough, back then.

Basically whatever Herm decides to do is wrong.

I wish it hadn't taken getting Huard so beat the hell up that we started Brodie.

The kid has talent, let him use it Herm!


...Won't happen; we might accidentally score more then ten points a game.


And now we find out that Priest is destroyed too.

Coincidence or Herm?

You be the judge.

:mob:

Chiefster
11-21-2007, 12:28 AM
And now we find out that Priest is destroyed too.

Coincidence or Herm?

You be the judge.

:mob:

It ain't rocket science.

rbedgood
11-30-2007, 02:01 AM
Herm would be a great coach if....

1) He had the best O-line ever (all 5 spots)
2) He had a brusing Jerome Bettis type of back
3) He had the Chiefs Defense + 2 great corners and 1 great DT
4) A kicker
and most importantly
5) A CLUE!!!

hermhater
11-30-2007, 02:07 AM
Herm would be the luckiest coach ever and would still screw it up if....

1) He had the best O-line ever (all 5 spots)
2) He had a brusing Jerome Bettis type of back
3) He had the Chiefs Defense + 2 great corners and 1 great DT
4) A kicker
and most importantly
5) A CLUE!!!


FYP!

:mob:

Guru
11-30-2007, 02:08 AM
Herm would be a great coach if....

1) He had the best O-line ever (all 5 spots)
2) He had a brusing Jerome Bettis type of back
3) He had the Chiefs Defense + 2 great corners and 1 great DT
4) A kicker
and most importantly
5) A CLUE!!!

Yeah, but he doesn't have number 5 so the first four are irrelevant.

Oh, and I think Herm stinks it up even with the first four.

and yes, I am redundant, yes I am.

hermhater
11-30-2007, 02:15 AM
Yeah, but he doesn't have number 5 so the first four are irrelevant.

Oh, and I think Herm stinks it up even with the first four.

and yes, I am redundant, yes I am.



http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2007/11/216.jpg


:toast2:

Chiefster
11-30-2007, 10:08 AM
Yeah, but he doesn't have number 5 so the first four are irrelevant.

Oh, and I think Herm stinks it up even with the first four.

and yes, I am redundant, yes I am.

Yup; completely moot.

hermhater
12-01-2007, 03:40 AM
Yup; completely moot.

You're a Moope.


:lol: