Originally Posted by
stlchief
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....