brodie croyle

**jacko58** · 03-19-2010, 12:15 PM

after seeing third string qb traded from sd to seattle for a third and switching seconds. whitehurst is un proven third string qb. croyles been a starter id like to keep croyle but if someone offered me a third id have to take it

**Drunker Hillbilly** · 03-20-2010, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by matthewschiefs

I would not be shocked if he could. The truth is Brodie has never had the team around him that Matt did in N.E. so we don't no what he could do on a GOOD football team. Brodie's injury history is the only reason that I do doubt that he could. But we will never no.

He would be dead if he got sacked 40+ times! No to mention scared sh**less! He'd be callin audible run plays every down.

**captainamerica** · 03-20-2010, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Drunker Hillbilly

Really? Hmmm, great O line eh? Ya your right, he was only sacked 47 times!!!!!!!! Even under that pressure he still threw for almost 3700 yds. Brodie.........LOL I don't think so!

He was sacked 47 times, because he holds on to the ball for WAY TOO LONG! He still has this problem. Our O-line last year was far from good, but I remember many games where they took unnecessary flack for Cassel holding on to the ball for too long. In 2007 Brady was hardly even touched. In 2008 Cassel was sacked 47 times. I'd hardly place that all on the O-line. The majority of the blame goes to Cassel in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I like Cassel. I really do. I think he can be a very solid backup. I just don't think he's our franchise guy. He doesn't have the arm and he holds onto the ball too long.

**Drunker Hillbilly** · 03-20-2010, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by captainamerica

He was sacked 47 times, because he holds on to the ball for WAY TOO LONG! He still has this problem. Our O-line last year was far from good, but I remember many games where they took unnecessary flack for Cassel holding on to the ball for too long. In 2007 Brady was hardly even touched. In 2008 Cassel was sacked 47 times. I'd hardly place that all on the O-line. The majority of the blame goes to Cassel in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, I like Cassel. I really do. I think he can be a very solid backup. I just don't think he's our franchise guy. He doesn't have the arm and he holds onto the ball too long.

PLEASE don't tell me you are insunuating that Croyle should be the franchise guy....

**captainamerica** · 03-20-2010, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Drunker Hillbilly

PLEASE don't tell me you are insunuating that Croyle should be the franchise guy....

Absolutely not, but besides questions about his durability, I think he's a better QB in every way possible than Matt Cassel. I think he more than deserves an opportunity to compete with Matt Cassel for the starting job next season. I don't think Cassel should just be anointed the roll of starter.

**chief31** · 03-21-2010, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by Drunker Hillbilly

Really? Hmmm, great O line eh? Ya your right, he was only sacked 47 times!!!!!!!!

Yes. Great o-line. Top five in sacks allowed in, both, the year before, and the year after Cassel.

It was Cassel's first ever season as a starter. But it was the same pass-blocking crew.

Do we honestly believe that they went from best, to worst, to best, over a three year time?

Or was it more of, essentially, a rookie QB struggling to get comfortable in the pocket?

**Drunker Hillbilly** · 03-21-2010, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by chief31

Yes. Great o-line. Top five in sacks allowed in, both, the year before, and the year after Cassel.

It was Cassel's first ever season as a starter. But it was the same pass-blocking crew.

Do we honestly believe that they went from best, to worst, to best, over a three year time?

Or was it more of, essentially, a rookie QB struggling to get comfortable in the pocket?

Never said they were the worst, I simply questioned that they were a "great" O line. Don't believe they were. Holding the ball too long does not result in 47 sacks I don't care what anyone says.

**Coach** · 03-21-2010, 12:37 PM

If we polled all 32 GM's in the league on which QB they would rather have, how many of them do you think would choose Croyle?

Are NFL GM's pretty good evaluators of talent?

Sorry to be so blunt, but I just don't see how anyone could conclude that Brodie should be leading this team. To each his own and I respect everyone's opinion even if they are wrong. j/k.

____________
Posted from my BlackBerry, PM me for Details

**Canada** · 03-21-2010, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Coach

If we polled all 32 GM's in the league on which QB they would rather have, how many of them do you think would choose Croyle?

Are NFL GM's pretty good evaluators of talent?

Sorry to be so blunt, but I just don't see how anyone could conclude that Brodie should be leading this team. To each his own and I respect everyone's opinion even if they are wrong. j/k.

____________
Posted from my BlackBerry, PM me for Details

I don't think anyone is saying he is better than Cassel, I would say that there is a chance he is better than Gutierrez!! Give him a chance as a backup, at least up his trade value this season.

**Fansincebirth** · 03-21-2010, 05:05 PM

Lets face it. It doesnt matter who you pick in the draft or trade for. No young player is ready for the NFL. Even if they start their first year and play well. They had OTAs, Rookie week, and Training camp. On top of that the top draft picks usually dont make the pro bowl that first season. Point being players must BE developed, and have time to develope. In the past, KC has not been a great team for developing players. We now have a staff that have proven that they can develope players. Some of the players to look for to make big improvement in this year: Castle, Croyal, Albert, Dorsey, Jackson, Bowe, Long, O'Connell, Morgan, and Studebaker.

**chief31** · 03-21-2010, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Drunker Hillbilly

Never said they were the worst, I simply questioned that they were a "great" O line. Don't believe they were. Holding the ball too long does not result in 47 sacks I don't care what anyone says.

So then the o-line went from near best to near worst, then back to near best?

Or is there some other reason that you have in mind?

And, for my money, holding the ball too long exactly results in increased sacks.

Originally Posted by Coach

If we polled all 32 GM's in the league on which QB they would rather have, how many of them do you think would choose Croyle?

Are NFL GM's pretty good evaluators of talent?

Sorry to be so blunt, but I just don't see how anyone could conclude that Brodie should be leading this team. To each his own and I respect everyone's opinion even if they are wrong. j/k.

____________
Posted from my BlackBerry, PM me for Details

While I agree that there really doesn't seem to be any reason for someone to guess, based on so little evidence, that Croyle would be a better QB than Cassel, I also don't see enough evidence to suggest that Croyle is no good, or has no chance of being that good.

By the way, name recognition plays into trade value, and any GM would be a fool to choose the lower value.

So maybe a HC should have been used in your example, as they want the best player, regardless of trade value.

But the point still stands.