Sadly, that was last week's headline, and in the clueless world of Herm
Edwards, probably next week's headline, but this week we are stuck with
the pathetic Huard.

DaBlueGuy@webtv.net

Da Blue Guy wrote:
> Sadly, that was last week's headline, and in the clueless world of
> Herm Edwards, probably next week's headline, but this week we are
> stuck with the pathetic Huard.
>
> DaBlueGuy@webtv.net

Which pathetic choice is better, really?

Regardless of your militance about playing only young players, even at the
expense of the remotest chance of a win, the losing streak is a big
emotional issue, with the fans, and with the team. It needs to end, somehow,
and Huard is slightly less pathetic than Thigpen.

Edwards, on the other hand, seems to have gotten his Phd in patheticism.

As I posted on another forum which you also inhabit, here is the operating
definition behind all this:

Hermination: (n) A substantial delusion offset by diarrhea of the mouth.

MartyB in KC

"Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidnits@swbell.com> wrote in
news:UTXCk.1074$Ei5.1031@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:
> Regardless of your militance about playing only young players, even at
> the expense of the remotest chance of a win, the losing streak is a
> big emotional issue, with the fans, and with the team. It needs to
> end, somehow, and Huard is slightly less pathetic than Thigpen.

Agreed - there was a point late in the first half where he was something
like 2 of 12 for 12 yards and 2 interceptions with a 0.0 QB rating.
Against the Falcons. This is short-term, though - my questions is how
long the Croyle experiment continues, especially if there's an empty
spot on a draft board and the name "Tebow" available to pencil in.

> Edwards, on the other hand, seems to have gotten his Phd in
> patheticism.

I gave Herm the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but seeing (in
person, no less) how pathetic certain aspects of the team were against
the Raiders, I give up. Unlike last year, the o-line didn't even bother
to turn around and defend themselves to/glare at some in the crowd
around me hurling insults their way - what could they say in their own
defense?

He's not the only one to blame - I am familiar with Chan Gailey from his
days as the Dallas coach, and he brings all the excitement of a wet sock
to the party. He, like Herm, also has the tendency to get distracted by
shiny objects, so it's a perfect match.

-Jeff

"Jeff Edwards" <paranoianospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B2566D7218E1paranoianospamsbcglo@216.196.97.131...
> "Nunya Bidnits" <nunyabidnits@swbell.com> wrote in
> news:UTXCk.1074$Ei5.1031@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:
>> Regardless of your militance about playing only young players, even at
>> the expense of the remotest chance of a win, the losing streak is a
>> big emotional issue, with the fans, and with the team. It needs to
>> end, somehow, and Huard is slightly less pathetic than Thigpen.
>
> Agreed - there was a point late in the first half where he was something
> like 2 of 12 for 12 yards and 2 interceptions with a 0.0 QB rating.
> Against the Falcons. This is short-term, though - my questions is how
> long the Croyle experiment continues, especially if there's an empty
> spot on a draft board and the name "Tebow" available to pencil in.
>
>> Edwards, on the other hand, seems to have gotten his Phd in
>> patheticism.
>
> I gave Herm the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but seeing (in
> person, no less) how pathetic certain aspects of the team were against
> the Raiders, I give up. Unlike last year, the o-line didn't even bother
> to turn around and defend themselves to/glare at some in the crowd
> around me hurling insults their way - what could they say in their own
> defense?
>
> He's not the only one to blame - I am familiar with Chan Gailey from his
> days as the Dallas coach, and he brings all the excitement of a wet sock
> to the party. He, like Herm, also has the tendency to get distracted by
> shiny objects, so it's a perfect match.
>
> -Jeff

I suggest we start Herman Edwards at QB. That would solve the HC problem...

nunyabidnits@swbell.com (Nunya Bidnits)said:
Which pathetic choice is better, really?
Regardless of your militance about playing only young players, even at
the expense of the remotest chance of a win, the losing streak is a big
emotional issue, with the fans, and with the team. It needs to end,
somehow, and Huard is slightly less pathetic than Thigpen.
Edwards, on the other hand, seems to have gotten his Phd in patheticism.
As I posted on another forum which you also inhabit, here is the
operating definition behind all this:
Hermination: (n) A substantial delusion offset by diarrhea of the mouth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bigger problem than WHO Herm is choosing to play QB is the changing
and indecision. He has no courage of his convictions. A coach with a
clue would have said, after Croyle went down, "XXX is my QB until Brodie
comes back, here's why, and that's that." Firm, decisive. Those of us
who agreed and disagreed with XXX would have had our say and that's
that. We would await Brodie's return with a clear, definite plan of who
is the QB, and why. That's not what we got, and it goes directly to the
competency of Herm. Last Week Herm laid out the case, and a good one,
IMO, why Thigpen was the correct choice, and gave us a better chance to
win a game, so he believed Thigpen gave us a better chance to win. This
week, the exact opposite. Week 2, the exact opposite. Week 5- Who
Knows? To paraphrase an old commercial, this is no way to run an
airline. It IS a Hermination.

DaBlueGuy@webtv.net

On Sep 26, 7:50 pm, DaBlue...@webtv.net (Da Blue Guy) wrote:

> The bigger problem than WHO Herm is choosing to play QB is the changing
> and indecision.  He has no courage of his convictions.

I think that's a fair criticism... but I am not entirely sure that
Huard was physcially ready to play against Atlanta. This week, in
response to a question, Edwards seemed to indicate that Huard had not
been 100% before the Atlanta game. He said Huard "could have played,"
but left the clear impression from his tone and body language that it
wouldn't have been his first choice.

I was frankly surprised that Edwards decided to go with Thigpen last
week. While it is true that it is important for the Chiefs to
discover Thigpen's capabilities when he starts a game (and Edwards has
said several times since the Atlanta game that both the Chiefs and
Thigpen learned a lot from Thigpen's play) it is also true that for
the team to grow, they need to be building on success. If it had been
my call to make, I think I would have preferred to go with Huard...
PROVIDED that Huard was healthy. So I have to wonder how much of the
decision to go with Thigpen was based on Huard's sore neck from week 2.