ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs What's with the Thigpen fixation? (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=202158)

OnTheWarpath15 02-11-2009 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5480294)
What exact is your position? That Brees get's hit less than Rothlisberger? Let's say we grant that - actually MUCH less.

Now do a statistical breakdown on "Brees would be crushed behind Pittsburg's line," which is what started this whole "debate." You can use injuries/passing attempt, injuries/season, games missed/sack, or any other statistic you can come up with.

What started this whole debate changed when Sam said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall (Post 5479716)
Here's more: Brees had almost 1,300 pass attempts during the past two seasons. It's safe to say he took plenty of shots.

Go back and look: that is where I entered the debate.

DeezNutz 02-11-2009 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall (Post 5480286)
You think you're right because of what a Web site says. I know this is beyond message board logic, but show me a study published in an academic journal.

All those NFL statistical studies in academic journals?

It's going to be in the upcoming issue of PMLA, rest easy.

Couple research skills with a touch of common sense.

OnTheWarpath15 02-11-2009 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall (Post 5480301)
You wouldn't get any further with the jury if you cited Pro Football Outsiders or NFL.com as evidence.

Dear God.

Sure, I'd get no where with STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that was created and maintained by the league in which these games are being played.

Statistical evidence > opinion.

Every day of the week.

You've yet to show any evidence, statistical or otherwise to back your claim.

orange 02-11-2009 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 5479663)

Brees would absolutely be destroyed behind the Pittsburgh line, throwing to the Pittsburgh receivers.

If Ben was sacked 46 times, how many times do you think Brees would have been sacked? 60? What do you think his completion percentage would have been with defenders in his face one each and every play?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480314)
What started this whole debate changed when Sam said this:



Go back and look: that is where I entered the debate.


Will you agree then that there is NO justification whatsoever for DaneMcCloud's claim?


Statistical evidence > opinion.

Every day of the week.

OnTheWarpath15 02-11-2009 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5480337)
Will you agree then that there is NO justification whatsoever for DaneMcCloud's claim?

I agree with his opinion, however, there is no way to back it up.

I wasn't part of that argument, I'm not sure why you're asking me.

orange 02-11-2009 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480358)
I agree with his opinion, however, there is no way to back it up.

I wasn't part of that argument, I'm not sure why you're asking me.

I'm asking you for a statistical breakdown to prove it or not. That's simple, isn't it? You've probably already got all the numbers right in front of you.

Sam Hall 02-11-2009 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480336)
Dear God.

Sure, I'd get no where with STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that was created and maintained by the league in which these games are being played.

Statistical evidence > opinion.

Every day of the week.

You've yet to show any evidence, statistical or otherwise to back your claim.

It's going to take researchers conducting a study and publishing it. Those Web sites can't be trusted, which we both have acknowledged.

OnTheWarpath15 02-11-2009 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5480365)
I'm asking you for a statistical breakdown to prove it or not. That's simple, isn't it?

Why should I do that work? I'm not the one making the claim.

Ask Dane to back up his claim.

OnTheWarpath15 02-11-2009 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall (Post 5480366)
It's going to take researchers conducting a study and publishing it. Those Web sites can't be trusted, which we both have acknowledged.

No, WE haven't. YOU.

NFL.com can't be trusted?

http://i43.tinypic.com/rcnb7q.jpg

orange 02-11-2009 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480369)
Why should I do that work? I'm not the one making the claim.

Ask Dane to back up his claim.

Okay, then. Here's a claim I'LL make. Drew Brees is a stud and would thrive on the Steelers - doing as well or better than Ben Rothlisberger. The numbers prove it.


So, back to Thigpen... I guess the whole point here was you can get stud quartebacks outside the first round sometimes. The fact that Thigpen wasn't a first-rounder should not be an issue now that there is actual on-field performance to evaluate.

Mr. Laz 02-11-2009 02:43 PM

not gonna read this entire fuggin thread ... but


imo there only seems to be a Thigpen fixation by the people(you know who your are) who INSIST the Thigpen can never be successful and freak out anytime anyone dares to give him the benefit of the doubt or wants to give him more time.


btw .... im pretty sure everyone of those bitches have posted a ton in this thread so if you're curious.

King_Chief_Fan 02-11-2009 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 5480408)
not gonna read this entire fuggin thread ... but


imo there only seems to be a Thigpen fixation by the people(you know who your are) who INSIST the Thigpen can never be successful and freak out anytime anyone dares to give him the benefit of the doubt or wants to give him more time.

:eek:wow, I almost missed what this is about. I thought it was all those who hail Thigpen worthy of being the QBOTF and we can start filling other holes on the team.

ClevelandBronco 02-11-2009 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange (Post 5480394)
Okay, then. Here's a claim I'LL make. Drew Brees is a stud and would thrive on the Steelers - doing as well or better than Ben Rothlisberger. The numbers prove it.


So, back to Thigpen... I guess the whole point here was you can get stud quartebacks outside the first round sometimes. The fact that Thigpen wasn't a first-rounder should not be an issue now that there is actual on-field performance to evaluate.

I agree with this idiot.

keg in kc 02-11-2009 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 5480408)
not gonna read this entire fuggin thread ...

What's your opinion on Thigpen and what they should do behind center, just out of curiousity?

blueballs 02-11-2009 03:00 PM

Thigpen and drafted QB would only compliment each other
if both worked out you'd have a wonderful problem

Mr. Laz 02-11-2009 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 5480435)
What's your opinion on Thigpen and what they should do behind center, just out of curiousity?

i had high hopes for Thigpen

the offense went from complete shit to meh as soon as he got the job AND a offensive system that didn't look like it should be in a peewee league ... R2P2

i saw some improvement from Thigpen ... he's got heart and isn't a pussy.

he needs to improve his accuracy and his deep throws

then in the last 3-4 games he seem to stop improving

will he be better with more time and with an offense that wasn't installed in the middle of the season?

we dunno

if Stafford is there a #3 then i think we have to take him because we can't afford to wait to see whether Thigpen will improve or not.

Mark Sanchez ...... i'm not at all rational about him so i withhold comment.


imo we keep Thigpen and let him compete with whomever is in camp and we just see what happens under the new coaching.

Huard and Croyle should be gone ... Huard was an asshole last year and Croyle is made of glass.

that leaves 3 Quarterback spots open for training camp

Thigpen
Veteran FA or Grey Quinn(whatever the hell is name is)
Stafford or other Draft pick
wannebe to give a shot to


may the best man win

keg in kc 02-11-2009 03:30 PM

That's pretty much the way I see it.

BigChiefFan 02-11-2009 04:01 PM

After Thigpen(the jury is still out on him), the cupboards bare. No way, the position goes unaddressed.

OnTheWarpath15 02-11-2009 04:08 PM

For the most part, we're on the same page Laz. I'm going to break your quote up to address particular comments.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 5480682)
i had high hopes for Thigpen

the offense went from complete shit to meh as soon as he got the job AND a offensive system that didn't look like it should be in a peewee league ... R2P2

i saw some improvement from Thigpen ... he's got heart and isn't a pussy.

he needs to improve his accuracy and his deep throws

then in the last 3-4 games he seem to stop improving

will he be better with more time and with an offense that wasn't installed in the middle of the season?

we dunno

Keep in mind, this offense was installed in the middle of the season because he's not capable of playing in the pro-style offense that was implemented in the offseason.

We can't use the "offense was installed in the middle of the season" excuse when HE was the reason it happened that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 5480682)
if Stafford is there a #3 then i think we have to take him because we can't afford to wait to see whether Thigpen will improve or not.

Absolutely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 5480682)
Mark Sanchez ...... i'm not at all rational about him so i withhold comment.

I respect the fact that you admit you're not rational about him, unlike the others that resort to making things up to discredit him.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 5480682)
imo we keep Thigpen and let him compete with whomever is in camp and we just see what happens under the new coaching.

Huard and Croyle should be gone ... Huard was an asshole last year and Croyle is made of glass.

that leaves 3 Quarterback spots open for training camp

Thigpen
Veteran FA or Grey Quinn(whatever the hell is name is)
Stafford or other Draft pick
wannebe to give a shot to


may the best man win


I agree, there should be a competition.

Though, I think a lot of us feel it won't be much of a competition because we don't have faith that Thigpen will be able to become proficient in a pro-style offense in a single offseason - especially when the QB's he'll be competing with have been running this system their entire careers.

NickAthanFan 02-11-2009 04:13 PM

Unless Indy would accept a conditional 3rd for Peyton (my sources say they would) we really need to address QB in the draft. I believe Thigpen is a future HOF'er, but I'd like to see him beat out Manning to prove it.

Mark M 02-11-2009 04:22 PM

Other than the humorous irony found here (someone tired of reading about Thigpen starting a thread about Thigpen), I think the reason some are okay with Thigpen is based on what is, in many respects, a fairly weak QB class this year.

Yes, there are those who are so worried about a draft bust that they'd be willing to trade out of the entire first round, let alone the #3. But what I've read from most pro-Thig people is that:

1. The offense wasn't horrific when Thig started, as compared to before.

2. The QB class this year is relatively weak compared to both the past and the 2010 possibilities.

3. There are other, more pressing needs on the team (LB, OL, DL) that could be addressed.

What I haven't read are many posts claiming that Thiggy is the next Peyton Manning -- just a servicable QB on a team with more glaring needs at the moment.

Personally, at this point I'll trust Pioli and Haley to evaluate the talent and make the right choice. If that means keeping Thig as the starter, so be it. If that means drafting a QB (at #3 or anywhere else), so be it.

Once they give me a reason to not trust them, I won't. But as of right now, I don't see why I shouldn't.

MM
~~:shrug:

OnTheWarpath15 02-11-2009 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark M (Post 5480799)
Other than the humorous irony found here (someone tired of reading about Thigpen starting a thread about Thigpen), I think the reason some are okay with Thigpen is based on what is, in many respects, a fairly weak QB class this year.

2. The QB class this year is relatively weak compared to both the past and the 2010 possibilities.

Couldn't disagree more, Mark.

There's a post of Mecca's IIRC from a few days ago where one of the experts were calling the theory of a weak QB class bullshit.

I tend to agree.

Just because the QB's behind Stafford and Sanchez are shitty, doesn't take away from their draft standing, nor should it.

The class last year had really shitty QB's after Ryan and Flacco, and they exceeded expectations.

We're talking about guys that would be ranked highly in any draft, because they have the physical tools and intangibles necessary to become elite QB's.

Mark M 02-11-2009 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480907)
Couldn't disagree more, Mark.

There's a post of Mecca's IIRC from a few days ago where one of the experts were calling the theory of a weak QB class bullshit.

I tend to agree.

Just because the QB's behind Stafford and Sanchez are shitty, doesn't take away from their draft standing, nor should it.

The class last year had really shitty QB's after Ryan and Flacco, and they exceeded expectations.

We're talking about guys that would be ranked highly in any draft, because they have the physical tools and intangibles necessary to become elite QB's.

Please note that I haven't looked that deep into the draft yet, so that wasn't necessarily my take (though it may wind up being after I do some reading this weekend and next; not sure yet). I was just noting what I've been reading and hearing from people who want to keep Thigpen.

With that being typed, isn't the verdict on Sanchez (from "experts," not CP folks ;) ) pretty much mixed? Some think he's top-pick-worthy, but I've seen quite a few that don't. So that leaves one guy -- Stafford -- who pretty much everyone agrees is a top-pick-worthy kind of guy.

So, quite frankly, I can see why some think the class isn't all that deep.

That, though, leads to the whole "Chiefs Fan Fear" thing: it seems like some who make the weak-class argument want several guys to choose from so that the odds of picking a bust are reduced. Which doesn't make a lot of sense.

For example: Say you go to a store looking for one of two things, X and Y. X is top of the line, as is Y, and you'll be perfectly happy and successful with either. If X is out of stock, do you decide to skip that top-of-the-line Y and just go with a lesser-quality, piece of crap x? Hell no! You move on and go buy the Y -- it's quality, and what you needed.

(Does that make sense to anyone other than me? Hoep so.)

Anyway, like I typed earlier: I'll just wait and see what Pioli and Haley do, and hope they actually know what the hell they're doing.

MM
~~:arrow: :D

Sam Hall 02-11-2009 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58 (Post 5480377)
No, WE haven't. YOU.

NFL.com can't be trusted?

http://i43.tinypic.com/rcnb7q.jpg

You acknowledged that opening paragraph about inconsistent scorers in the link.

Yes, NFL.com can't be trusted. Most things on the Internet can't be trusted - even news reports. And stop acting you're king shit and telling people to back up their claims with statistical evidence.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.