What's with the Thigpen fixation?

[Mecca]

Now I fully admit it isn't as bad as I thought it was going to be on this forum but I've yet to figure out this fixation with him. It's really bad at some other unnamed forums..

I honestly have no way of comprehending what it's about. It's like everything people said about Croyle has now been lumped onto Thigpen. "Well um he's the guy we don't need another QB"

The worst part is the people who don't want a QB this year then say well if Thigpen doesn't work out we can just take Bradford or McCoy, it's like peoples brains fell out.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Whatever you say, genius.

I'm not the ****tard that thinks Derek Anderson is a better QB than Brady Quinn, just because Quinn wasn't able to get an invite to the Pro Bowl based on his 3 career starts.

And I don't either.

But I still have a problem with only using the Pro Bowl or a successful NFL season as a positive barometer if said QB was drafted in the first round.

[keg in kc]

Everybody's still lost sight of the real issue:

Is Thigpen a franchise quarterback?

If someone says yes then there's no reason for them to discuss anyone other than him.

If the answer is no then the next question is whether we need to find a franchise QB, and, if so, where we would do so.

The rest of this in-depth draft analysis and number crunching is pretty much ancillary. Is Thigpen the answer? Is Stafford the answer? Is Sanchez the answer? Is someone else the answer? And some people may ask if we even need an answer at all.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by doomy3

yeah, I don't get it at all. People on this board would go freaking nuts if we ended up with a guy like Harrington with out #3 pick.

In some ways, he's a difficult example because he seems more committed to stroking a piano than working on his game.

Hard to tell if he's just a bitch, or a player beaten to a pulp by a shitty team and organization.

Chicken or the egg? Either way, you're right.

We don't wants us no Harrington.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

We heard this a lot from the Croyle people last year.

First rounders are given all the opportunities because they, generally, have the necessary tool set. Lower round choices, with notable exceptions, generally do not.

You could give Croyle 10 years, and he'd get hurt every single one (by "one" I mean games, every ****ing one). You could give Thigpen 5 years and he still couldn't execute a 5-step drop. Oh...wait.

I keed. Sort of.

While I understand that first rounders will likely succeed at a higher clip, the implication made on this thread is that lower round QBs don't usually succeed in the NFL and that's damning proof against them. My point being is, if lower round QBs are never given more than a half-season to perform (if even that), how do we have any idea what they could have been capable of?

I would have to imagine that if more lower-round QBs were given the time and patience that QBs like Harrington and Leftwich got, you would see a far higher success rate. But they don't. That's just the nature of the game. It's an understandable decision, but realize that it's an unfair statement to make that lower round QBs fail at such a high rate because they aren't any good. Most of them fail because they were never given a chance to prove one way or the other.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by doomy3

Dane. Also, that Joey Harrington wasn't a bust.

Gotta disagree with him on VY.

However, I'd agree with him on Harrington.

Has he been a disappointment based on his draft slot?

Absolutely.

But to call a guy who has 15,000 yards in 6 seasons (4 of them in Hell) a bust is reaching, IMO.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by doomy3

And I don't either.

But I still have a problem with only using the Pro Bowl or a successful NFL season as a positive barometer if said QB was drafted in the first round.

Who's doing that?

I'm confused. Maybe I missed a side conversation or something.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I'd love to continue this, but I'm going to go to the gym.

As evidenced by the great examples in this thread, since I am going to lift weights, and I am one, physical human being, I also have the same chance of winning the Mr. Olympia as Arnold did in 1975.

With that, I will let you know about the greatest thing about lifting weights:

The greatest feeling you can get in a gym, or the most satisfying feeling you can get in the gym is... The Pump. Let's say you train your biceps. Blood is rushing into your muscles and that's what we call The Pump. You muscles get a really tight feeling, like your skin is going to explode any minute, and it's really tight - it's like somebody blowing air into it, into your muscle. It just blows up, and it feels really different. It feels fantastic. It's as satisfying to me as, uh, coming is, you know? As, ah, having sex with a woman and coming. And so can you believe how much I am in heaven? I am like, uh, getting the feeling of coming in a gym, I'm getting the feeling of coming at home, I'm getting the feeling of coming backstage when I pump up, when I pose in front of 5,000 people, I get the same feeling, so I am coming day and night. I mean, it's terrific. Right? So you know, I am in heaven.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Whatever you say, genius.

I'm not the ****tard that thinks Derek Anderson is a better QB than Brady Quinn, just because Quinn wasn't able to get an invite to the Pro Bowl based on his 3 career starts.

I didn't say he was better, did I? Are you so ridiculously set in your position that you can't even grasp another angle? Anderson has been more successful to date than Quinn has.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

Everybody's still lost sight of the real issue:

Is Thigpen a franchise quarterback?

If someone says yes then there's no reason for them to discuss anyone other than him.

If the answer is no then the next question is whether we need to find a franchise QB, and, if so, where we would do so.

The rest of this in-depth draft analysis and number crunching is pretty much ancillary. Is Thigpen the answer? Is Stafford the answer? Is Sanchez the answer? Is someone else the answer?

I don't think we've lost sight of anything at all.

The number crunching has been the evidence to prove that you have the best odds of finding a franchise QB early in the draft. Period.

Whether or not Thigpen is a franchise QB isn't worth discussing, IMO.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Who's doing that?

I'm confused. Maybe I missed a side conversation or something.

Earlier in this thread I was called a moron for calling a couple QBs who have played in the Pro Bowl as average NFL starting QBs. It's too far back to try to find.

[PastorMikH]

I guess another thing that is on my mind about this issue isn't the name of the player, its that if we are going to develop a young QB, it's going to take TIME. It won't happen in preseason, it won't happen in Sept, probably won't even happen by december, it might take a couple of seasons before that young QB starts playing like the QB everyone was wanting.

I don't think too many KC fans can live with that scenario. I read (and responded to) on the Planet in the last week where someone said they wrote Thigpen off in NY because he couldn't take the team down the field in the last minute for the win - in his second career start. John Horseface probably couldn't have done it in his second start.

It took Trent Green a full season and into his second before he settled down and quit throwing INTs every other throw.

The Titans had their high first round draft pick QB - booed him off the field, Vince couldn't handle it and went mental.


In KC, if we were to draft Stafford, this place would light up in celebration. Then, when he starts to struggle, people are going to start murmmering. If he's struggling in the regular season and turning the ball over people are going to be complaining. If he keeps it up, some of the same people bashing Thigpen will be asking for him to play. And, by the time the year is out, many will be disgusted with Stafford, Haley, Pioli, and Clark.

It takes time for any player to make the jump to the NFL, QB is probably the one that takes the longest and requires the most patience. No matter who Clark, Pioli, and Haley (or is that Pioli, Clark, and Haley) think is our best option at QB, if it is a young QB, we've got to be patient when they make mistakes, and if they lose games for us, oh well. If they are still losing games for us in 3-4 years, we didn't pick the right guy.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

While I understand that first rounders will likely succeed at a higher clip, the implication made on this thread is that lower round QBs don't usually succeed in the NFL and that's damning proof against them. My point being is, if lower round QBs are never given more than a half-season to perform (if even that), how do we have any idea what they could have been capable of?

I would have to imagine that if more lower-round QBs were given the time and patience that QBs like Harrington and Leftwich got, you would see a far higher success rate. But they don't. That's just the nature of the game. It's an understandable decision, but realize that it's an unfair statement to make that lower round QBs fail at such a high rate because they aren't any good. Most of them fail because they were never given a chance to prove one way or the other.

I call bullshit on this "given half a season to perform" bullshit.

If you have talent, you get more time.

Ask Matt Schaub, Trent Edwards and David Garrard, as some examples.

Guys like Bulger and Hasselebeck bounced around, but got their chance. They kept showing enough to stick around, and not wash out of the league completely.

Guys like Chris Simms and Brodie Croyle would have gotten several seasons had they been able to stay healthy.

You're making excuses.

[PastorMikH]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

My Stafford Treatise:

1. He has three years of starting experience in the SEC
2. He comes from a pro offense
3. He knows how to read a defense, and can audible into advantageous plays, recognizes the blitz
4. He's willing to get pounded and get back up
5. He's mobile
6. He has good mechanics
7. He has unbelievable arm strength
8. He's played with a very marginal OL this year with three freshmen on it, and receivers who can't get separation, so he has to make NFL throws to get them the ball, he's not lobbing a rainbow up to a WR with 5 yards of separation.
9. He's a leader and he's been under intense scrutiny since he was 16 years old.
10. He's improved every year in college, despite having less and less talent around him to work with.

Other than that...nothing.

I have no problem with that. You are looking at a guy you think will make it, not just hoping for a QB selection.

If I had to take one of the two, Stafford would be it.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I don't think we've lost sight of anything at all.

The number crunching has been the evidence to prove that you have the best odds of finding a franchise QB early in the draft. Period.

Whether or not Thigpen is a franchise QB isn't worth discussing, IMO.

But again, those numbers are skewed. So you can't put a "period" behind the statement simply because the numbers are available. Yes, first round picks are more likely to be franchise QBs. But again, I'd be interested to review the average number of starts every first round QB has had. My guess is that the majority of first round QBs have had at least 2-3 seasons to develop.

No 3rd round QB would EVER get the amount of time to develop that Eli Manning got. I understand the reasons why. But if they don't get the same opportunities, it's not a fair comparison to say that a 3rd round pick is 100 times less likely to succeed than a 1st round QB.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

While I understand that first rounders will likely succeed at a higher clip, the implication made on this thread is that lower round QBs don't usually succeed in the NFL and that's damning proof against them. My point being is, if lower round QBs are never given more than a half-season to perform (if even that), how do we have any idea what they could have been capable of?

I would have to imagine that if more lower-round QBs were given the time and patience that QBs like Harrington and Leftwich got, you would see a far higher success rate. But they don't. That's just the nature of the game. It's an understandable decision, but realize that it's an unfair statement to make that lower round QBs fail at such a high rate because they aren't any good. Most of them fail because they were never given a chance to prove one way or the other.

I understand what you're trying to say. Really, I do.

But my point is that there's a reason why these guys aren't given as many opportunities; teams don't like slamming their dicks up against a wall.

Every once in a great while, some team's dick punctures the dry wall on a miraculous wet spot, known as Tom Brady, and unbelievable jizzing ensues, which causes all teams (and fans) to think, "If we'd only been slamming our dicks against the wall. We, too, could be pumping gallons of jizz."

But this is flawed logic. 9.9 times out of 10, you're just going to get a sore dick.