What's with the Thigpen fixation?

[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 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.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

They're not excuses. You throw out a statistic claiming for an absolute fact that first round QBs succeed at a higher rate, but you leave out the part about how they are given a ton more opportunities than a lower-round pick will get.

Like I said, yes, first round picks would succeed at a higher rate no matter what. But leaving out the part about how almost every first round QB is guaranteed to start at least 2-3 years if they stay healthy means that the claim is highly exaggerated. You're comparing apples to oranges--you're comparing guys who were given opportunities to guys who have not.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

They're not excuses. You throw out a statistic claiming for an absolute fact that first round QBs succeed at a higher rate, but you leave out the part about how they are given a ton more opportunities than a lower-round pick will get.

Like I said, yes, first round picks would succeed at a higher rate no matter what. But leaving out the part about how almost every first round QB is guaranteed to start at least 2-3 years if they stay healthy means that the claim is highly exaggerated. You're comparing apples to oranges--you're comparing guys who were given opportunities to guys who have not.

See my beautiful dick-slamming post.

No one wants a sore dick. All QB's are not created equally. Time is not going to heal all the wounds of rounds 3-7.

Hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which fills up faster.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

See my beautiful dick-slamming post.

No one wants a sore dick. All QB's are not created equally. Time is not going to heal all the wounds of rounds 3-7.

Hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which fills up faster.

No, I read it, and I recognize that first round QBs will likely succeed at a higher rate. But why is it that QBs bust at such an astronomically higher rate than other positions, including left tackle and DE, which are also difficult to draft for? It's because DEs can still get a chance to play, even if they're not a starter. Many of them eventually prove themselves. Most lower round QBs leave the NFL without taking a single meaningful snap in their NFL careers. My point is, how can you claim that QB was a bust without ever seeing how he would perform in a real NFL game? You can't. All you can do is make the ASSUMPTION that because he was a lower round QB, he wouldn't have succeeded anyway. And yes, OTW brings up that there are some lower round QBs who do get opportunities, but those are the exception, not the rule. If we had 20 QBs in the lower round starting in the NFL, then we can make an apples to apples comparison.

The point is not to say that lower round picks have high success rates. Or it does not deny that they are riskier to support. But OTW would have you believe that first round picks are astronomically better bets to become franchise QBs because the numbers overwhelmingly support that assumption. My claim is that you simply do not KNOW what most lower round picks are capable of unless you put them out on the field and you give them a full season of work to prove themselves. I understand the reason why most teams won't do that. But I can guarantee you that the success rate of lower round picks would skyrocket if they were all given a chance to start for the 2-3 years that first round Qbs are typically given.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

They're not excuses. You throw out a statistic claiming for an absolute fact that first round QBs succeed at a higher rate, but you leave out the part about how they are given a ton more opportunities than a lower-round pick will get.

Like I said, yes, first round picks would succeed at a higher rate no matter what. But leaving out the part about how almost every first round QB is guaranteed to start at least 2-3 years if they stay healthy means that the claim is highly exaggerated. You're comparing apples to oranges--you're comparing guys who were given opportunities to guys who have not.

Uh, look at the list in my post.

There are plenty of late round guys that are getting, or have gotten plenty of time.

You're trying to say that all late round picks get 6 games max to show something, and that's absolute bullshit.

You also seem to be implying that is every late round slapdick was given 3 years to prove himself, the numbers would be different.

I'm not buying it.

You can give a guy like Jeff Smoker 10 years, and he's never going to turn into Peyton Manning.

All you've done in the meantime is waste 9 years.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Uh, look at the list in my post.

There are plenty of late round guys that are getting, or have gotten plenty of time.

You're trying to say that all late round picks get 6 games max to show something, and that's absolute bullshit.

I'm not saying that all late round QBs do. If I did, that was not my intention. My point is that most late round QBs will never get a chance to start unless a first round pick QB gets hurt, and most late round picks are only given usually a half season to show any kind of success.

Schaub and Garrard got extra playing time because they were impressive in backup roles, after their starting QB got injured. If any of them put up Eli Manning rookie numbers, no way in hell would they ever get more than a season to prove themselves. Just because you point out a few examples, does not make it a trend. Those are only a few of the lower-round pick QBs who were given a chance to play in extended time.

[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.