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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Smed1065

23 Pittsburgh Steelers
3 Pittsburgh Steelers
10 Pittsburgh Steelers
5 Pittsburgh Steelers
2 Pittsburgh Steelers

Last 6 years.

So top 10 rushing teams in 4 of 5 last years and both were on Ben?

My bad on 2008.

I was talking about 2008. Not prior years.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I guess you're in love with the prettiest girl at the dance.

Good for you.

Yeah, I guess so.

Give me Brees at #3 anyday of the week over Roethlisberger.

And I like Big Ben.

[keg in kc]

Everybody loves an underdog.

[Smed1065]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

23 was the 49ers.

22 was the Steelers.

From NFL.com.

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorysta...2&d-447263-n=1

[Sam Hall]

Big Ben is one of the league's best, but the Steelers defense is more important. Put it all together and the Steelers have another championship.

People get mad when other posters cite one game to prove a point, then they turn around and do it themselves. That's an example of taking the argument too far.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by doomy3

No, I'm actually very surprised about that. You usually seem to base things more on individual play when evaluating players, and typically I agree with your assessments more than anyone else on here.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've been pretty hard on Ben in the past.

But two Sunday's ago really opened my eyes.

When they need a play, he makes it. He's clutch. He won't win with style points, but he wins.

[Smed1065]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I was talking about 2008. Not prior years.

So rings is singular?

"2. Ben Rothlisberger isn't worthy of his Super Bowl rings and anyone could have won with their defense?"

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

In the interest of full disclosure, I've been pretty hard on Ben in the past.

But two Sunday's ago really opened my eyes.

When they need a play, he makes it. He's clutch. He won't win with style points, but he wins.

I agree on the clutch component. But his entire career he's been blessed with one of the best defenses in the NFL.

Quite simply, Big Ben is clutch because his defense puts him in opportunities to win when it matters most. They do so by protecting leads, covering up when Ben makes a mistake late in the game, and by making stops when they matter most (most of the time). Big Ben can win lots of games despite a 17-point performance. Brees or Thigpen score 17 points and they are clobbered. I just have to question if Big Ben could possibly play on a team that features a defense as poor as New Orleans. While playing for Pittsburgh demands that you be clutch in the 4th quarter, playing in New Orleans demands that you be perfect and flawless for the first 3 or else the game falls out of reach in a hurry.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

So who would you pick between Brady or Ben?

Wow. That's tough.

As it stands RIGHT NOW, Ben.

This is considering Brady's knee, not knowing how that will effect him in later seasons.

Before Brady's injury, I'd go Brady - though they really are almost identical when it comes to leadership qualities and the ability to almost will their teams to win - I take Brady because he's got one more ring.

[Smed1065]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

In the interest of full disclosure, I've been pretty hard on Ben in the past.

But two Sunday's ago really opened my eyes.

When they need a play, he makes it. He's clutch. He won't win with style points, but he wins.

Agree.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

You still treat the NFL game like math.

Was it rational for the Cards to go to the Superbowl?

And you guys treat the Chiefs like the first girl you ever had a crush on. All hope, no logic.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

And you guys treat the Chiefs like the first girl you ever had a crush on. All hope, no logic.

Love the new sig.

Not as good as "The rice of passage", IMO, but solid.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Wow. That's tough.

As it stands RIGHT NOW, Ben.

This is considering Brady's knee, not knowing how that will effect him in later seasons.

Before Brady's injury, I'd go Brady - though they really are almost identical when it comes to leadership qualities and the ability to almost will their teams to win - I take Brady because he's got one more ring.

But I think the big distinction is that Brady has been phenomenal throwing to receivers like Deion Branch, and even one season throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney who I believe are now mopping floors at a 7-11. Brady's also continued to win games even though his offense has progressively gotten worse--arguably, when the Pats almost pulled off a win against Indy a few years ago, the Pats had a slightly above average defense at best.

I like Big Ben too. But I think he is clearly a product of the team he is on. For as good as he is, he makes a ton of mistakes and throws a lot more INTs than the average QB, and doesn't make up for it with a ton of TDs. I still believe that Brady could take any team to the Super Bowl, but Ben wouldn't without a top 5 defense. Just my opinion.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Wow. That's tough.

As it stands RIGHT NOW, Ben.

This is considering Brady's knee, not knowing how that will effect him in later seasons.

Before Brady's injury, I'd go Brady - though they really are almost identical when it comes to leadership qualities and the ability to almost will their teams to win - I take Brady because he's got one more ring.

I know what you mean because prior to this season this was a no brainer and I would have laughed at someone for asking this question.

Now after his gutsy performance in the SB I think it is a legitimate argument because Ben is still fairly young and could improve quite a bit.

Tough choice, I would probably just flip a coin and be happy either way.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I agree on the clutch component. But his entire career he's been blessed with one of the best defenses in the NFL.

Quite simply, Big Ben is clutch because his defense puts him in opportunities to win when it matters most. They do so by protecting leads, covering up when Ben makes a mistake late in the game, and by making stops when they matter most (most of the time). Big Ben can win lots of games despite a 17-point performance. Brees or Thigpen score 17 points and they are clobbered. I just have to question if Big Ben could possibly play on a team that features a defense as poor as New Orleans. While playing for Pittsburgh demands that you be clutch in the 4th quarter, playing in New Orleans demands that you be perfect and flawless for the first 3 or else the game falls out of reach in a hurry.

That's the 'aikman doesn't belong in the hall of fame' argument. Problem is, you can say the same thing for every championship-winning QB in history. They've all had the benefit of great teams around them. Because that's exactly what it takes to win.

And Thigpen doesn't really even belong in this discussion. I'm not the world's biggest Brees fan, but he's a whole echelon above Thigpen. Maybe he'll develop into somebody that we can talk about in that context in four or five years, but his name shouldn't even be mentioned with the others at this point.