Chiefs What's with the Thigpen fixation? - Page 42

Mecca · 02-10-2009, 04:53 PM

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.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-10-2009, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Since 2000:

2000: # of QBs: 12.
QBs taken out of the first round: 11.
Successful QBs out of first round: 2.

2001: # of QBs 11
QBs taken out of the first round: 10
Successful QBs out of first round 1 (Drew Brees, taken in the first pick of the second round)

2002: # of QBs: 15
QBs taken out of the first round: 13
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 1 (David Garrard...wow)

2003: # of QBs: 13
QBs taken out of the first round: 11
Successful QBs taken out of the first round: 0

So, in those four years, we have 51 QBs taken, 45 of which were out of the first round. Of those 45, 3 were decent QBs, 1 was a Hall of Famer.

Clearly, a success rate of 8.9% is better than 33%, especially given that players in other positions never bust, like you know, left tackle.

If anyone else wants to do '04-'08, feel free.

While those numbers are compelling and no doubt first round QBs succeed at a higher clip because they are rated by scouts to be the top QBs in a given draft, you have to realize that you're dealing with a severely, severely skewed sample.

How many 4th round picks could have played as poorly as Eli Manning or Harrington or Carr or Leftwich, etc... for as long as they did and still keep their job? The reason first round QBs tend to succeed at a far higher rate is because most of them are given 2-3 years to work everything out, whereas a 3rd round QB or lower would be lucky to get more than 6 games to prove himself.

Just Passin' By · 02-10-2009, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I guess you missed the part where we were talking about successful QB's taken outside the 1st round.

Derek Anderson went to a Pro Bowl, which is more than Brady Quinn has done. For crying out loud, I credited Eli Manning as a "stud" quarterback in order to be generous about these guys.

**DeezNutz** · 02-10-2009, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

While those numbers are compelling and no doubt first round QBs succeed at a higher clip because they are rated by scouts to be the top QBs in a given draft, you have to realize that you're dealing with a severely, severely skewed sample.

How many 4th round picks could have played as poorly as Eli Manning or Harrington or Carr or Leftwich, etc... for as long as they did and still keep their job? The reason first round QBs tend to succeed at a far higher rate is because most of them are given 2-3 years to work everything out, whereas a 3rd round QB or lower would be lucky to get more than 6 games to prove himself.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-10-2009, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Derek Anderson went to a Pro Bowl, which is more than Brady Quinn has done. For crying out loud, I credited Eli Manning as a "stud" quarterback in order to be generous about these guys.

When the Pro Bowl is no longer a popularity contest voted on by dumbass fans like yourself, I'll start letting it carry some weight.

Until then, Derek Anderson is still nothing more than a QB that has had one decent year.

That's not successful in my book.

**DeezNutz** · 02-10-2009, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Derek Anderson went to a Pro Bowl, which is more than Brady Quinn has done. For crying out loud, I credited Eli Manning as a "stud" quarterback in order to be generous about these guys.

Good grief. More than Quinn has ever done? Yeah, in his whole 3 (?) games of starting experience...

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-10-2009, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorMikH

I guess my responding question to the "Anti-Thigpen" crowd is...

Do you really, really like either Stafford or Sanches and think that player is who we need, or are do you just want a first round draft pick QB so bad that you will take one of these two 'cause they are the best that's available?

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.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-10-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Derek Anderson went to a Pro Bowl, which is more than Brady Quinn has done. For crying out loud, I credited Eli Manning as a "stud" quarterback in order to be generous about these guys.

And Roy Williams the Safety went to a Pro Bowl, and he's one of the five worst strong safeties in the league.

**doomy3** · 02-10-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

When the Pro Bowl is no longer a popularity contest voted on by dumbass fans like yourself, I'll start letting it carry some weight.

But again, the point is that when someone is a first round or "Franchise" Pro Bowl QB, it means something entirely different. Again, Vince Young was said not to be a bust because he had made a Pro Bowl.

Earlier in this thread, I was called a moron, because I stated that Jake Delhomme and Matt Hasselbeck are average NFL starting QBs IMO. The reasoning is because they are Pro Bowl QBs.

Just Passin' By · 02-10-2009, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

When the Pro Bowl is no longer a popularity contest voted on by dumbass fans like yourself, I'll start letting it carry some weight.

I've seen your arguments on this thread. Being a dumbass would be a step up for you.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-10-2009, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doomy3

But again, the point is that when someone is a first round or "Franchise" Pro Bowl QB, it means something entirely different. Again, Vince Young was said not to be a bust because he had made a Pro Bowl.

Earlier in this thread, I was called a moron, because I stated that Jake Delhomme and Matt Hasselbeck are average NFL starting QBs IMO. The reasoning is because they are Pro Bowl QBs.

Who said VY wasn't a bust?

**doomy3** · 02-10-2009, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Who said VY wasn't a bust?

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

**DeezNutz** · 02-10-2009, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doomy3

But again, the point is that when someone is a first round or "Franchise" Pro Bowl QB, it means something entirely different. Again, Vince Young was said not to be a bust because he had made a Pro Bowl.

Earlier in this thread, I was called a moron, because I stated that Jake Delhomme and Matt Hasselbeck are average NFL starting QBs IMO. The reasoning is because they are Pro Bowl QBs.

For the record, I'm with you on the Harrington deal.

This whole, "average," "above-average" discussion has gotten way out of whack in some respects.

**doomy3** · 02-10-2009, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

For the record, I'm with you on the Harrington deal.

This whole, "average," "above-average" discussion has gotten way out of whack in some respects.

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.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-10-2009, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I've seen your arguments on this thread. Being a dumbass would be a step up for you.

And the great slayer of the hopelessly uninformed shall commence:

Please explain, with pointed examples.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-10-2009, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

I've seen your arguments on this thread. Being a dumbass would be a step up for you.

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.

02-10-2009, 04:53 PM
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-742950	What's with the Thigpen fixation? 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.
Posts: 115,387