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

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.

Man, I just don't see anyway to classify Harrington as an average NFL QB. He has been a monumental bust in the 3 spot IMO.

And on the Anderson thing, here is my point. In 2007, he had a really nice year. People really didn't give a shit because he was a fluke, 6th round pick. That will probably all come true, although Mangini says he hasn't decided who will start between him and Quinn.

Statistically, he was very comparable to Ryan's 08. No one even gives that a shot to be a fluke with Ryan. I don't think it will be either, but being drafted in the first round gives a QB so much more credence.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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.

Nice backtrack.

You're not fooling anyone.

[Just Passin' By]

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.

Now, I can agree that the best odds of finding a franchise QB is to use first round picks to get one. However, the question for Chiefs fans (and Pioli, of course) is whether or not any quarterback that will be available at #3 in this year's draft is going to be that franchise quarterback. If you think the answer is "yes", you draft the quarterback. However, if you think the answer is "no", you draft another position. Taking a quarterback at #3 just because you're there is something a Matt Millen would do.

Frankly, I'm stunned that people here actually attack others for having such an obvious position.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Nice backtrack.

You're not fooling anyone.

Read my post on it, slick.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Now, I can agree that the best odds of finding a franchise QB is to use first round picks to get one. However, the question for Chiefs fans (and Pioli, of course) is whether or not any quarterback that will be available at #3 in this year's draft is going to be that franchise quarterback. If you think the answer is "yes", you draft the quarterback. However, if you think the answer is "no", you draft another position. Taking a quarterback at #3 just because you're there is something a Matt Millen would do.

Frankly, I'm stunned that people here actually attack others for having such an obvious position.

I'm fine with everything in this post.

Lucky for us, there are two high-quality QB prospects in this draft. I'm great with either at the #3 spot.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by 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.

Pastor, I'll promise you this:

We could draft Stafford or Sanchez and they could be worse than the love child of David Carr and Akili Smith - and I'll NEVER be asking for Thigpen to come back into the game.

You're right, though. This fanbase on the whole has no patience for any player to pan out, QB included.

Look at all the people declaring Glenn Dorsey a bust after 1 season.

You take the guy, and if he busts, you go back out and try again.

But without a true franchise QB, we'll never win anything.

[PastorMikH]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Pastor, I'll promise you this:

We could draft Stafford or Sanchez and they could be worse than the love child of David Carr and Akili Smith - and I'll NEVER be asking for Thigpen to come back into the game.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Now, I can agree that the best odds of finding a franchise QB is to use first round picks to get one. However, the question for Chiefs fans (and Pioli, of course) is whether or not any quarterback that will be available at #3 in this year's draft is going to be that franchise quarterback. If you think the answer is "yes", you draft the quarterback. However, if you think the answer is "no", you draft another position. Taking a quarterback at #3 just because you're there is something a Matt Millen would do.

Frankly, I'm stunned that people here actually attack others for having such an obvious position.

There is nothing to disagree with here.

[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.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Read my post on it, slick.

I did, and we ALL know what you meant.

You should go back to the kiddie table over at WPI and quit wasting the grown-ups' time.

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

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.

All I'm saying is that this isn't really about trends or which rounds it's best to get what position, it's about whether people think Sanchez, Stafford, Thigpen or somebody else should be behind center. The rest of the stuff is just window dressing.

And I think there's even an undercurrent argument about whether the team even needs a franchise quarterback. It's almost like people don't want to say what they really think, so they're cloaking it in all this other stuff.

[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.

[beach tribe]

Originally Posted by '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.

Body Builder huh? I'm really needing to start working out. My excuse is 2 jobs, and one of them is late night, but it is just that, an excuse. I have the time. I even started two months ago gained some good muscle, and then just fell off. Any pionters on how to stick with ti. Nevermind. I know it's just a choice, and discipline thing. I've gotta keep trying. I spent the first 26 yrs of my life doing hard labor. Then I go an education, and I sit on my ass all day. I've gotten tired, and weak. I MUST KEEP DOING IT.

[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.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I did, and we ALL know what you meant.

You should go back to the kiddie table over at WPI and quit wasting the grown-ups' time.

What are you, about 5 years old? Eli Manning has been a major disappointment throughout most of his career, but I put him in the "stud" category to be generous with my ratings of the first round quarterbacks, and you're going to bitch at me because I put Anderson in the 'successful' category? Man, you're an ass.