Chiefs What's with the Thigpen fixation? - Page 45

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 · 02-11-2009, 12:20 AM

Quote:

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.

beach tribe · 02-11-2009, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorMikH

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.

Me too, but I think Stafford will be good as well.

PastorMikH · 02-11-2009, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

Me too, but I think Stafford will be good as well.

There's no way Stafford gets by Detroit.

(Unless you can convince the Chiefs to trade LJ to Detroit for that top spot, then convince Detroit to do it)

keg in kc · 02-11-2009, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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

I'm thinking this may be the first time in a decade or longer that that may not be the case. With a new GM and a new head coach taking so much of the focus, I don't think there will be as much pressure or expectation on a new QB.

I bet if a high draft pick came in and had a season (statistically) that fell somewhere between Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan (ie 2500-3500 yards, 60% completions, decent TD/INT ratio), there wouldn't be much in the way of complaint at all, even if the team didn't win a lot of games.

But I've been wrong before.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

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.

Thanks for confirming.

I knew you came over from WPI.

And how do you consider Manning a disappointment?

Never under 3,200 yards, and never more INT's than TD's in his 4 years as a starter.

Oh, and he has a SB ring too.

**doomy3** · 02-11-2009, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorMikH

There's no way Stafford gets by Detroit.

(Unless you can convince the Chiefs to trade LJ to Detroit for that top spot, then convince Detroit to do it)

THere is a better chance of us drafting both Stafford and Sanchez at #3 than Detroit trading out of #1 for LJ.

chiefzilla1501 · 02-11-2009, 12:27 AM

Quote:

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** · 02-11-2009, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I'm thinking this may be the first time in a decade or longer that that may not be the case. With a new GM and a new head coach taking so much of the focus, I don't think there will be as much pressure or expectation on a new QB.

I bet if a high draft pick came in and had a season (statistically) that fell somewhere between Joe Flacco and Matt Ryan (ie 2500-3500 yards, 60% completions, decent TD/INT ratio), there wouldn't be much in the way of complaint at all, even if the team didn't win a lot of games.

But I've been wrong before.

Among hardcore fans like you and I?

Of course not, we'd be thrilled. We understand it's a progression, and will take time.

Among the casual/True Fans?

Go check the other boards, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

PastorMikH · 02-11-2009, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

And how do you consider Manning a disappointment?

.

Reports were saying the NY fans weren't too happy with Eli leading up to the SB run year. That may be where he gets it.

NY fans are pretty tough to please too.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PastorMikH

Reports were saying the NY fans weren't too happy with Eli leading up to the SB run year. That may be where he gets it.

NY fans are pretty tough to please too.

New York fans are reeruned, but that's for another thread.

beach tribe · 02-11-2009, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Among fans like you and I?

Of course not, we'd be thrilled.

Among the casual/True Fans?

Go check the other boards, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

You know these dumbasses will pin all wins, and losses on the QB.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beach tribe

You know these dumbasses will pin all wins, and losses on the QB.

Losses? I agree.

Wins?

Hell, we have people HERE that don't give Roethlisberger any credit for winning 2 SB's, much less the mouthbreathers on the other boards.

There's a guy on one of the other boards who thinks Trent Green is better than Carson Palmer, and that Sage Rosenfels would be a backup to Thigpen.

I think this kind of dipshittery speaks for itself:

Just Passin' By · 02-11-2009, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Thanks for confirming.

I knew you came over from WPI.

And how do you consider Manning a disappointment?

Never under 3,200 yards, and never more INT's than TD's in his 4 years as a starter.

Oh, and he has a SB ring too.

Genius.... I don't have anything to do with WPI. I've never even visited the place, although I've read some of the threads where you people have pounded that site.

Now, let's compare Anderson and Manning:

Anderson: 43 touchdowns, 35 interceptions, which is a 1.228/1 ratio
Manning: 98 touchdowns, 74 interceptions, which is a 1.324/1 ratio

Anderson's career passer rating is 75.1, Manning's is 76.1

Anderson's career average is 6.7 yards per attempt, Manning's is 6.4 ypa

Anderson's career TD% is 4.6, Manning's is 4.3
Anderson's career INT% is 3.8, Manning's is 3.2

Their stats are pretty comparable, and Anderson's done it on a far worse team.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

Genius.... I don't have anything to do with WPI. I've never even visited the place, although I've read some of the threads where you people have pounded that site.

Now, let's compare Anderson and Manning:

Anderson: 43 touchdowns, 35 interceptions, which is a 1.228/1 ratio
Manning: 98 touchdowns, 74 interceptions, which is a 1.324/1 ratio

Anderson's career passer rating is 75.1, Manning's is 76.1

Anderson's career average is 6.7 yards per attempt, Manning's is 6.4 ypa

Anderson's career TD% is 4.6, Manning's is 4.3
Anderson's career INT% is 3.8, Manning's is 3.2

Their stats are pretty comparable, and Anderson's done it on a far worse team.

No, their stats AREN'T comparable, because Manning has done that over FOUR seasons, and has won a CHAMPIONSHIP, while Anderson has done that over 1 season.

Here's Eli's stats:

Know what I see there?

Consistency, and a guy who's taken a beating. (And a Championship)

Here's Anderson's:

Know what I see there?

1 solid season, sandwiched between 2 garbage seasons.

Sorry, but you have to be missing some crucial part of the critical thinking process if you think Eli Manning has been a disappointment, and Derek Anderson has been a success.

And with that, I'm off to bed.

keg in kc · 02-11-2009, 12:56 AM

I don't know that I'd want Eli Manning or Derek Anderson either one.

I would consider Manning a disappointment, for what that's worth. I think he's been pedestrian to this point in his career, although he showed some signs in '08, at least statistically. I've never been particularly impressed by his play, and I think the Chargers made out like bandits on that deal.

02-10-2009, 04:53 PM
Mecca Hockey Town Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Kansas City, Missouri Casino cash: $-722950	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: 115,380

02-11-2009, 12:56 AM	#675
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	I don't know that I'd want Eli Manning or Derek Anderson either one. I would consider Manning a disappointment, for what that's worth. I think he's been pedestrian to this point in his career, although he showed some signs in '08, at least statistically. I've never been particularly impressed by his play, and I think the Chargers made out like bandits on that deal.
Posts: 58,682