Chiefs What's with the Thigpen fixation? - Page 53

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.

**DeezNutz** · 02-11-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I can, and will, because that's exactly what the stats show happened.

When you take the data that's already been posted, and then add that he was only sacked once in each of the games against the opponents you just listed (except the 2nd Carolina game, he was sacked twice) it sure looks to me that the stats are staying extremely consistent.

Say you're wrong! Say you're wrong!

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doomy3

I still don't think he has been proven wrong. AFAIK, he has said that Brees took AS MANY hits as BR, not more. I don't see how that can be proven false. This whole thing got started when posters began saying that Brees would break in two playing in Pittsburgh. I still don't see how that is an absolute statement. It's not like BR took twice as many hits as Brees or somthing. And again, a large portion of those hits BR took were because he holds onto the ball too long.

Actually, go back and re-read the thread. He just recently changed his tune to admit they may have taken an equal number of hits. (which is also incorrect)

I've statistically already proven that wrong with the data that has been given.

Quote:

Even if you take "hits" out of the equation for BR, since he's not on the list and we don't have a solid number...

Brees took contact on 55 of 635 pass attempts. Or contact every 11.5 pass attempts.

Assuming BR NEVER got hit OTHER than sacks, he had contact on 46 of 469 attempts. Or contact every 10.2 attempts.

So, Roethlisberger took more contact per attempt on SACKS ALONE, than Brees did with sacks and hits combined.

keg in kc · 02-11-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doomy3

I still don't think he has been proven wrong. AFAIK, he has said that Brees took AS MANY hits as BR, not more. I don't see how that can be proven false. This whole thing got started when posters began saying that Brees would break in two playing in Pittsburgh. I still don't see how that is an absolute statement. It's not like BR took twice as many hits as Brees or somthing. And again, a large portion of those hits BR took were because he holds onto the ball too long.

It means BR was hit as much as Brees in nearly 200 fewer pass attempts.

I don't think Brees would have broken in half either, but it's kind of a silly thing to argue about. Trying to use stats and hard date to prove a fantasy (as in make-believe, not fantasy football) situation.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Say you're wrong! Say you're wrong!

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

It means BR was hit as much as Brees in nearly 200 fewer pass attempts.

I don't think Brees would have broken in half either, but it's kind of a silly thing to argue about. Trying to use stats and hard date to prove a fantasy (as in make-believe, not fantasy football) situation.

No, it means BR was hit as much as Brees in nearly 200 fewer pass attempts, ASSUMING he took no other hits than sacks. (which we all know is not accurate)

I don't have data, so I've left it out.

Just Passin' By · 02-11-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

It means BR was hit as much as Brees in nearly 200 fewer pass attempts.

I don't think Brees would have broken in half either, but it's kind of a silly thing to argue about. Trying to use stats and hard date to prove a fantasy (as in make-believe, not fantasy football) situation.

Well, apparently, if Brees got hit more than Big Ben, Thigpen is a franchise quarterback and Stafford and Sanchez both suck, but if Big Ben took more shots, Thigpen is not a franchise quarterback and Stafford and Sanchez will both be in the Hall Of Fame without having to buy a ticket. It's a Chaos Theory thing....

Sam Hall · 02-11-2009, 02:09 PM

There needs to be scientific research about this. Pro Football Outsiders and the scorers can't be trusted. I can believe the two QBs get hit an equal amount, but I doubt it's that lopsided. I dispute the whole thing because of the research limitations.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

There needs to be scientific research about this. Pro Football Outsiders and the scorers can't be trusted. I can believe the two QBs get hit an equal amount, but I doubt it's that lopsided. I dispute the whole thing because of the research limitations.

Of course you do, because it's much easier to dispute all this evidence instead of just saying, "I WAS WRONG."

Then again, I'd expect nothing less from you.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-11-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

There needs to be scientific research about this. Pro Football Outsiders and the scorers can't be trusted. I can believe the two QBs get hit an equal amount, but I doubt it's that lopsided. I dispute the whole thing because of the research limitations.

What a staggering amount of intellectual dishonesty.

Sam Hall · 02-11-2009, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Of course you do, because it's much easier to dispute all this evidence instead of just saying, "I WAS WRONG."

Then again, I'd expect nothing less from you.

That kind of research can't be trusted. I know because research is the heart of what I'm doing at graduate school. I would never cite Pro Football Outsiders in a paper. It's OK on a message board, but not OK when conducting actual research.

That would take an expensive study where researchers attend games and count the number of times QBs get hit.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

What a staggering amount of intellectual dishonesty.

Amazing, ain't it?

Sam Hall · 02-11-2009, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Of course you do, because it's much easier to dispute all this evidence instead of just saying, "I WAS WRONG."

Then again, I'd expect nothing less from you.

I could easily say the same thing about you.

keg in kc · 02-11-2009, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

There needs to be scientific research about this. Pro Football Outsiders and the scorers can't be trusted. I can believe the two QBs get hit an equal amount, but I doubt it's that lopsided. I dispute the whole thing because of the research limitations.

Then stick to verifiable stats. Roethlisberger got sacked 46 times in 469 pass attempts and Brees got sacked 13 times in 635. That's 1 sack every 10 drop-backs versus 1 sack every 49. That's nearly 3 sacks per game versus less than 1.

(How's that for lopsided...)

I think it would be very difficult to argue that Roethlisberger wasn't getting hit a lot more on a game-by game basis based on that. Project Roethlisberger's numbers out to the same number of attempts as Brees and he'd have been sacked over 62 times. Versus 13.

Again, this isn't some kind of argument that Brees is somehow less of a QB because he was hit less. It's just...numbers.

**SAUTO** · 02-11-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Call the league and tell them someone is cooking the books.

Maybe you can split the long distance charges with chiefzilla, and he can tell them to pass on the message to all 32 GM's that they are idiots because they use the draft chart.

FUNNY COMING FROM YOU, you disputed the numbers yourself

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

I could easily say the same thing about you.

I'm not the one making saying, "Well, I'm right because I think I'm right."

My position is backed up by statistics and evidence.

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: 115,382

02-11-2009, 02:09 PM	#787
Sam Hall UNSTOPPABLE Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: KC area Casino cash: $9895185	There needs to be scientific research about this. Pro Football Outsiders and the scorers can't be trusted. I can believe the two QBs get hit an equal amount, but I doubt it's that lopsided. I dispute the whole thing because of the research limitations. __________________
Posts: 8,137