Chiefs What's with the Thigpen fixation? - Page 54

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.

Sam Hall · 02-11-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

You think you're right because of what a Web site says. I know this is beyond message board logic, but show me a study published in an academic journal.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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.

Exactly.

Hell, I even took hits COMPLETELY out of the equation for BR, since we didn't have anything listed, and the evidence STILL shows that he's getting hit more.

Here's Sam working as a defense attorney for an alleged murderer:

Judge: Mr. Hall, your opening argument, please?

Hall: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, it is my opinion that my client did not murder those people. That is all.

orange · 02-11-2009, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

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.

What exact is your position? That Brees get's hit less than Rothlisberger? Let's say we grant that - actually MUCH less.

Now do a statistical breakdown on "Brees would be crushed behind Pittsburg's line," which is what started this whole "debate." You can use injuries/passing attempt, injuries/season, games missed/sack, or any other statistic you can come up with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pestilenceaf23

Can Bree's take a hit? Because that's what Big Ben repeatedly does....and still gets back up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

And apparently, you don't listen outside of the draft forum either:

Brees would absolutely be destroyed behind the Pittsburgh line, throwing to the Pittsburgh receivers.

If Ben was sacked 46 times, how many times do you think Brees would have been sacked? 60? What do you think his completion percentage would have been with defenders in his face one each and every play?

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

You think you're right because of what a Web site says. I know this is beyond message board logic, but show me a study published in an academic journal.

I guess you don't trust NFL.com either.

You know, like these:

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

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.

Sam Hall · 02-11-2009, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Exactly.

Hell, I even took hits COMPLETELY out of the equation for BR, since we didn't have anything listed, and the evidence STILL shows that he's getting hit more.

Here's Sam working as a defense attorney for an alleged murderer:

Judge: Mr. Hall, your opening argument, please?

Hall: Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, it is my opinion that my client did not murder those people. That is all.

You wouldn't get any further with the jury if you cited Pro Football Outsiders or NFL.com as evidence.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

What exact is your position? That Brees get's hit less than Rothlisberger? Let's say we grant that - actually MUCH less.

Now do a statistical breakdown on "Brees would be crushed behind Pittsburg's line," which is what started this whole "debate." You can use injuries/passing attempt, injuries/season, games missed/sack, or any other statistic you can come up with.

What started this whole debate changed when Sam said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

Here's more: Brees had almost 1,300 pass attempts during the past two seasons. It's safe to say he took plenty of shots.

Go back and look: that is where I entered the debate.

**DeezNutz** · 02-11-2009, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

You think you're right because of what a Web site says. I know this is beyond message board logic, but show me a study published in an academic journal.

All those NFL statistical studies in academic journals?

It's going to be in the upcoming issue of PMLA, rest easy.

Couple research skills with a touch of common sense.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

You wouldn't get any further with the jury if you cited Pro Football Outsiders or NFL.com as evidence.

Dear God.

Sure, I'd get no where with STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that was created and maintained by the league in which these games are being played.

Statistical evidence > opinion.

Every day of the week.

You've yet to show any evidence, statistical or otherwise to back your claim.

orange · 02-11-2009, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Brees would absolutely be destroyed behind the Pittsburgh line, throwing to the Pittsburgh receivers.

If Ben was sacked 46 times, how many times do you think Brees would have been sacked? 60? What do you think his completion percentage would have been with defenders in his face one each and every play?

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

What started this whole debate changed when Sam said this:

Go back and look: that is where I entered the debate.

Will you agree then that there is NO justification whatsoever for DaneMcCloud's claim?

Statistical evidence > opinion.

Every day of the week.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

Will you agree then that there is NO justification whatsoever for DaneMcCloud's claim?

I agree with his opinion, however, there is no way to back it up.

I wasn't part of that argument, I'm not sure why you're asking me.

orange · 02-11-2009, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

I agree with his opinion, however, there is no way to back it up.

I wasn't part of that argument, I'm not sure why you're asking me.

I'm asking you for a statistical breakdown to prove it or not. That's simple, isn't it? You've probably already got all the numbers right in front of you.

Sam Hall · 02-11-2009, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Dear God.

Sure, I'd get no where with STATISTICAL EVIDENCE that was created and maintained by the league in which these games are being played.

Statistical evidence > opinion.

Every day of the week.

You've yet to show any evidence, statistical or otherwise to back your claim.

It's going to take researchers conducting a study and publishing it. Those Web sites can't be trusted, which we both have acknowledged.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

I'm asking you for a statistical breakdown to prove it or not. That's simple, isn't it?

Why should I do that work? I'm not the one making the claim.

Ask Dane to back up his claim.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-11-2009, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

It's going to take researchers conducting a study and publishing it. Those Web sites can't be trusted, which we both have acknowledged.

No, WE haven't. YOU.

NFL.com can't be trusted?

orange · 02-11-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Why should I do that work? I'm not the one making the claim.

Ask Dane to back up his claim.

Okay, then. Here's a claim I'LL make. Drew Brees is a stud and would thrive on the Steelers - doing as well or better than Ben Rothlisberger. The numbers prove it.

So, back to Thigpen... I guess the whole point here was you can get stud quartebacks outside the first round sometimes. The fact that Thigpen wasn't a first-rounder should not be an issue now that there is actual on-field performance to evaluate.

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