Chiefs A case for Tyler Thigpen - Page 3

Lex Luthors · 08-27-2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

You people and your stats. So cute.

Almost as cute as you people and your lack of them.

**Bane** · 08-27-2009, 02:51 PM

I could care less about stats,all I know for sure is the kid took beating after beating for the red and gold,and never gave up.

Hammock Parties · 08-27-2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bane_58

I could care less about stats,all I know for sure is the kid took beating after beating for the red and gold,and never gave up.

**Bane** · 08-27-2009, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoChiefs

Nice...

**The Franchise** · 08-27-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bane_58

I could care less about stats,all I know for sure is the kid took beating after beating for the red and gold,and only won one game.

FYP

**Bane** · 08-27-2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pestilence

FYP

FYM

Sweet Daddy Hate · 08-27-2009, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bane_58

I could care less about stats,all I know for sure is the kid took beating after beating for the red and gold,and never gave up.

Pollard sucks, but Thigpen should stay? You're slippin' brah, slippin' hard.

Here's MY case for Thigpen:

**Bane** · 08-27-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raised On Riots

Pollard sucks, but Thigpen should stay? You're slippin' brah, slippin' hard.

Here's MY case for Thigpen:

Easy now I never said Pollard sucks.I only said Id bet on LJ out lasing Pollard in KC.As far as Thigpen goes they can deal him if they like,thats fine,but getting rid of him doesnt make us SB ready.Everyone seems to think he stopped of from going 16-0 last year.

LaChapelle · 08-27-2009, 02:51 PM

We don't want players that win games. We want players that win our hearts. We're not men.

**Bane** · 08-27-2009, 02:54 PM

If your boy Cassel plays well then fine,you guys can all party and praise the lord and all that other shit.Untill then he hasn't done anything for the Chiefs in my mind and he's just another Qb like Thiggy trying to find a job.
My question is what if he does throw 30 TD's and for 4,000 yards and we still only win 4-5 games,was that 60 million spent in the right area of need?

JD10367 · 08-27-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bane_58

If your boy Cassel plays well then fine,you guys can all party and praise the lord and all that other shit.Untill then he hasn't done anything for the Chiefs in my mind and he's just another Qb like Thigpen trying to find a job.
My question is what if he does throw 30 TD's and for 4,000 yards and we still only win 4-5 games,was that 60 million spent in the right area of need?

I started to respond by typing, "This is a QB-driven league. You can't win a Super Bowl without a good quarterback."

Then I thought...

SB 34: Rams with Kurt Warner beat Titans with Steve McNair.
SB 35: Ravens with Trent Dilfer beat Giants with Kerry Collins.
SB 37: Bucs with Brad Johnson beat Raiders with Rich Gannon.
SB 42: Giants with Eli Manning beat Patriots with Tom Brady.

In addition, the Colts only finally won when they had a defense and running game. The Steelers are always defensively-driven. And all three of the Pats' SB wins were close and defensive and won by a FG.

But, in general, it's easier to succeed when you build a team around a quarterback. If you have a great defensive mind, maybe you can work it the other way, but there's a reason why defensive teams are few and far-between. And you can argue that the defensive-minded Ravens only won once, almost ten years ago, and have been wasting their defenses since then due to a lack of offensive ability. The Steelers have won twice, but last season is hard to judge since they beat an Arizona team with a weak record that caught fire in the playoffs (not to mention Brady was MIA last season).

Also, it's not like Cassell just got handed a Julius Peppers-type contract that will hamstring the Chiefs. He didn't get Eli Manning or Philip Rivers money. The Chiefs can still build a solid team even with Cassel's salary.

I'm not sure what the option would be, anyway. If they didn't sign Cassel, and won 4 games with Thigpen, I'm pretty sure most Chiefs fans would go ballistic. "Why didn't we get a real quarterback?!?" If Cassel plays great and they only win 4 or 5, I think most fans will say, "Wow, imagine if they built a team around him, they might've won the division!" It's sort of a no-win scenario.

**Bane** · 08-27-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

I started to respond by typing, "This is a QB-driven league. You can't win a Super Bowl without a good quarterback."

Then I thought...

SB 34: Rams with Kurt Warner beat Titans with Steve McNair.
SB 35: Ravens with Trent Dilfer beat Giants with Kerry Collins.
SB 37: Bucs with Brad Johnson beat Raiders with Rich Gannon.
SB 42: Giants with Eli Manning beat Patriots with Tom Brady.

In addition, the Colts only finally won when they had a defense and running game. The Steelers are always defensively-driven. And all three of the Pats' SB wins were close and defensive and won by a FG.

But, in general, it's easier to succeed when you build a team around a quarterback. If you have a great defensive mind, maybe you can work it the other way, but there's a reason why defensive teams are few and far-between. And you can argue that the defensive-minded Ravens only won once, almost ten years ago, and have been wasting their defenses since then due to a lack of offensive ability. The Steelers have won twice, but last season is hard to judge since they beat an Arizona team with a weak record that caught fire in the playoffs (not to mention Brady was MIA last season).

Also, it's not like Cassell just got handed a Julius Peppers-type contract that will hamstring the Chiefs. He didn't get Eli Manning or Philip Rivers money. The Chiefs can still build a solid team even with Cassel's salary.

I'm not sure what the option would be, anyway. If they didn't sign Cassel, and won 4 games with Thigpen, I'm pretty sure most Chiefs fans would go ballistic. "Why didn't we get a real quarterback?!?" If Cassel plays great and they only win 4 or 5, I think most fans will say, "Wow, imagine if they built a team around him, they might've won the division!" It's sort of a no-win scenario.

I agree we must have a real QB,and Cassel is young enough to be coached into a good payer,but time and time again we see players have 1 good year and teams piss themselves to go after them.I will have to see it to believe that he was the right choice.

JD10367 · 08-27-2009, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bane_58

I agree we must have a real QB,and Cassel is young enough to be coached into a good payer,but time and time again we see players have 1 good year and teams piss themselves to go after them.I will have to see it to believe that he was the right choice.

IIRC most of the QBs who tend to be flash-in-the-pans are the Volek types who have a good game or two. As you said, though, one good year is a different story. I think Cassel showed enough last season to be considered for real.

And what would have been a better choice? While I'm new here, it seems like you guys had a debate here about Sanchez. Personally, I can't see throwing huge money at a rookie QB who might turn out to be a bust. Their deals are almost identical (Cassel's is one year longer and ends up being $500k more per year) but at least Cassel showed some poise in actual NFL games.

**Bane** · 08-27-2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD10367

IIRC most of the QBs who tend to be flash-in-the-pans are the Volek types who have a good game or two. As you said, though, one good year is a different story. I think Cassel showed enough last season to be considered for real.

And what would have been a better choice? While I'm new here, it seems like you guys had a debate here about Sanchez. Personally, I can't see throwing huge money at a rookie QB who might turn out to be a bust. Their deals are almost identical (Cassel's is one year longer and ends up being $500k more per year) but at least Cassel showed some poise in actual NFL games.

I know,I'm scared to throw that kind of money at a rookie too,but I'm just not ready to sacrifice my children at the alter of Cassel yet.:

MMXcalibur · 08-27-2009, 02:59 PM

If Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan were here in Kansas City last season, what would our win/loss record have been?

08-27-2009, 02:51 PM	#2
Bane C.H.I.E.F.S Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: **** your face Casino cash: $10005055	I could care less about stats,all I know for sure is the kid took beating after beating for the red and gold,and never gave up.
Posts: 12,621

08-27-2009, 02:51 PM	#9
LaChapelle Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Casino cash: $10004900	We don't want players that win games. We want players that win our hearts. We're not men.
Posts: 8,588

08-27-2009, 02:54 PM	#10
Bane C.H.I.E.F.S Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: **** your face Casino cash: $10005055	If your boy Cassel plays well then fine,you guys can all party and praise the lord and all that other shit.Untill then he hasn't done anything for the Chiefs in my mind and he's just another Qb like Thiggy trying to find a job. My question is what if he does throw 30 TD's and for 4,000 yards and we still only win 4-5 games,was that 60 million spent in the right area of need?
Posts: 12,621

08-27-2009, 02:59 PM	#15
MMXcalibur Pessimistically optimistic. Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Denver, CO Casino cash: $-144914	If Joe Flacco or Matt Ryan were here in Kansas City last season, what would our win/loss record have been?
Posts: 16,747