Chiefs What's with the Thigpen fixation? - Page 36

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.

**doomy3** · 02-10-2009, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

In the interest of full disclosure, I've been pretty hard on Ben in the past.

But two Sunday's ago really opened my eyes.

When they need a play, he makes it. He's clutch. He won't win with style points, but he wins.

Yeah, I agree. He was extremely clutch. But, to just brush off what a guy like Brees does, I just don't understand. And Ben has won more Super Bowls than Peyton too. Surely, no one would make an argument that Ben is better than Peyton. I understand this argument, but I just don't think it can be taken as extreme as what some people take it.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-10-2009, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

That's the 'aikman doesn't belong in the hall of fame' argument. Problem is, you can say the same thing for every championship-winning QB in history. They've all had the benefit of great teams around them. Because that's exactly what it takes to win.

And Thigpen doesn't really even belong in this discussion. I'm not the world's biggest Brees fan, but he's a whole echelon above Thigpen. Maybe he'll develop into somebody that we can talk about in that context in four or five years, but his name shouldn't even be mentioned with the others at this point.

This.

Esto.

Co-signed.

Agreed.

****in' A.

Spot on.

**dirk digler** · 02-10-2009, 10:47 PM

What I find kind of funny about this argument about Ben and the Steelers D people tend to forget or don't remember the Pats D wasn't chop liver. Their first SB they weren't the greatest but the other SB's they had very good D's. So does that mean Brady is just as lucky as Ben?

keg in kc · 02-10-2009, 10:48 PM

I'd say Brady's light-years above Roethlisberger. He's like a surgeon behind center, the way he runs that offense. Roethlisberger's job is to be more of a game-manager rather than the focal point of the offense, although he's shown signs of moving beyond that. Anyway, I'd say Brady's the best QB in the league right now, and has been for several years. Assuming he can, you know, walk and stuff.

**Smed1065** · 02-10-2009, 10:49 PM

I like BB but they asked if the SB rings were because of defense,

No, 1 was because of him but not both wins and they stated based on the run game and did not mention maybe a defense-LOL

Based on BB alone was the reason because either QB could not be a bust?

Kneel to them cause they are the only one that matters. If you disagree the smiley comes out or WTF.

They suggested no running game because of this years stats and applied it to all SB big bens wins of the SB.

Humm. No. IMO.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 02-10-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

What I find kind of funny about this argument about Ben and the Steelers D people tend to forget or don't remember the Pats D wasn't chop liver. Their first SB they weren't the greatest but the other SB's they had very good D's. So does that mean Brady is just as lucky as Ben?

They were ranked 6th in 2001, 1st in 2003, 2nd in 2004 and 4th in 2007.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-10-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

Big Ben is one of the league's best, but the Steelers defense is more important. Put it all together and the Steelers have another championship.

People get mad when other posters cite one game to prove a point, then they turn around and do it themselves. That's an example of taking the argument too far.

Yeah, but DUDE, they've had a Top Ten defense since 1993. They didn't win a Super Bowl until the year after Ben was drafted.

Clearly, his addition put them over the top.

**ShortRoundChief** · 02-10-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smed1065

I like BB but they asked if the SB rings were because of defense,

No, 1 was because of him but not both wins and they stated based on the run game and did not mention maybe a defense-LOL

Based on BB alone was the reason because either QB could not be a bust?

Kneel to them cause they are the only one that matters. If you disagree the smiley comes out or WTF.

They suggested no running game because of this years stats and applied it to all SB big bens wins of the SB.

Humm. No. IMO.

Is this in ****ing chinese or something?

**doomy3** · 02-10-2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I'd say Brady's light-years above Roethlisberger. He's like a surgeon behind center, the way he runs that offense. Roethlisberger's job is to be more of a game-manager rather than the focal point of the offense, although he's shown signs of moving beyond that. Anyway, I'd say Brady's the best QB in the league right now, and has been for several years. Assuming he can, you know, walk and stuff.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with this. To me, it's Brady and Manning, and then everyone else at a distance behind them.

Sam Hall · 02-10-2009, 10:51 PM

Anyone who uses this year's Super Bowl to criticize the Steelers defense needs to consider Arizona's offense.

**DeezNutz** · 02-10-2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smed1065

I like BB but they asked if the SB rings were because of defense,

No, 1 was because of him but not both wins and they stated based on the run game and did not mention maybe a defense-LOL

Based on BB alone was the reason because either QB could not be a bust?

Kneel to them cause they are the only one that matters. If you disagree the smiley comes out or WTF.

They suggested no running game because of this years stats and applied it to all SB big bens wins of the SB.

Humm. No. IMO.

This is the most obtuse post I've ever seen.

Is it just me? I'm tired, admittedly.

They's and BB's...

**Smed1065** · 02-10-2009, 10:52 PM

Guess Peyton (M) is great but he has suck 80% of the playoff games but he is great according to the same people. Look at the stats and he sucks. IMO

In "real" games.

keg in kc · 02-10-2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirk digler

What I find kind of funny about this argument about Ben and the Steelers D people tend to forget or don't remember the Pats D wasn't chop liver. Their first SB they weren't the greatest but the other SB's they had very good D's. So does that mean Brady is just as lucky as Ben?

Different offensive styles. The patriots have been passing oriented their whole run, more of an attacking unit. Brady's been asked to do completely different things.

That's part of the reason I like the Haley hire, because we'll (hopefully) be more like new england offensively than pittsburgh. I'm not a big fan of the 'win by attrition' approach. I want to attack on both sides of the ball.

**DaneMcCloud** · 02-10-2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doomy3

Yeah, I agree. He was extremely clutch. But, to just brush off what a guy like Brees does, I just don't understand. And Ben has won more Super Bowls than Peyton too. Surely, no one would make an argument that Ben is better than Peyton. I understand this argument, but I just don't think it can be taken as extreme as what some people take it.

Brees would have been absolutely crushed and probably on IR behind the Steeler's line.

Ben is 6'5, 250. Played through a ton of injuries (shoulder and ribs). Brees is tiny in comparison and would have never made it through the season.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 02-10-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

I am off to dinner...I just want to take some time to thank Mecca for even having a conversation with me.

I really do appreciate him taking time for a few of us mere mortals here and there. Message board sports experts are to be respected.

Translation: I made a bunch of stupid comments with no supporting evidence, and was completely unable to offer any form of a refutation. Therefore, I shall impugn the guy I'm arguing against and attempt to turn this debate into a popularity contest in order to save face.

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: 115,387

02-10-2009, 10:47 PM	#528
dirk digler Please squeeze Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Clinton, MO Casino cash: $104644	What I find kind of funny about this argument about Ben and the Steelers D people tend to forget or don't remember the Pats D wasn't chop liver. Their first SB they weren't the greatest but the other SB's they had very good D's. So does that mean Brady is just as lucky as Ben?
Posts: 67,119

02-10-2009, 10:48 PM	#529
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	I'd say Brady's light-years above Roethlisberger. He's like a surgeon behind center, the way he runs that offense. Roethlisberger's job is to be more of a game-manager rather than the focal point of the offense, although he's shown signs of moving beyond that. Anyway, I'd say Brady's the best QB in the league right now, and has been for several years. Assuming he can, you know, walk and stuff.
Posts: 58,682

02-10-2009, 10:49 PM	#530
Smed1065 Supporter Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Returning From Hell Casino cash: $4743673	I like BB but they asked if the SB *rings* were because of defense, No, 1 was because of him but not both wins and they stated based on the run game and did not mention maybe a defense-LOL Based on BB alone was the reason because either QB could not be a bust? Kneel to them cause they are the only one that matters. If you disagree the smiley comes out or WTF. They suggested no running game because of this years stats and applied it to all SB big bens wins of the SB. Humm. No. IMO.
Posts: 10,211

02-10-2009, 10:51 PM	#535
Sam Hall UNSTOPPABLE Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: KC area Casino cash: $9895185	Anyone who uses this year's Super Bowl to criticize the Steelers defense needs to consider Arizona's offense. __________________
Posts: 8,137

02-10-2009, 10:52 PM	#537
Smed1065 Supporter Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Returning From Hell Casino cash: $4743673	Guess Peyton (M) is great but he has suck 80% of the playoff games but he is great according to the same people. Look at the stats and he sucks. IMO In "real" games.
Posts: 10,211