What's with the Thigpen fixation?

[Mecca]

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.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Basileus777

Brees wouldn't't be sacked 40+ times in Pittsburgh because he doesn't hold onto the ball way too ****ing long like Ben does. Pittsburgh's line isn't good, but Ben is responsible for a lot of those sacks.

They run completely different offenses.

The Saints run quick timing patterns, getting the ball out quickly.

And you can say BR holds the ball too long, and he does. But how many sacks has he avoided my being mobile in the pocket?

At minimum, it's a wash, and I'd bet if you charted every pass play this year, you'd find he avoided more sacks that he caused by holding the ball too long.

[keg in kc]

Okay, the Anderson/Manning debate was one thing, but Brees (who I've never liked, to be honest), has been one of the best QBs in the NFL the last 5 years, particularly the last 3 in NO. He's as much a franchise QB as Roethlisberger is. He'd have been a 1st round draft pick if he was 3 inches taller, he's got all the rest of the skill set (and it's not like he was drafted late, 1st pick of the 2nd round, 32nd overall).

(And what's he doing in the Thigpen discussion, anyway? Because he's short? He's about as far from Thigpen in style of play as you can get - he's a pocket-passer with a high completion percentage, not a running QB who chucks it up for grabs)

[ChiefRon]

So, what's the consensus?

How many people think Thigpen is a franchise QB?

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by beach tribe

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

really? you are talking to guys who act as though thigpen cost us games this year, nevermind that our defense was horrible

[Sam Hall]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

He doesn't.

The stats don't bear that out.

At all.

That offense is predicated on getting the ball out quickly, and that is reflected in the statistics for the number of sacks he's taken. He's not exactly Michael Vick back there, making plays with his feet.

He throws a lot, therefore he must get hit a lot is a ridiculously poor argument.

You can't question Brees' toughness knowing he has almost 1,300 attempts during the past two seasons. He has almost 400 more attempts than Big Ben over that time.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by Basileus777

Brees wouldn't't be sacked 40+ times in Pittsburgh because he doesn't hold onto the ball way too ****ing long like Ben does. Pittsburgh's line isn't good, but Ben is responsible for a lot of those sacks.

I agree. I don't know how anyone can dispute the fact that Ben holds the ball too long. I think even Tomlin has said as much.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by RustShack

Yeah people don't realize it takes time to develop most 1st round QB's.

yeah lets just give a 1st rounder time

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

They run completely different offenses.

The Saints run quick timing patterns, getting the ball out quickly.
And you can say BR holds the ball too long, and he does. But how many sacks has he avoided my being mobile in the pocket?

At minimum, it's a wash, and I'd bet if you charted every pass play this year, you'd find he avoided more sacks that he caused by holding the ball too long.

they also throw the deep ball as much as any team in the league

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

You can't question Brees' toughness knowing he has almost 1,300 attempts during the past two seasons. He has almost 400 more attempts than Big Ben over that time.

and then to use sacks as the only indication of how many times brees was HIT, not sacked hit. a qb can get hit no BLASTED and it not be a sack right?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

You can't question Brees' toughness knowing he has almost 1,300 attempts during the past two seasons. He has almost 400 more attempts than Big Ben over that time.

Yeah, I can question his toughness, when you're trying to equate it to him throwing a lot.

The stats bear this out: He's near or at the top when it comes to attempts over the past 3 years, and he's near or at the bottom when it comes to getting sacked.

Peyton Manning throws the ball a lot as well, and he's rarely hit. (Interestingly enough, he's been sacked 49 times in the past 3 years)

He throws a lot, therefore he gets hit a lot is not a logically sound argument.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Yeah, I can question his toughness, when you're trying to equate it to him throwing a lot.

The stats bear this out: He's near or at the top when it comes to attempts over the past 3 years, and he's near or at the bottom when it comes to getting sacked.

He throws a lot, therefore he get's hit a lot is not a logically sound argument.

do you actually think that sacks tell the whole story?

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by ChiefRon

How many people think Thigpen is a franchise QB?

I think he's a project, not a franchise QB. If he ever does develop into into a quality starter, it'll be with another franchise years down the road. I'm thinking his upper limit is Rich Gannon, Trent Green, Steve Beuerlein, Jake Delhomme, someone that takes years to grow into it.

(No, I'm not saying that's what he is, I'm saying that's the best case scenario...)

But, either way, he's not a franchise quarterback. I don't think you build a team around Tyler Thigpen, or hand him a 100 million dollar contract, or make him the face of the Chiefs.

I think the whole idea of Thigpen as QBotF is the same kind of fascination that had people rooting for Mike Maslowski as a linebacker or Marc Boerigter as a receiver. It's the attraction to the underdog story.

[Sam Hall]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

and then to use sacks as the only indication of how many times brees was HIT, not sacked hit. a qb can get hit no BLASTED and it not be a sack right?

Agreed. The Sanchez fanatics are going too far to make their point. Some of their points are legit, but sometimes they deny established truths about the league. That's what I don't like about the Planet lately. And I think the Chiefs should draft Sanchez.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by Sam Hall

Agreed. The Sanchez fanatics are going too far to make their point. Some of their points are legit, but sometimes they deny established truths about the league. That's what I don't like about the Planet lately. And I think the Chiefs should draft Sanchez.

me too, but to just look at one side is hilarious. in what 1300 pas attempts and to only get "hit" 29 times is just asinine to say. thats using one side to show youre right while conveniently forgetting that you dont have to be sacked to take a hit

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

do you actually think that sacks tell the whole story?

They tell more of the story than ASSUMING that because he throws a lot, he gets hit a lot.

Peyton Manning rarely gets hit. Anyone who watches the Colts knows this.

Yet he throws the ball 500+ times a year, and is always near the top of the attempts list.

Shy of breaking down film of every Brees attempt, the stats, and knowing the offensive system the Saints use (interestingly, very similar to the Colts) have to be used to contract an argument.

But you can't sit here and assume that he gets hit a lot, FOR NO OTHER REASON than he throws a lot. That's terribly flawed logic.