PDA

View Full Version : i still like thigpen as our starter for the future



Chiefstillidie
12-29-2008, 03:00 AM
he did pretty good for just getting thrown into the situation he got thrown into...after are 2 starting qb's that both suck go down he came in and did a great job i think...he did make some stupid throw's but he is young and he will get better as time progresses...some of you will disagree with me but i support thigpen in 2009!

theaxeeffect4311
12-29-2008, 03:04 AM
I support Thigpen for next season. See what he can do. Give him a chance to prove himself. I think a training camp and preseason of him as the starter will do him some good.

bigpoppachief
12-29-2008, 03:09 AM
I support Thigpen as well I mean hell he has only been playing QB since college and was RB in High School so he is still fairly new to the position he earned another shot in my mind.

brish
12-29-2008, 03:18 AM
Agreed, give him a chance.. Im not so sure about the spread though.. Not balanced enough..

hermhater
12-29-2008, 03:37 AM
Thigpen 4TW!!!!

fairladyZ
12-29-2008, 03:40 AM
i'm onboard for another year with thigpen for sure. He did make some unwise throws but he's a rookie for the most part. And our QB coach and Head Coach might be the worst in the history of the NFL especially with game management! Get Some new coaches in here beef up the right side of the line just abit add one more offensive weapon with SURE hands and we i think offense is taken care of for sure.

For YEARS i was so sick of seeing QB's run on us and now it's finally nice to have a QB that can run damn good and i dig it alot. It's just another weapon!

hermhater
12-29-2008, 03:51 AM
Tyler has done more for us this year than anyone else!!!

Give him a O line and he is the future of any team!!!

texaschief
12-29-2008, 03:55 AM
He should be good enough to give us at least another year so that we don't have to draft a blue chip QB with the 3rd pick. If we take a QB, I'd rather take him in the teens or twenties somewhere, if not the thirties. The risk of a QB panning out isn't worth the money we'd have to cough up for him.

hermhater
12-29-2008, 03:58 AM
I think I'm agreeing with you TC when I say draft O line.

texaschief
12-29-2008, 04:02 AM
I think I'm agreeing with you TC when I say draft O line.

I haven't committed to that yet. It's late december. We're still 5 months from draft day... ugh almost half a year. that's depressing. We don't have a clear direction with the front office or have attempted to discuss free agents yet. It just seems that on Dec. 29th, the surest thing would be to draft a LT. I don't like that pick AT ALL, but I really am worried about drafting anything else at the third pick. But I need to see the combine and stuff. I think Curry would help the team the most.

tornadospotter
12-29-2008, 04:06 AM
I believe that Tyler Thigpen, is a playmaker, and a leader, so he should be the starting QB going into the next season. Bring in competition, but it should be his job to lose.

texaschief
12-29-2008, 04:09 AM
I believe that Tyler Thigpen, is a playmaker, and a leader, so he should be the starting QB going into the next season. Bring in competition, but it should be his job to lose.

You know what I'd do? I'd let Croyle compete for the starting gig. But in order to win the job, he has to take hits in practice and prove he's not as injury prone as everyone thinks he is. He should not be allowed to wear a yellow jersey and every defensive player gets the green light to knock him on his ***. IF he doesn't get hurt and IF he wins the QB battle, then I'd give him another shot.

tornadospotter
12-29-2008, 04:15 AM
You know what I'd do? I'd let Croyle compete for the starting gig. But in order to win the job, he has to take hits in practice and prove he's not as injury prone as everyone thinks he is. He should not be allowed to wear a yellow jersey and every defensive player gets the green light to knock him on his ***. IF he doesn't get hurt and IF he wins the QB battle, then I'd give him another shot.
I agree, for Croyle it is put up or hit the road. Thig has shown that he can take hits. Gray we have not seen enought yet. I really wanted Croyle to make it, but dang it you have to play to make it in the NFL! He can not play so far.:11:

texaschief
12-29-2008, 04:17 AM
Thigpen feels he’s earned the starting quarterback job
By KENT BABB
The Kansas City Star

CINCINNATI | Tyler Thigpen spoke up. Ten weeks after becoming the Chiefs’ full-time starting quarterback, Thigpen made his pitch Sunday for why that should not change. And one of his most outspoken supporters, tight end Tony Gonzalez, said Thigpen’s future might affect whether Gonzalez is interested in returning to Kansas City next season.

“Look at the way I’ve played,” said Thigpen, in his second year with the team. “Look at the way the offense has moved. Look at the way, you know, guys are so much more energetic when they’re out there with me. It’s like those guys got a second wind in the second half of the season, when I became the starter.”

Thigpen emerged this season as a solid, if not spectacular, quarterback after Brodie Croyle and Damon Huard suffered season-ending injuries in Kansas City’s blowout loss to Tennessee. Since then, Thigpen had kept quiet about his future, always saying that those decisions were beyond his control.

Instead, he wanted to sell himself on the field. But Sunday, Thigpen led a stagnant offense in a 16-6 loss at Cincinnati, and coach Herm Edwards said it was among the Chiefs’ “worst offensive outings in a while.”

Thigpen was at the heart of that outing, but he said he has done enough to warrant another season as Kansas City’s starter.

“There are some balls that I threw today that I’d like to have back,” he said. “You can’t have those things back. You wanted to go out on top.”

Things haven’t been perfect, and Thigpen admitted as much Sunday. He said he might have been trying too hard at times against Cincinnati. He sailed passes far over receivers’ heads. He forced some throws into tight coverage. On one play, Thigpen targeted receiver Mark Bradley, who ran a sideline route. Only Thigpen threw a fade, and the ball landed 20 yards from Bradley.

“Some of the plays,” Thigpen said, “we were on a different page. That was my fault.”

Like the rest of the Chiefs’ organization, Thigpen will enter the offseason with more questions than answers about his future. Unlike some players — even those who play his position — Thigpen at least expects to return. But his role has not been defined, and it might not be until the Chiefs decide whether to sign a free-agent quarterback or pursue one with an early-round draft pick.

[For those who think Gonzo doesn't want to be here next season-TC]

Edwards has said that quarterbacks normally bloom in their third NFL seasons. If the Chiefs draft a passer, that quarterback might not be ready for a while. Gonzalez said he’s not prepared to wait.

“I’m not playing three or four more years,” Gonzalez said. “I don’t see why you’d want to go backward. It is going backward; I don’t care if you bring in the top quarterback in the draft, we’re still going backward.

“If they want to go that direction, go young; if the general manager comes in here and wants to blow things up — get a new coach, get a new coordinator, bring in a quarterback now — more than likely, I’ll be like, ‘You know what? It might be time for me to go. Just go ahead and get what you can for me.’ ”

Gonzalez has been one of Thigpen’s most loyal allies, and why not? He is Thigpen’s favorite target. According to coaches, Thigpen sometimes looks in Gonzalez’s direction too often. And Thigpen’s faith in Gonzalez has won over Gonzalez, a 10-time Pro Bowler. Now Thigpen wants to win over the men who make the Chiefs’ personnel decisions.

Thigpen said his performance Sunday shouldn’t be all that coaches consider while deciding whether to move forward with Thigpen or pursue another quarterback. But he admitted it could be unfortunate that he ended the season with one of his more inconsistent days.

That could leave a lasting memory in coaches’ minds when free agency begins or when the draft arrives. Still, Thigpen said he’d be disappointed if the Chiefs draft a quarterback with plans to make him the starter.

“I don’t think they should,” Thigpen said. “Moving forward now, I feel like I am the future for the Chiefs.

“I feel like I’ve earned it.”

texaschief
12-29-2008, 04:20 AM
I agree, for Croyle it is put up or hit the road. Thig has shown that he can take hits. Gray we have not seen enought yet. I really wanted Croyle to make it, but dang it you have to play to make it in the NFL! He can not play so far.:11:

I think he's proven that he has the arm and the smarts. He just needs to prove he can stay healthy. You can't prove that with a yellow jersey on in practice and building an offense around a guy who hasn't proven that he can stay healthy in a game, just isn't smart. Take the jersey off and prove it in practice over the entire summer.

theaxeeffect4311
12-29-2008, 04:25 AM
You know what I'd do? I'd let Croyle compete for the starting gig. But in order to win the job, he has to take hits in practice and prove he's not as injury prone as everyone thinks he is. He should not be allowed to wear a yellow jersey and every defensive player gets the green light to knock him on his ***. IF he doesn't get hurt and IF he wins the QB battle, then I'd give him another shot.

While that method would be unorthodox to say the least, I do agree there should still be a competition at the position in a way. However, that prevents a team building an offense around the quarterback and his abilities. But seeing that their will be a new GM and possibly a new head coach, more than likely there will be competition at every position.

texaschief
12-29-2008, 04:37 AM
While that method would be unorthodox to say the least, I do agree there should still be a competition at the position in a way. However, that prevents a team building an offense around the quarterback and his abilities. But seeing that their will be a new GM and possibly a new head coach, more than likely there will be competition at every position.

If you built an offense around the abilities of the two or three QBs who are competing and not necessarily a specific QB, you just take the guy who performs better in the system. That's usually how it works.

Seek
12-29-2008, 07:58 AM
I love Thigpen, but if the best player in on the board is a QB. The Chiefs are going to take him. This new Gm is going to build his own team, and I am betting he is going to start with the coaches and then the QB.

tornadospotter
12-29-2008, 08:12 AM
What will Marty do? Yep I hope the new GM is Marty. I even forgive the Gannon issue! I like Marty the best, cause he might bring the chin out of retirement.

yashi
12-29-2008, 11:22 AM
Thigpen definitely earned the job going into next year in my opinion. The Chiefs haven't had a playmaker like this at QB since Rich Gannon. I don't want him to slip away like Gannon did. As much as I think Bradford could be incredible in this offensive scheme, we should draft the player that would improve the team the most, and that wouldn't be a QB.

jmlamerson
12-29-2008, 11:30 AM
he did pretty good for just getting thrown into the situation he got thrown into...after are 2 starting qb's that both suck go down he came in and did a great job i think...he did make some stupid throw's but he is young and he will get better as time progresses...some of you will disagree with me but i support thigpen in 2009!

I think our new GM sticks with Thigpen as the starter for 2009. He may draft a QB of the future, but assuming we hire someone pretty savvy, they aren't going to get a rookie QB killed around a rebuilding OL.

I think our new GM drafts LT with the first pick, not a QB.

kcchiefs4life
12-29-2008, 11:37 AM
Thigpen next year to start. NO MORE HUARD....PLEASE!!!! He is old and washed up. He needs to be let go.

yashi
12-29-2008, 11:51 AM
I hope our QBs going into next year are Thigpen, Gray, and a draft pick/veteran not named Huard or Croyle.

Gray looked amazing in his 1 drive of the season :)

chief31
12-29-2008, 01:00 PM
I like Thigpen/Huard/Croyle.

I will say that Thigpen doesn't look like a real NFL QB though.

He just doesn't seem to stand rightt, move right, nor throw right. But he has been successful, and that is what matters most.

IMO, the starting job should be his, to lose.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-29-2008, 02:44 PM
They have to draft a QB whether it is a "QB of the future type" ie..Stafford or Bradford or a back up of some sort later in the draft.

RedJohnson
12-29-2008, 05:59 PM
They have cheeseheads in Green Bay, cornheads in Nebraska, Jimmy Buffett fans are called parrotheads, Grateful Dead fans are deadheads, from now anyone that's in love with Tyler I'm calling Pinheads.

Chiefstillidie
12-29-2008, 10:34 PM
croyle ****ing sucks point blank and anyone who likes croyle should be shot...the guy sucks ***... and anyone who likes him i'm gonna be calling a pinhead from now on...i still stick with thigpen.

Coach
12-29-2008, 11:53 PM
I believe that Tyler Thigpen, is a playmaker, and a leader, so he should be the starting QB going into the next season. Bring in competition, but it should be his job to lose.

Absolutely.

RatherDashing
12-30-2008, 12:55 AM
Damon Huard and Brodie Croyle need to meet the door, with a firm kick guiding them. I don't believe either of them are the future of this team.

theaxeeffect4311
12-30-2008, 01:01 AM
Damon Huard and Brodie Croyle need to meet the door, with a firm kick guiding them. I don't believe either of them are the future of this team.

Don't worry, both of them are not likely to return, unless the Chiefs re-sign Croyle as a backup. Huard will probably be a free agent or maybe he finally understands that he should retire.

chief31
12-30-2008, 11:06 AM
Damon Huard and Brodie Croyle need to meet the door, with a firm kick guiding them. I don't believe either of them are the future of this team.

How many super star QBs do we need on one team? You only need one QBOTF. hen you need a capable back-up and hen a long-shot.

That's Thigpen....Huard....and Croyle.

Croyle didn't do anything wrong. He did just as horrible as anyone else would have done with the same circumstances.

Thigpen was absolute garbage when he tried playing an NFL offense with this crew too.

No QB was going to do anything, with our horrible protection, and complete lack of a running game, until we implemented the desperation college offense.

jmlamerson
12-30-2008, 11:53 AM
How many super star QBs do we need on one team? You only need one QBOTF. hen you need a capable back-up and hen a long-shot.

That's Thigpen....Huard....and Croyle.

Croyle didn't do anything wrong. He did just as horrible as anyone else would have done with the same circumstances.

Thigpen was absolute garbage when he tried playing an NFL offense with this crew too.

No QB was going to do anything, with our horrible protection, and complete lack of a running game, until we implemented the desperation college offense.

I'm not saying that Croyle is a bad guy or even a bad player, but I think we've seen pretty definitively that he'll never be healthy. Even though Thigpen and Huard did pretty awful this season in the NFL-style offense, they stayed upright (I'm not counting Huard's fake injury as a real one). I think Croyle just has no value to this team. We'd be better off drafting a QB low or signing a FA.

chief31
12-30-2008, 12:02 PM
I'm not saying that Croyle is a bad guy or even a bad player, but I think we've seen pretty definitively that he'll never be healthy. Even though Thigpen and Huard did pretty awful this season in the NFL-style offense, they stayed upright (I'm not counting Huard's fake injury as a real one). I think Croyle just has no value to this team. We'd be better off drafting a QB low or signing a FA.

Odds are, that is what will happen, with a new coach and GM coming in.

But I don't accept the "injury-prone" label yet either. Huard spent all of last season hurt, as did Croyle. Green had his career train-wrecked by Herm concept of QB protection and Pennington barely survived several seasons of it.

Herm puts his QBs in a position to get hit alot. If Croyle had a chance to play with actual protection, then he may not appear so injury-prone.

I'm not saying that we need Croyle here, but I don't see how he is incapable of being a third-string guy, for now.

EDIT: As long as Herm isn't here. He tends to use his third string QBs alot.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 12:10 PM
Odds are, that is what will happen, with a new coach and GM coming in.

But I don't accept the "injury-prone" label yet either. Huard spent all of last season hurt, as did Croyle. Green had his career train-wrecked by Herm concept of QB protection and Pennington barely survived several seasons of it.

Herm puts his QBs in a position to get hit alot. If Croyle had a chance to play with actual protection, then he may not appear so injury-prone.

I'm not saying that we need Croyle here, but I don't see how he is incapable of being a third-string guy, for now.

EDIT: As long as Herm isn't here. He tends to use his third string QBs alot.
Look, I agree that Thigpen is "serviceable" but by NO stretch a good QB. He could suffice for a year or so while the rookie got a little clipboard time. At what point does an organization have to draft a potential QBOTF in your mind? I can't think of one they have considered as such a player in the teams history!!!

jmlamerson
12-30-2008, 12:14 PM
Odds are, that is what will happen, with a new coach and GM coming in.

But I don't accept the "injury-prone" label yet either. Huard spent all of last season hurt, as did Croyle. Green had his career train-wrecked by Herm concept of QB protection and Pennington barely survived several seasons of it.

Herm puts his QBs in a position to get hit alot. If Croyle had a chance to play with actual protection, then he may not appear so injury-prone.

I'm not saying that we need Croyle here, but I don't see how he is incapable of being a third-string guy, for now.

EDIT: As long as Herm isn't here. He tends to use his third string QBs alot.

1. I don't believe that Huard has been seriously injured the past couple years. I think Herm used Huard's minor injuries as an excuse to play young players.

2. Herm has been the primary reason for Croyle's injuries, I admit, but the fact remains that he's been injured four times in eleven starts, plus most of 2006. He couldn't beat out Huard for the starting spot in 2007.

I feel bad for Croyle, the same way I feel bad for David Carr. Both had their careers derailed by bad HCs who never gave them NFL-level OL protections. And maybe Croyle will find himself as an adequate backup elsewhere in the league. But the fact remains that we have a QB of the present in Thigpen, a draft pick as a project QB (likely), and a decent vet in Grey as a backup. How does Croyle fit in to our long term plans?

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 12:18 PM
How many super star QBs do we need on one team? You only need one QBOTF. hen you need a capable back-up and hen a long-shot.

That's Thigpen....Huard....and Croyle.

Croyle didn't do anything wrong. He did just as horrible as anyone else would have done with the same circumstances.

Thigpen was absolute garbage when he tried playing an NFL offense with this crew too.

No QB was going to do anything, with our horrible protection, and complete lack of a running game, until we implemented the desperation college offense.
Just one would be nice!!!!!:D

chief31
12-30-2008, 12:24 PM
Look, I agree that Thigpen is "serviceable" but by NO stretch a good QB. He could suffice for a year or so while the rookie got a little clipboard time. At what point does an organization have to draft a potential QBOTF in your mind? I can't think of one they have considered as such a player in the teams history!!!

Never.

At least not specifically a 1st round pick.

But certainly not when you have a second year QB playing well.

I said somewhere else, that I have some real doubts about Thigpens ability to be a successful NFL QB.

But I don't bother trying to find my Manning until I am able to protect him.


1. I don't believe that Huard has been seriously injured the past couple years. I think Herm used Huard's minor injuries as an excuse to play young players.

2. Herm has been the primary reason for Croyle's injuries, I admit, but the fact remains that he's been injured four times in eleven starts, plus most of 2006. He couldn't beat out Huard for the starting spot in 2007.

I feel bad for Croyle, the same way I feel bad for David Carr. Both had their careers derailed by bad HCs who never gave them NFL-level OL protections. And maybe Croyle will find himself as an adequate backup elsewhere in the league. But the fact remains that we have a QB of the present in Thigpen, a draft pick as a project QB (likely), and a decent vet in Grey as a backup. How does Croyle fit in to our long term plans?

Huard was put on IR, while we brought in Quin Gray and some other guy.


That's one seriously screwed up conspiracy.

Croyle fits in, only if we don't draft anyone. And Gray is nothing. Huard has chemistry with our current receivers.

Huard > Gray +1 IMO.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 12:30 PM
Never.

At least not specifically a 1st round pick.

But certainly not when you have a second year QB playing well.

I said somewhere else, that I have some real doubts about Thigpens ability to be a successful NFL QB.

But I don't bother trying to find my Manning until I am able to protect him.



Huard was put on IR, while we brought in Quin Gray and some other guy.


That's one seriously screwed up conspiracy.

Croyle fits in, only if we don't draft anyone. And Gray is nothing. Huard has chemistry with our current receivers.

Huard > Gray +1 IMO.
This is my WHOLE point about free agency!!!!!! We can not continue to take chances on O linemen who don't pan out more often than not around the entire league!! Look at the potential rookie of the year candidates.

tornadospotter
12-30-2008, 12:31 PM
It all depends on what offense we are going to run, if we stay with the spread, huard is done, but Croyle may work out of the spread.

chief31
12-30-2008, 12:46 PM
This is my WHOLE point about free agency!!!!!! We can not continue to take chances on O linemen who don't pan out more often than not around the entire league!! Look at the potential rookie of the year candidates.

Again, are you going to back that up with some facts? Or are you still under the impression that your opinion is fact?

KcChiefsForever58
12-30-2008, 12:51 PM
Huard - To old....youth movement should sign his exit card.

Croyle - To injury prone

Thigpen - Our best option right now

Seriously folks, Thigpen is our best option. He's been shaky but he took over the reigns of a team in utter chaos. He did a damn fine job in my opinion. Granted I don't think he's our future, but he's a damn fine place holder until we decide to pull our heads out and finally draft a franchise QB. I just hope when we do finally draft a QB it's not the 2nd coming of Blackledge.......:sign0080:

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 02:07 PM
Again, are you going to back that up with some facts? Or are you still under the impression that your opinion is fact?
Really? I mean fricken REALLY?????????

How about the undertaker playing in Oakland? Howd he work out? #2 overall pick!!!!

How about Mike Williams that was drafted #4 overall by Buffalo? Is he still in the league?

I could go on for days. Give me a break!!!

jmlamerson
12-30-2008, 02:22 PM
Really? I mean fricken REALLY?????????

How about the undertaker playing in Oakland? Howd he work out? #2 overall pick!!!!

How about Mike Williams that was drafted #4 overall by Buffalo? Is he still in the league?

I could go on for days. Give me a break!!!

Not to get in the middle of this, but the bust rate for 1st round QBs is much greater than for OL. OL is traditionally the safest position to draft, guys like Williams, Kenyetta Walker, and Robert Gallery aside.

You're right that every team needs a good QB. But who would you draft this year, except Stafford, to be our QBOTF?

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 02:30 PM
Not to get in the middle of this, but the bust rate for 1st round QBs is much greater than for OL. OL is traditionally the safest position to draft, guys like Williams, Kenyetta Walker, and Robert Gallery aside.

You're right that every team needs a good QB. But who would you draft this year, except Stafford, to be our QBOTF?
I am speaking of EVERY other position besides QB. O line was just an example. It was said that the bust rate of the QB position was higher than any other position on the field. Just not true! Besides, in this decade alone a person could name a ton more olineman that are busts compared to QB's strictly from the quantity drafted!

jmlamerson
12-30-2008, 02:39 PM
I am speaking of EVERY other position besides QB. O line was just an example. It was said that the bust rate of the QB position was higher than any other position on the field. Just not true! Besides, in this decade alone a person could name a ton more olineman that are busts compared to QB's strictly from the quantity drafted!

I don't think you're correct on that. Even if you just look at the top 5 picks over the past decade, you will see massive more busts in QB (Couch, Akili Smith, Carr, Harrington, etc.) than OL (only Gallery and Williams come to mind).

If my memory serves, the probability of 1st round busts since 1990 goes:

WR (about 70% if I remember correctly)
QB
DB
DL
LB
OL
RB

If I remember correctly, about 60% of QBs taken in the first round bust, as opposed to 35% of OL.

Xploder
12-30-2008, 06:24 PM
I want thingpen as our starter he deserves atleast to be it next year I think we have a qb situtuation under control.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 06:38 PM
I don't think you're correct on that. Even if you just look at the top 5 picks over the past decade, you will see massive more busts in QB (Couch, Akili Smith, Carr, Harrington, etc.) than OL (only Gallery and Williams come to mind).

If my memory serves, the probability of 1st round busts since 1990 goes:

WR (about 70% if I remember correctly)
QB
DB
DL
LB
OL
RB

If I remember correctly, about 60% of QBs taken in the first round bust, as opposed to 35% of OL.
READ the post! I'm not just talking about the O Line. I'm talking about other positions too. It is virtually impossible to have more busts at the QB position since there are many many more players drafted at the other positions!!!

jmlamerson
12-30-2008, 07:19 PM
READ the post! I'm not just talking about the O Line. I'm talking about other positions too. It is virtually impossible to have more busts at the QB position since there are many many more players drafted at the other positions!!!

More 1st round QBs bust by the % selected than at any other position than WR. In gross numbers, more 1st round QBs bust than 1st round OL.

Look, I gave you the numbers. I know it must not feel or sound right to you, but those are the facts. The Chiefs have a much, much greater chance busting with a QB than any position except WR. They have the least chance of busting by choosing a OL at any position except for RB.

Look at the drafts from 1990 to the present. They're available for free on wikipedia. By % and by whole numbers, you have more 1st round busts at QB than OL. And by %, you have more busts at QB than almost every other position.

How, exactly, are you disputing this?

texaschief
12-30-2008, 08:28 PM
Like I said before, drafting one of these two QBs #3 would be THE BIGGEST gamble EVER by this organization.

EVER!!!!!!!!!!

This franchise just isn't in the position to take gamble on taking a QB right now, especially if this is one of the last uncapped rookie salary years. We need to take the safest pick. That's obviously OT or LB. The ONLY reason I'd hate to see us take an OT (other than the huge salary) is the fact that it would absolutely DESTROY the value we got in drafting Albert last season. I think we got a steal in Albert last year, and while another LT would allow us to move Albert inside to bolster the line with two potential Pro Bowlers, the organization would get better value if they could fill the guard spot with either Niswanger or a later draft pick. Otherwise, we'd essentially be drafting a guard with the 15th pick from last year, which probably wouldn't have happened; that pick probably would've been a DE instead.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-30-2008, 08:49 PM
More 1st round QBs bust by the % selected than at any other position than WR. In gross numbers, more 1st round QBs bust than 1st round OL.

Look, I gave you the numbers. I know it must not feel or sound right to you, but those are the facts. The Chiefs have a much, much greater chance busting with a QB than any position except WR. They have the least chance of busting by choosing a OL at any position except for RB.

Look at the drafts from 1990 to the present. They're available for free on wikipedia. By % and by whole numbers, you have more 1st round busts at QB than OL. And by %, you have more busts at QB than almost every other position.

How, exactly, are you disputing this?
Here's where the problem is. You keep bringing up the O line for some ungodly reason even after repeated posts about me not talking about just O linemen. Also, I'm not sure but I don't believe I ever said anything about 1st round anything. I also addressed the % thing in an earlier post.

Since your on wikipedia tell me how many QB's were drafted this year and tell me how many whatever..OL, DL, WR's whatever were drafted. The number will be sooo lopsided in the OTHER catagory it not funny. Then tell me what number of drafted QB's were productive compared to the productive OTHER positions. Not that played, that were productive. Again, not close. I use the "productive" term because some who consider someone a bust may not be by another.

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 01:40 AM
Here's where the problem is. You keep bringing up the O line for some ungodly reason even after repeated posts about me not talking about just O linemen. Also, I'm not sure but I don't believe I ever said anything about 1st round anything. I also addressed the % thing in an earlier post.

Since your on wikipedia tell me how many QB's were drafted this year and tell me how many whatever..OL, DL, WR's whatever were drafted. The number will be sooo lopsided in the OTHER catagory it not funny. Then tell me what number of drafted QB's were productive compared to the productive OTHER positions. Not that played, that were productive. Again, not close. I use the "productive" term because some who consider someone a bust may not be by another.

So are you saying it is OK to draft an OT in the first round and take a QB in the 5th round?

And the numbers are lopsided because each team should only drafts one QB in a draft. Since you have 5 offensive linemen starting compared to the 1 QB starting, that is why more offensive linemen are taken than quarterbacks. Teams have 3 starting linebackers. Or we can look at cornerbacks. While there are only two starters, most teams have at least four corners, if not five or six. Therefore, teams are constantly going to draft cornerbacks, from the first to the seventh round, because a team only keeps three quarterbacks on a team.

Instead of caring about the math or word games, explain why the Chiefs need to take a QB or 1st round QB? Take your choice.

jmlamerson
12-31-2008, 10:59 AM
Here's where the problem is. You keep bringing up the O line for some ungodly reason even after repeated posts about me not talking about just O linemen. Also, I'm not sure but I don't believe I ever said anything about 1st round anything. I also addressed the % thing in an earlier post.

Since your on wikipedia tell me how many QB's were drafted this year and tell me how many whatever..OL, DL, WR's whatever were drafted. The number will be sooo lopsided in the OTHER catagory it not funny. Then tell me what number of drafted QB's were productive compared to the productive OTHER positions. Not that played, that were productive. Again, not close. I use the "productive" term because some who consider someone a bust may not be by another.

2008 was an aberration. And I referenced QBs as opposed to every other position as well.

Look it up for yourself. QBs bust more than other positions except WR. They bust about 60% of the time. You cannot hide from that number. Chances are any QB we draft will be a bust, much more so than other positions of need for this team.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 12:06 PM
2008 was an aberration. And I referenced QBs as opposed to every other position as well.

Look it up for yourself. QBs bust more than other positions except WR. They bust about 60% of the time. You cannot hide from that number. Chances are any QB we draft will be a bust, much more so than other positions of need for this team.
This will be the last response I post in regards to this. Again, for the last time at no point did I mention percentages. In fact I think I said there were more busts at other positions strictly based on the fact that there were more players drafted at those other positions. Example. if there were 50 DB's drafted, 40 of them were probably a non factor and not playing now. If there were 10 QB's drafted, 5 of them were non factors and not playing now, Hence, the larger number of busts being in the OTHER catagory!!!!!!!!! These are generic numbers for the literals out there!!!!! No percentages just sheer numbers!!!! Get it?

jmlamerson
12-31-2008, 12:09 PM
This will be the last response I post in regards to this. Again, for the last time at no point did I mention percentages. In fact I think I said there were more busts at other positions strictly based on the fact that there were more players drafted at those other positions. Example. if there were 50 DB's drafted, 40 of them were probably a non factor and not playing now. If there were 10 QB's drafted, 5 of them were non factors and not playing now, Hence, the larger number of busts being in the OTHER catagory!!!!!!!!! These are generic numbers for the literals out there!!!!! No percentages just sheer numbers!!!! Get it?

For the very last time, and I am tired of trying to get this through your skull, the number of busts of 1st round QBs in whole numbers exceeds most other positions. The whole number of QB busts exceeds OL, RB, and LB.

Can you finally understand this?

chief31
12-31-2008, 04:14 PM
This will be the last response I post in regards to this.

I'd imagine so. You can only back-peddle so far. But then, you could just try adding even more exclamation points!!!!!!!!


Again, for the last time at no point did I mention percentages.

Actually....


We can not continue to take chances on O linemen who don't pan out more often than not around the entire league!!

That statement is precentage based. It alludes to the likelihood, of something. Likelihood is measured in percentages.


In fact I think I said there were more busts at other positions strictly based on the fact that there were more players drafted at those other positions. Example. if there were 50 DB's drafted, 40 of them were probably a non factor and not playing now. If there were 10 QB's drafted, 5 of them were non factors and not playing now, Hence, the larger number of busts being in the OTHER catagory!!!!!!!!! These are generic numbers for the literals out there!!!!! No percentages just sheer numbers!!!! Get it?

Yeah. We get it. You aren't saying anything at all.

If there are ten CBs taken, and eight of them become superstars, while the other two flop, but only one QB is taken, and he flops, then... TADA!!!! More CBs flop them QBs! Hoorah!!! We do get it.

hermhater
12-31-2008, 04:18 PM
You still arguing with Hillbilly's chief31?

:D

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 04:36 PM
This will be the last response I post in regards to this. Again, for the last time at no point did I mention percentages. In fact I think I said there were more busts at other positions strictly based on the fact that there were more players drafted at those other positions. Example. if there were 50 DB's drafted, 40 of them were probably a non factor and not playing now. If there were 10 QB's drafted, 5 of them were non factors and not playing now, Hence, the larger number of busts being in the OTHER catagory!!!!!!!!! These are generic numbers for the literals out there!!!!! No percentages just sheer numbers!!!! Get it?

Do you get what you are saying? You have not mentioned numbers or facts. Just stating that there are more players taken at another position than the QB, does not make QB the position of less busts. Not to mention you do not talk about rounds in which each position is taken. So by your logic, if the Chiefs draft a quarterback in the fifth round, they are less likely to chose a bust since he is a QB (that is your argument). However, the likelihood that a fifth round QB becoming a starter is less likely than a fifth round O-linemen or a fifth CB (like Brandon Carr).

yashi
12-31-2008, 04:40 PM
I'd imagine so. You can only back-peddle so far. But then, you could just try adding even more exclamation points!!!!!!!!

:lol:

We shouldn't overthink things. It can be summed up pretty easily.

- There was pretty good play at the QB position with Thigpen (also see point #3).
- There was no pass rush whatsoever at any point this season on defense.
- Our QBs didn't have a whole lot of time to throw at any point this season. A bit more after switching to the spread, but still not an ideal amount of time.

In summary, OT, DE, LB who can rush the passer. Those are the priorities.

chief31
12-31-2008, 04:59 PM
You still arguing with Hillbilly's chief31?

:D


What's fun is fun. :D

By the way, nice to see you back around here.:welcome:

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:02 PM
I'd imagine so. You can only back-peddle so far. But then, you could just try adding even more exclamation points!!!!!!!!



Actually....



That statement is precentage based. It alludes to the likelihood, of something. Likelihood is measured in percentages.



Yeah. We get it. You aren't saying anything at all.

If there are ten CBs taken, and eight of them become superstars, while the other two flop, but only one QB is taken, and he flops, then... TADA!!!! More CBs flop them QBs! Hoorah!!! We do get it.
Really? Then give me your definition of the difference between percentages and whole numbers because you still haven't shown a quote where I said this is based on percentages. The original post was to say that there are far more players at positions other than QB that are busts in this league. Period. No percentages of this theory just the numbers of players!

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:04 PM
I'd imagine so. You can only back-peddle so far. But then, you could just try adding even more exclamation points!!!!!!!!



Actually....



That statement is precentage based. It alludes to the likelihood, of something. Likelihood is measured in percentages.



Yeah. We get it. You aren't saying anything at all.

If there are ten CBs taken, and eight of them become superstars, while the other two flop, but only one QB is taken, and he flops, then... TADA!!!! More CBs flop them QBs! Hoorah!!! We do get it.
Great. Finally you get it! Mods are always the last ones because they are too busy combing the boeard for major infractions waiting to lay the hammer down on someone! You my friend are THE classic example.

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 05:07 PM
Great. Finally you get it! Mods are always the last ones because they are too busy combing the boeard for major infractions waiting to lay the hammer down on someone! You my friend are THE classic example.

Instead of bad mouthing people, why don't you come up with some answers.

Look at my last post and tell me why numbers are better than percentages.

chief31
12-31-2008, 05:18 PM
Really? Then give me your definition of the difference between percentages and whole numbers because you still haven't shown a quote where I said this is based on percentages. The original post was to say that there are far more players at positions other than QB that are busts in this league. Period. No percentages of this theory just the numbers of players!

If you want to show whole numbers, then percentages are always relevant.

If you want to show the numbers 8 and 10, then 8 is 80% of ten. Every time. (real numbers, for all the geeks.)

But in this case, you said that OT draft picks don't pan out "More often than not".

That is a percentage based claim. It suggests that OTs flop more than 50% of the time.

And, since you were suggesting a QB as an alternative, I decided to mention that, more often than not, the OT is the more likely to "pan out" than the QB.

It is just wrong to state the likelihood of something, then deem that the measurement for likelihood is off limits in the conversation.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:27 PM
Instead of bad mouthing people, why don't you come up with some answers.

Look at my last post and tell me why numbers are better than percentages.
When someone tells me repeatedly that i am backpeddling I bad mouth them!

I never said anything about numbers being better than percentages. I was just pointing out a fact! In fact, you proved my point for me when you posted that there were more WR's that were considered busts than QB's for god sakes! My first post in this entire thread was that I think at some point in this organizations history, I thinl they need to draft a QBOTF. That was it. I still believe that. I also said that Thigpen was serviceable and if I were garanteed that they would fix the O line maybe that guy should hold the clipboard for a couple of years. At NO point did I ever say anything about drafting a QB for sure in the first round, I just stated that we may need to look at drafting Stafford or Bradford (which obviously be in the 1st round) but my prefference would be to improve the line by drafting 1 or 2 guys and being players in the FA market for O linemen. You just named at least 3 or 4 that will be available and all of them would be a drastic improvement to our line. I believe this whole thing stemmed from the fact that you probably didn't read my original post and decided to jump right in!

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 05:30 PM
When someone tells me repeatedly that i am backpeddling I bad mouth them!

I never said anything about numbers being better than percentages. I was just pointing out a fact! In fact, you proved my point for me when you posted that there were more WR's that were considered busts than QB's for god sakes! My first post in this entire thread was that I think at some point in this organizations history, I thinl they need to draft a QBOTF. That was it. I still believe that. I also said that Thigpen was serviceable and if I were garanteed that they would fix the O line maybe that guy should hold the clipboard for a couple of years. At NO point did I ever say anything about drafting a QB for sure in the first round, I just stated that we may need to look at drafting Stafford or Bradford (which obviously be in the 1st round) but my prefference would be to improve the line by drafting 1 or 2 guys and being players in the FA market for O linemen. You just named at least 3 or 4 that will be available and all of them would be a drastic improvement to our line. I believe this whole thing stemmed from the fact that you probably didn't read my original post and decided to jump right in!

I am not the one who said you were backpedaling.

I am not the one who pointed out that WRs bust more than QBs.

While I did label 3 potential FA, only one of them is a question mark to be a FA.

So tell me, who is not paying attention to detail.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:32 PM
If you want to show whole numbers, then percentages are always relevant.

If you want to show the numbers 8 and 10, then 8 is 80% of ten. Every time. (real numbers, for all the geeks.)

But in this case, you said that OT draft picks don't pan out "More often than not".

That is a percentage based claim. It suggests that OTs flop more than 50% of the time.

And, since you were suggesting a QB as an alternative, I decided to mention that, more often than not, the OT is the more likely to "pan out" than the QB.

It is just wrong to state the likelihood of something, then deem that the measurement for likelihood is off limits in the conversation.
Fine. I guess everything in the entire world could be based on percentages. I guess I was in fact right then when saying that there are more WR's (as jlam) pointed out than QB's. However, tell me this what is the higher percentage: 10 QB's drafted, 3 didn't pan out. 90 WR's drafted, 60 didn't pan out.

chief31
12-31-2008, 05:32 PM
When someone tells me repeatedly that i am backpeddling I bad mouth them!


Now this is in whole numbers...


I said you were back-peddling one time. That's one. If it had been "repeatedly", then one would be 50% or less of the time. But I didn't. I said it one time. Not repeatedly.

Maybe you just read that post repeatedly.:D

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:34 PM
I am not the one who said you were backpedaling.

I am not the one who pointed out that WRs bust more than QBs.

While I did label 3 potential FA, only one of them is a question mark to be a FA.

So tell me, who is not paying attention to detail.
My bad it was jlame that pointed that out. However I do believe you are of the same belief as him.

chief31
12-31-2008, 05:34 PM
Fine. I guess everything in the entire world could be based on percentages. I guess I was in fact right then when saying that there are more WR's (as jlam) pointed out than QB's. However, tell me this what is the higher percentage: 10 QB's drafted, 3 didn't pan out. 90 WR's drafted, 60 didn't pan out.

I don't care. That isn't a part of my discussion. You can ask JM to do that math for you.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:34 PM
Now this is in whole numbers...


I said you were back-peddling one time. That's one. If it had been "repeatedly", then one would be 50% or less of the time. But I didn't. I said it one time. Not repeatedly.

Maybe you just read that post repeatedly.:D
Repeatedly throughout my time here on the zone. True or not?

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:35 PM
I don't care. That isn't a part of my discussion. You can ask JM to do that math for you.
Really? You just boke it down 2 posts earlier.

chief31
12-31-2008, 05:46 PM
Repeatedly throughout my time here on the zone. True or not?

That could be true. We have argued plenty. :DBut I will bet against it. I don't think that I have ever use the term "Back peddleing" on the internet before.


Really? You just boke it down 2 posts earlier.

I broke down how numbers work. But I didn't volunteer to do all of your math for you.

I teach you to fish, so you can fish. Not so you can ask me to do your fishing. Why teach you to fish?

***Just in case you don't get that, just replace "do math" for the word "fish" and "Math" for the word "Fishing".***

The discussion that you and I were having, before you decided to disqualify percentages, was about QBs Vs. OTs.

But I would still rather you see you practice your new math skills, instead of asking me to do it for you.

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 05:48 PM
So to continue the thread, does any disagree that Thigpen can serve as a starter for the next season, even though he may not be the future franchise QB?

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:49 PM
That could be true. We have argued plenty. :DBut I will bet against it. I don't think that I have ever use the term "Back peddleing" on the internet before.



I broke down how numbers work. But I didn't volunteer to do all of your math for you.

I teach you to fish, so you can fish. Not so you can ask me to do your fishing. Why teach you to fish?

***Just in case you don't get that, just replace "do math" for the word "fish" and "Math" for the word "Fishing".***

The discussion that you and I were having, before you decided to disqualify percentages, was about QBs Vs. OTs.

But I would still rather you see you practice your new math skills, instead of asking me to do it for you.
You wanna bet a trip to the season opener?

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:50 PM
So to continue the thread, does any disagree that Thigpen can serve as a starter for the next season, even though he may not be the future franchise QB?
I think he can be a starter like either of the other 2 could but my expectation would be almost identicle to what they were this year. Less than 8 wins.

jmlamerson
12-31-2008, 05:53 PM
I think he can be a starter like either of the other 2 could but my expectation would be almost identicle to what they were this year. Less than 8 wins.

It's a pretty safe bet that the Chiefs are losing next year unless we get a massive influx of talent across the board. No matter who we have as a QB.

Anyway, why would you want to draft a QB in the terrible QB class of 2009 when we have an extremely rich QB class in 2010?

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 05:57 PM
It's a pretty safe bet that the Chiefs are losing next year unless we get a massive influx of talent across the board. No matter who we have as a QB.

Anyway, why would you want to draft a QB in the terrible QB class of 2009 when we have an extremely rich QB class in 2010?
I would definetly take a look at the Stafford kid. I think he would be atop or near it in the draft next year as well. I also think they are more than just next year away from turning things around. Unless we have 2 more years of drafts like we had this year, we will be losing for a while.

Pro_Angler
12-31-2008, 05:59 PM
I would like to keep Thigpen around for another year as well, i'd like to see what he could do with d.bowe and crabtree... wowzers....

But sadly most of the mock drafts are picking the chiefs to draft QB.

jmlamerson
12-31-2008, 06:01 PM
I would definetly take a look at the Stafford kid. I think he would be atop or near it in the draft next year as well. I also think they are more than just next year away from turning things around. Unless we have 2 more years of drafts like we had this year, we will be losing for a while.

Stafford will be gone at 1 or 2.

When he is, should we wait for next year or draft a QBOTF this year?

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 06:06 PM
Stafford will be gone at 1 or 2.

When he is, should we wait for next year or draft a QBOTF this year?

I say wait. But my opinion is a bit skewed since I believe that Thigpen has shown enough to deserve to be the starter for next season. There are no guarantees past next year though for Thigpen. If he does not "wow" us in '09, then draft one in 2010 where there will be a good QB class like you mentioned (Good point by the way).

I also think that Stafford will be taken before the Chiefs can get him.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 06:10 PM
Stafford will be gone at 1 or 2.

When he is, should we wait for next year or draft a QBOTF this year?
I think they should wait. Maybe Bradford but I'm not sold on him. If Stafford is there you feel they should not draft him if available I'm guessing? You want 3 O linemen huh?

chief31
12-31-2008, 06:12 PM
You wanna bet a trip to the season opener?

How about a signature bet?

If you can prove that I have accused you of back-peddling beofre today, I add "Drunkhillbilly is right!!!!" to my sig.

If you don't, then you add "Chief31 is right !!!" to yours? Say... for thirty days?

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 06:22 PM
How about a signature bet?

If you can prove that I have accused you of back-peddling beofre today, I add "Drunkhillbilly is right!!!!" to my sig.

If you don't, then you add "Chief31 is right !!!" to yours? Say... for thirty days?
No, not that interested in searching all of the threads which is why I'm guessing is the same reason you aren't accepting my bet. However, you have said it in the past. I think you know I remember stuff like this.

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 06:24 PM
I think they should wait. Maybe Bradford but I'm not sold on him. If Stafford is there you feel they should not draft him if available I'm guessing? You want 3 O linemen huh?

If 3 O-linemen are the BPA in each of those rounds then I do not see the big deal.

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 06:26 PM
If 3 O-linemen are the BPA in each of those rounds then I do not see the big deal.
I don't think that will be the case.

chief31
12-31-2008, 06:31 PM
No, not that interested in searching all of the threads which is why I'm guessing is the same reason you aren't accepting my bet. However, you have said it in the past. I think you know I remember stuff like this.


No. I just can't afford your bet.

But if you don't have what it takes to back up your claims, then you are just full of it. :D

And no. I don't trust you to remember things. :lol:

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 06:35 PM
No. I just can't afford your bet.

But if you don't have what it takes to back up your claims, then you are just full of it. :D

And no. I don't trust you to remember things. :lol:
I have what it takes but I figured you being the all mighty stat, research guru you are, you would do it.:D I'm just lazy!!:fatlock:

chief31
12-31-2008, 06:37 PM
I have what it takes but I figured you being the all mighty stat, research guru you are, you would do it.:D I'm just lazy!!:fatlock:

No way, Jose! Your claim, your work.


Wait... in fact, I did all the work already. It isn't here. You lose. :lol:

Drunker Hillbilly
12-31-2008, 06:39 PM
No way, Jose! Your claim, your work.


Wait... in fact, I did all the work already. It isn't here. You lose. :lol:
BAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA:yahoo:

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 06:43 PM
I don't think that will be the case.

It's not crazy though. At the first round third spot, Oher or Monroe could be taken that high. They are both excellent LTs that could bolster any O-line for the next ten years. I have Oher over Monroe just slightly because it seems that Oher has better technique, however, they both have great size and footwork. I find footwork important since LT will usually handle the speed pass rusher.

Then in the second round, if Alex Mack is still there at the third spot, he is a no brainer. The best OC in the draft and an immediate starter.

As far as the third round, that one can go any direction. Since the Combine has not happened yet, the third round is more speculation than the first two rounds.

chief31
12-31-2008, 06:44 PM
BAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA:yahoo:

Shall I do the honors of adjusting your sig for you?:D

jmlamerson
12-31-2008, 06:56 PM
I think they should wait. Maybe Bradford but I'm not sold on him. If Stafford is there you feel they should not draft him if available I'm guessing? You want 3 O linemen huh?

I do want three OL - badly. We should have drafted them last year. Imagine if we'd still drafted Albert in the 1st and a C and RG in the 3rd last year (instead of non-factors like Morgan and Cottam). We have to do it sometime - let's pull the band-aid that is our current line and get a unit in there that will be a foundation for the team for the next decade.

If Stafford is available, the Chiefs shouldn't even think about it - they should pick him immediately. I would still want to draft OL heavily in the 2nd-4th, but I think Stafford will be a great pro.

Stafford will not be available, and Bradford isn't anywhere near NFL ready. 2010 is a much better year to get a QBOTF. We can build the rest of the team (or large potions of it) in 2009.

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 06:59 PM
I do want three OL - badly. We should have drafted them last year. Imagine if we'd still drafted Albert in the 1st and a C and RG in the 3rd last year (instead of non-factors like Morgan and Cottam). We have to do it sometime - let's pull the band-aid that is our current line and get a unit in there that will be a foundation for the team for the next decade.

If Stafford is available, the Chiefs shouldn't even think about it - they should pick him immediately. I would still want to draft OL heavily in the 2nd-4th, but I think Stafford will be a great pro.

Stafford will not be available, and Bradford isn't anywhere near NFL ready. 2010 is a much better year to get a QBOTF. We can build the rest of the team (or large potions of it) in 2009.

While I agree with you on the O-line needing to be fixed, the third round last year is not the problem. Cottam and Morgan were value picks, and they could turn into starters one day. I think this season Herm and Carl overestimated how the line would play with just adding Albert. But something does need to be done.

jmlamerson
12-31-2008, 07:14 PM
While I agree with you on the O-line needing to be fixed, the third round last year is not the problem. Cottam and Morgan were value picks, and they could turn into starters one day. I think this season Herm and Carl overestimated how the line would play with just adding Albert. But something does need to be done.

Cottam and Morgan were terrible picks IMHO. Cottam was brought in behind the greatest TE of his era to be a 2TE for his first contract. We drafted a SS in Morgan to be a reserve behind the 23-year-old Pollard. These are project players who rode the pine all season while we had to go to the spread to keep our QBs upright.

We've only drafted one OL in the first five rounds in the past three years (Albert), despite everyone complaining that Vermiel left the cupboard bare. We need to restock sometime.

A decent young C and RG would have been a whole lot more useful to this organization than Morgan and Cottam, in both the long and short runs.

theaxeeffect4311
12-31-2008, 07:28 PM
Cottam and Morgan were terrible picks IMHO. Cottam was brought in behind the greatest TE of his era to be a 2TE for his first contract. We drafted a SS in Morgan to be a reserve behind the 23-year-old Pollard. These are project players who rode the pine all season while we had to go to the spread to keep our QBs upright.

We've only drafted one OL in the first five rounds in the past three years (Albert), despite everyone complaining that Vermiel left the cupboard bare. We need to restock sometime.

A decent young C and RG would have been a whole lot more useful to this organization than Morgan and Cottam, in both the long and short runs.

I'm not doubting you that it was a mistake to only pick one lineman. But Herm is known as being one to underestimate the importance of an O-line. We need a good draft this season with at least three linemen.

Cottam could be the starter if Tony is traded. I think Cottam has a lot of upside even though he did not play much this season.

Morgan is not a bad choice. There are many wondering about Page and Pollard. I think Pollard is a great SS. The good thing about Morgan this season is that they had him subbing at both safety positions. If he becomes the starting FS, would you think that is a bad choice?

Big Daddy Tek
12-31-2008, 07:38 PM
Cottam and Morgan were terrible picks IMHO. Cottam was brought in behind the greatest TE of his era to be a 2TE for his first contract. We drafted a SS in Morgan to be a reserve behind the 23-year-old Pollard. These are project players who rode the pine all season while we had to go to the spread to keep our QBs upright.

We've only drafted one OL in the first five rounds in the past three years (Albert), despite everyone complaining that Vermiel left the cupboard bare. We need to restock sometime.

A decent young C and RG would have been a whole lot more useful to this organization than Morgan and Cottam, in both the long and short runs.

We needed to pick more Lineman period. Your issue with Morgan is warranted, but Im not sure about your opinion of Cottam. Cottam might have been the single most responsible person for the success of Gonzo this year. Over and over again, Cottam lined up as an additional blocker which allowed Tony to start out wide. Cottam was pass blocking in about 40% of our shotgun formations and did an amazing job. Could Jason Dunn have done that? Probably better, but I dont think that we should penalize Cottam for it. I think you are judging him more off of catching passes, which he didnt do a whole lot of. But heres the facts, he's 6'8 and faster than Gonzo. You might end up lovin this guy JM!

As far as my pick this year. The only tackle that I like in the first three picks is Andre Smith. I think Jason Smith from Baylor is as good as Monroe and better than Oher. Infact, I wont be surprised if Oher isnt even a top ten pick. Anyway, If Smith is gone by 3, then I think we should take Aaron Curry OLB out of Wake Forrest. This guy has no flaws and might be the most complete player at any position in the draft, other than Crabtree.

Pro_Angler
12-31-2008, 08:55 PM
i don't believe our OL was as much a problem as it was croyle being a sissy. I think that the OL seemed not so bad for Thigpen.

Big Daddy Tek
12-31-2008, 09:03 PM
i don't believe our OL was as much a problem as it was croyle being a sissy. I think that the OL seemed not so bad for Thigpen.

Their is only two guys on that line that should be starting. The rest are awful. All of them. Thats why we were in the spread, we cant run the ball and we cant throw out of a conventional offense

chief31
01-01-2009, 12:56 AM
i don't believe our OL was as much a problem as it was croyle being a sissy. I think that the OL seemed not so bad for Thigpen.

They are the worst group that I have ever watched play for a full season.

Barry Sanders might not have rushed for 1500 yards behind them. And Brett Favre would have had his season ended.

If not for the quick tempo Spread, which makes it difficult for a defense to disguise blitzes, then we may well have broken the team sacks record on both sides of the ball.

Because of the spread, I have no way to evaluate Alberts value as an NFL LOT. It may well have ruined him, as it does with Broncos O-linemen. Those guys are worthless elsewhere, as they have been playing in a knee-cap attacking system, and don't know how to do any real blocking.

The same goes with this spread. They don't have to deal with real defensive blitz packages, nor offer reasonable time in the pocket, due to the system.

If you allow them to get comfortable with that, then they are unable to handle the real task, of identifying blitzes, and holding blocks for real protection, should they be asked to play NFL offense again.

As for Cottam, I don't believe that he was, nor is, a bad player to have picked.

But to have ignored such an obvious need on the O-line, and take a ??OTF was a bad choice, IMO.

Nothing against the player. I have the same feelings about Charles.

I like Charles. I think that he is an assett to the team. Just not as much as an every down starter. And a large collection of monkey s*** could have started for us at RG, or RT this season.

We had three thrid round picks, and a gaping pair of O-line holes. We passed on Jeff Zutah and Anthony Collins three times in that round. Four times in Colins' case. Both were projected to have gone before the third round started.

You just don't draft for back-ups, when you still need starters. Especially if you still need 2-3 starters on a single unit.

Damien Sackintosh is not an NFL starter. And "I ain't got no" Aliby Jones was not good enough to for the horrible Jets O-line (horrible before '07), and was expected to start for ours. And did!

We have been starting garbage on our O-line and it was so horrible that it made Larry Johnson look like an undrafted FA, and put ends to the seasons of Croyle and Huard and eventually made us switch to a college style offense, out of sheer desperation.

And now, because that desperation move of employing a gimmick offense showed some miniscule fruits, we are acting like it is ok to contuinue to ignore the problem.

Now, I give credit where it is due. And Sackintosh and "I ain't got no" Aliby did a pretty fair job of doing the hardly anything that they were asked to do with this spread.

But I still contest that you (whoever is reading) could have done that as well.

I want a real NFL O-line here, or else...... I am going to rant and rave for another year. :D

yashi
01-01-2009, 11:49 AM
Thigpen really didn't have that much time to throw, even with the spread... that's the main reason I was so impressed with him. Nobody can deny he showed the ability to stand tall in the pocket and deliver throws with someone in his face, and when it wasn't possible to he was able to scramble and make plays (#1 in rushing yards among QBs).

I want to see what the kid can do with a decent line. He's earned as much. A top LT pick and Mack/Unger would give this line a ton of potential.

Chiefstillidie
01-01-2009, 04:21 PM
i still like thigpen but he might be out if the chiefs get pioli.

theaxeeffect4311
01-02-2009, 04:18 AM
i still like thigpen but he might be out if the chiefs get pioli.

I don't think so. I think the Chiefs have the potential to sign him cheap, which means Thigpen can battle for the starting QB job for whoever Pioli brings in. Whether it's through free agency or the draft.

jmlamerson
01-02-2009, 02:41 PM
I don't think so. I think the Chiefs have the potential to sign him cheap, which means Thigpen can battle for the starting QB job for whoever Pioli brings in. Whether it's through free agency or the draft.

Yeah, I think unless the Chiefs sign a vet (Warner, Garcia, etc.) and draft a QBOTF - and I don't think they do - Thigpen will be on the team next year in some way, shape or form.

The only way I could see Thigpen leaving the team is if we win the Matt Cassel sweepstakes and the new GM wants to avoid a QB controversy - and again, I don't see that happening.

theaxeeffect4311
01-02-2009, 07:10 PM
Yeah, I think unless the Chiefs sign a vet (Warner, Garcia, etc.) and draft a QBOTF - and I don't think they do - Thigpen will be on the team next year in some way, shape or form.

The only way I could see Thigpen leaving the team is if we win the Matt Cassel sweepstakes and the new GM wants to avoid a QB controversy - and again, I don't see that happening.

No no no...I doubt the Chiefs will even be in the running for Cassel. I have to question whether Cassel is good or it's the offense around him. Either way it looks like the Patriots will franchise tag Cassel then trade him off to the highest bidder. The Chiefs do not have draft picks to lose in a trade.

jmlamerson
01-02-2009, 07:29 PM
No no no...I doubt the Chiefs will even be in the running for Cassel. I have to question whether Cassel is good or it's the offense around him. Either way it looks like the Patriots will franchise tag Cassel then trade him off to the highest bidder. The Chiefs do not have draft picks to lose in a trade.

I didn't say I wanted Cassel - only that his signing would be the only way in which I see Thigpen being something other than a Chief next season.

The Pats may try to franchise tag him, but NFLPA regs state that a franchise tag can only be used if the player is intended to be a starter that year. That's the reason Brees was let go in SD to be a FA instead of franchised. Don't be too sure the Pats franchise him this year, and if they do and Brady is the 2009 starter, expect a grievance to be filed. I think the Pats, after Spygate, will be pretty skittish about another rules snafu.

I think Cassel will be a decent pro outside NE, but I don't see the Chiefs being a good landing spot for him.

theaxeeffect4311
01-02-2009, 07:34 PM
I didn't say I wanted Cassel - only that his signing would be the only way in which I see Thigpen being something other than a Chief next season.

The Pats may try to franchise tag him, but NFLPA regs state that a franchise tag can only be used if the player is intended to be a starter that year. That's the reason Brees was let go in SD to be a FA instead of franchised. Don't be too sure the Pats franchise him this year, and if they do and Brady is the 2009 starter, expect a grievance to be filed. I think the Pats, after Spygate, will be pretty skittish about another rules snafu.

I think Cassel will be a decent pro outside NE, but I don't see the Chiefs being a good landing spot for him.

That is not entirely true. We franchise tagged Allen last season, so we could trade him off. We may not have tagged him at first to trade him, but that is how it turned out. The Pats can say something about how they want Cassel around just in case Brady is not progressing as they had hoped from his injury.

And I did not think you were promoting Cassel. I was just trying to clear things for those who were thinking about it. Because no.

jmlamerson
01-02-2009, 07:46 PM
That is not entirely true. We franchise tagged Allen last season, so we could trade him off. We may not have tagged him at first to trade him, but that is how it turned out. The Pats can say something about how they want Cassel around just in case Brady is not progressing as they had hoped from his injury.

And I did not think you were promoting Cassel. I was just trying to clear things for those who were thinking about it. Because no.

You can trade someone you've franchised, and teams do that sometimes. But you cannot franchise someone you do not intend to play. We couldn't have franchised Allen with the intention of sitting him on the bench behind McBride without a grievance being filed. If Al David franchised Asomugha with the intention of not playing him, just to prevent him from going to the Chiefs, he could file a grievance with Goodell and become a FA.

Same thing with the Pats. They can't franchise Cassel with the intention of his being a 2nd string player.

Intention is hard to prove, I fully admit, but since everyone knows that Brady is the starter next year if healthy, then NE might not want to chance it. Cassel seems like a team player, but you never know, especially with his having millions of dollars on the line.

theaxeeffect4311
01-02-2009, 08:03 PM
You can trade someone you've franchised, and teams do that sometimes. But you cannot franchise someone you do not intend to play. We couldn't have franchised Allen with the intention of sitting him on the bench behind McBride without a grievance being filed. If Al David franchised Asomugha with the intention of not playing him, just to prevent him from going to the Chiefs, he could file a grievance with Goodell and become a FA.

Same thing with the Pats. They can't franchise Cassel with the intention of his being a 2nd string player.

Intention is hard to prove, I fully admit, but since everyone knows that Brady is the starter next year if healthy, then NE might not want to chance it. Cassel seems like a team player, but you never know, especially with his having millions of dollars on the line.

I guess we'll just wait and see what happens. Either way, the Chiefs should not get involved with Cassel.

Chiefstillidie
01-07-2009, 02:44 PM
I guess we'll just wait and see what happens. Either way, the Chiefs should not get involved with Cassel.


that will be intresting! But i still say you stick with thigpen. No sense in not giving the guy another shot. Hell look what happened with trent green his first season in kc he threw more interceptions then TD. But he went on to be a good QB for kc. Give him some time it his first season.

m0ef0e
01-07-2009, 05:51 PM
Thig should be our QB moving forward until somebody beats him out for the job. I think we should still bring somebody in via FA (I'm not very hyped about drafting a QB, myself) and hold an open competition for the starting spot. I'd be rooting for Thig to win it, personally but I would like us to look something like this at QB going into the regular season:

QB1 - Tyler Thigpen
QB2 - a solid FA acquisition
QB3 - Quinn Gray (I'm not sure of his contract situation, etc. but at least someone comparable to him.)

okikcfan
01-08-2009, 05:48 PM
I think they will pick up a QB in the draft then pick up a vet. QB in the offseason and keep Thig and let them battle it out.

josh1971
01-08-2009, 06:04 PM
I think they will pick up a QB in the draft then pick up a vet. QB in the offseason and keep Thig and let them battle it out.


Not being a *******o, here, but why in particular do you think that?

jb

Seek
01-09-2009, 06:25 PM
Not being a *******o, here, but why in particular do you think that?

jb

I also think the Chiefs will draft a Qb, and I don't like it. I want Thigpen. I don'g think they will sign a vet though.

My reasoning is the same reasoning I think Herm is done. (other than he sucks) The new GM is building his own team, he will build it with his guys. Starting with his coach followed by the QB. Thigpen will stay and give the new QB competition, and maybe start until the next Qb is ready to take it from him.

windwalker
01-10-2009, 09:17 AM
As it has been stated in numerous threads...

UNTIL the offensive line is FIXED.. it won't matter who the QB is or how good the RBs are.

Rebuild from the trenches, then worry about the "stars"

Coach
01-10-2009, 03:06 PM
I wont be surprised if Oher isnt even a top ten pick.
Me either. I think he is WAY overrated.


As it has been stated in numerous threads...

UNTIL the offensive line is FIXED.. it won't matter who the QB is or how good the RBs are.

Rebuild from the trenches, then worry about the "stars"

I think this is the best approach as well. Everything starts in the trenches. A good line makes our running game look better, which will help out our qb.

RedZones
01-11-2009, 02:01 PM
I have't read much of this tread yet, say the overall topic so here it goes:

I am a firm believer in Thigpen as our starter. I was talking to a friend of mine in preseason and stated "this kid is the most athletic QB we have, and I see him as being the starter by the end of the season" then he started the Atlanta Game, and I heard about it (haha)

He then turned it around and proved me right. He is a very good young player, with much upside (mobile, big heart, and physical). My belief is that a QB and RB are only as good as their O-line, if you can't protect them, they can't play.

Two arguments I have on Thigpens' Behalf:

1. I think it's BS about the talk on he wasn't running an "NFL style offense". Guess what people, the Chiefs are in the "NFL", and they were running that offense successfully in the "NFL" so who gives a hoot! Its not like we get docked points in a game, or flagged 5yds every time we line up in a spread offense, we moved the ball the best all season in that offense, and good coaches, coach to theri players strengths. "IF IT AINT BROKE DON'T FIX IT!"

2. Although Thigpen only won 1 game under center this season, it is not all his fault. The blame always gets shoved on the coach and QB when there are 52 others players on the roster. The Chiefs lost I think 9 games this season by 7 points or less, mostly in the 4th quarter, last 2 mins, and some in OT. If we can get 3 solid starters on Defense through FA and the Draft (DE, ILB, OLB) I think our record this season would improve dramatically.

Goog Luck next year Tyler!

tornadospotter
01-11-2009, 02:54 PM
I have't read much of this tread yet, say the overall topic so here it goes:

I am a firm believer in Thigpen as our starter. I was talking to a friend of mine in preseason and stated "this kid is the most athletic QB we have, and I see him as being the starter by the end of the season" then he started the Atlanta Game, and I heard about it (haha)

He then turned it around and proved me right. He is a very good young player, with much upside (mobile, big heart, and physical). My belief is that a QB and RB are only as good as their O-line, if you can't protect them, they can't play.

Two arguments I have on Thigpens' Behalf:

1. I think it's BS about the talk on he wasn't running an "NFL style offense". Guess what people, the Chiefs are in the "NFL", and they were running that offense successfully in the "NFL" so who gives a hoot! Its not like we get docked points in a game, or flagged 5yds every time we line up in a spread offense, we moved the ball the best all season in that offense, and good coaches, coach to theri players strengths. "IF IT AINT BROKE DON'T FIX IT!"

2. Although Thigpen only won 1 game under center this season, it is not all his fault. The blame always gets shoved on the coach and QB when there are 52 others players on the roster. The Chiefs lost I think 9 games this season by 7 points or less, mostly in the 4th quarter, last 2 mins, and some in OT. If we can get 3 solid starters on Defense through FA and the Draft (DE, ILB, OLB) I think our record this season would improve dramatically.

Goog Luck next year Tyler!


:sign0098: I agree.

jmlamerson
01-11-2009, 02:58 PM
I have't read much of this tread yet, say the overall topic so here it goes:

I am a firm believer in Thigpen as our starter. I was talking to a friend of mine in preseason and stated "this kid is the most athletic QB we have, and I see him as being the starter by the end of the season" then he started the Atlanta Game, and I heard about it (haha)

He then turned it around and proved me right. He is a very good young player, with much upside (mobile, big heart, and physical). My belief is that a QB and RB are only as good as their O-line, if you can't protect them, they can't play.

Two arguments I have on Thigpens' Behalf:

1. I think it's BS about the talk on he wasn't running an "NFL style offense". Guess what people, the Chiefs are in the "NFL", and they were running that offense successfully in the "NFL" so who gives a hoot! Its not like we get docked points in a game, or flagged 5yds every time we line up in a spread offense, we moved the ball the best all season in that offense, and good coaches, coach to theri players strengths. "IF IT AINT BROKE DON'T FIX IT!"

2. Although Thigpen only won 1 game under center this season, it is not all his fault. The blame always gets shoved on the coach and QB when there are 52 others players on the roster. The Chiefs lost I think 9 games this season by 7 points or less, mostly in the 4th quarter, last 2 mins, and some in OT. If we can get 3 solid starters on Defense through FA and the Draft (DE, ILB, OLB) I think our record this season would improve dramatically.

Goog Luck next year Tyler!

We only won one game in the spread - it is a bad offense in the NFL because your defense is on the field too much, you can't grind the clock down, and because defenses are able to adapt pretty easily for the 2nd half, making the spread ineffective in the 2nd halves of games. We lost the Chargers and Bucs games specifically because of these problems.

The longer we play in the spread, the more it hurts our young guys (Albert, Bowe, Bradley, Thigpen, Cottam, Charles, etc.), who will become accustomed to it and may be unable to move back successfully to a regular NFL offense.

I think Thigpen, if we get him a real offensive line, may be able to run a NFL style offense. Until we get one, we won't know. As the 2009 draft is awful for QBs and the 2010 draft is rich with them, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to draft anyone this year anyway.

debearzz
01-11-2009, 07:41 PM
I think Thigpen, if we get him a real offensive line, may be able to run a NFL style offense. Until we get one, we won't know. As the 2009 draft is awful for QBs and the 2010 draft is rich with them, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to draft anyone this year anyway.

I agree.

Anyways, the reason for switching to the spread during the season was to help our offensive line. Our offensive line was terrible in the normal style offense. It could not run block or pass block. When we switched to the spread, the number of sacks allowed plummeted. Although the running game did not really pick up from our hb's, Thigpen was able to scramble easier in shotgun and run for yards.

Next year, with some offseason additions to our line, we will most likely return to the normal style. If not, say hello to the spread again.

chiefnut
01-11-2009, 08:01 PM
Tyler may not be manning or brady but he is head & shoulders above croyle or huard. i'd like to see him get a shot behind an O line that can block for the run and pass protect. He could lead us for years, asuming we also get a defensive pass rush. boy that's a lot of ifs'.

Coach
01-11-2009, 11:05 PM
i'd like to see him get a shot behind an O line that can block for the run and pass protect.
Me too.

Coach
01-11-2009, 11:18 PM
We only won one game in the spread - it is a bad offense in the NFL because your defense is on the field too much, you can't grind the clock down, and because defenses are able to adapt pretty easily for the 2nd half, making the spread ineffective in the 2nd halves of games.

What? I'm calling BS.
1. The clock runs just the same when you run from the spread as it does out of a pro-set formation.

2. Defense are able to adapt in the 2nd half easier? Defenses adapt in the 2nd half of every game regardless of the style of offense. They adapt after every possession. That's why you see people on the sidelines studying photos of plays from the prior possession.

There are reasons why pundits don't believe the spread won't workin the NFL, but those aren't it. Things like the speed and size of the players are usually the reasons people grasp at. I don't buy it. New England ran a spread offense from time to time last year. Remember that flop of an offense? They never scored points in the 2nd half did they? If I recall they set the all-time season scoring record. Lots of teams are using spread formations as part of their game plan nowadays.

RedZones
01-11-2009, 11:27 PM
Thank your Coach!

My point has been proven!

Big Daddy Tek
01-12-2009, 03:16 AM
What? I'm calling BS.
1. The clock runs just the same when you run from the spread as it does out of a pro-set formation.

2. Defense are able to adapt in the 2nd half easier? Defenses adapt in the 2nd half of every game regardless of the style of offense. They adapt after every possession. That's why you see people on the sidelines studying photos of plays from the prior possession.

There are reasons why pundits don't believe the spread won't workin the NFL, but those aren't it. Things like the speed and size of the players are usually the reasons people grasp at. I don't buy it. New England ran a spread offense from time to time last year. Remember that flop of an offense? They never scored points in the 2nd half did they? If I recall they set the all-time season scoring record. Lots of teams are using spread formations as part of their game plan nowadays.

You are absolutly right coach. The spread is perfectly fine as long as we can also run the ball, especially late in the game. We are gonna have to pass out of a standard formation once in a while, just to keep the defense honest, but we can definitly run the spread if we do it right.

As far as the clock management. I think that JM is referring more to the fact that its a faster paced offense and includes more passes, which stops the clock after each incompletion. BUT, a long drive is a long drive. If your offense goes 80 yards, I dont care what formation your in, your gonna burn clock. Im fine with it.

jmlamerson
01-12-2009, 11:16 AM
What? I'm calling BS.
1. The clock runs just the same when you run from the spread as it does out of a pro-set formation.

2. Defense are able to adapt in the 2nd half easier? Defenses adapt in the 2nd half of every game regardless of the style of offense. They adapt after every possession. That's why you see people on the sidelines studying photos of plays from the prior possession.

There are reasons why pundits don't believe the spread won't workin the NFL, but those aren't it. Things like the speed and size of the players are usually the reasons people grasp at. I don't buy it. New England ran a spread offense from time to time last year. Remember that flop of an offense? They never scored points in the 2nd half did they? If I recall they set the all-time season scoring record. Lots of teams are using spread formations as part of their game plan nowadays.

1. The clock doesn't run as fast. As Big Daddy Tek wrote, the emphasis on the pass causes the TOP to favor the other team. There's a reason that the no-huddle Bills of the 90s never won the SB - they couldn't control the clock in the big game.

Likewise, when the Chiefs throw, throw, throw and our running game isn't a serious threat, the TOP will almost always favor the other team. Teams running the spread don't usually have long, time-consuming drives. This puts their defenses out there longer, which tires them out. Especially smaller defenses like ours.

2. Of course most HCs not named Herm are continually adapting. But defenses were not used to our spread offense, and it caught them by surprise most games at its effectiveness. Once they figured it out, they made the necessary halftime adjustments, and its effectiveness went way down.

Look at the Chiefs effectiveness in the 2nd half as compared to the first this season under the spread. Teams made the necessary halftime adjustments and were able to whoop us in the second half of games. The NE teams were just too talented to fall off in the 2d half, until . . .

3. The Pats lost in the SB specifically because the Giants were able to control the clock and bring pressure on defense. The Giants put on a clinic of how to stop a spread offense (just like the Pats did against the pass heavy offense of the Rams in 2001). Despite the fact that NE had the most talented team perhaps in NFL history, they got beat by a mediocre Giants team because the Giants were able to control the clock.

A team with a good front four and a good running game will almost always defeat a team running the spread, no matter the talent level of the team running the spread. And it isn't exactly like we're getting Welker, Moss, Brady, Faulk, and that OL any time soon.

Look at the past few SB winners. The Giants played ball control. The 2007 Colts, usually a pass heavy team, moved to a ball control offense for the playoffs. The Steelers and Pats dynasty teams weren't spread teams (they had big, bruising backs in Smith and Dillon to eat clock). The 2002 Bucs were a ball control team. As were the 2000 Ravens. As were the 97-98 Broncos. In fact, the only exception I can think of to this rule is the 99' Rams, and they were a much better running team than people remember.

We will never win playoff games in a spread offense.

jap1
01-12-2009, 11:45 AM
A team with a good front four and a good running game will almost always defeat a team running the spread, no matter the talent level of the team running the spread.

Actually if you have a good front four, good O-line, and a good running game, it doesnt matter what offense you run. Your front four controls the opposing teams time of possession. If your front four stops the run, they stop the clock. If the O-line is good (which equals good running game) then you can run the ball OR your QB can take his time and pick apart the defense.

If you dont have a line that is good with either run or pass, then certain types of offense can mask those deficiencies. A bad run-blocking team will suck at a power run offense, but look better at the spread. A bad pass-blocking team will suck at the spread and look better when running the ball. Unfortunately our o-line was sucky to mediocre at everything, so we sucked this past year.

As far as New England being exposed as being unsuccessful in the spread in the superbowl. A lot of people will argue that it was because their O-line WASNT great. I have heard a lot of people say that their O-line was above average at best, but because they ran the spread out of the shotgun, their QB had enough time to be successful.

I think the spread can be successful, but only with a good O and D line. Just like any offense or defense works with a good line. The type of offense should be dictated by the talent you have. If we have the specialty guys to run the spread, run it. But only if you have the O-line and D-line foundations. Hopefully the new GM realizes this.

tornadospotter
01-12-2009, 11:56 AM
Found this on Mile High Report. Linked from Arrowhead Pride. Though it was a interesting read.:11:



What Exactly Is A Spread Offense?

http://assets.sbnation.com/profile_images/55996/Denver-Broncos-Button_tiny.gif by TedBartlett905 (http://www.milehighreport.com/users/TedBartlett905) on Jan 10, 2009 5:21 PM MST (http://www.milehighreport.com/2009/1/10/716456/what-exactly-is-a-spread-o) in 2009 Off-Season (http://www.milehighreport.com/section/2009-off-season)
Have you ever stopped to consider that question? I've observed a lot of commentary about this "offense" here, on the rest of the blogosphere, on the DP-and-RMN-osphere, and from the idiot-on-tv-osphere. This commentary takes different forms and attitudes.
A. I don't like Jeremy Bates because he runs the spread offense.
B. Josh McDaniels is a great choice for Head Coach because he runs the spread offense.
C. A physical team always beats a spread offense.
D. A spread offense can't run the ball effectively.
You get the idea. It is my strong belief that there is no original form of offense called a spread offense. I think that everybody will agree with me, once they read this post. See you in continue-reading-ville....
http://assets1.sbnation.com/images/blog/star-divide.jpg.v5547
We have to talk about offensive philosophy, in order to get to the question of what a spread offense is. So, ponder if you will, what the objective for an offense is. Obviously, an offense seeks to score points, right? There are several ways to do this, but the best idea is to attack the weak spots of a defense, and even more than that, to make a defense adjust to what you're doing. If you're adjusting to the defense, you're in trouble from the jump-off.
Since about 1960, there have been only 3 original NFL forms of offense launched. The first was the Sid Gillman vertical passing game, which started out being called the West Coast offense, and later came to be called Air Coryell. That featured deep drops by the QB, and downfield routes for the WRs. Almost everybody eventually came to run some form of it in the 1970s. It screamed for an antidote, and the 3-4 defense came into vogue to defend it.
The 3-4 hit its peak with Lawrence Taylor (the ONLY real LT) wreaking havoc, and Bill Walsh refined an offense which he started tinkering with in the 1970s in Cincinnati. This would later become known as the West Coast offense also, and still is typically called that today. The West Coast offense caused a mostly league-wide shift back to 40 fronts and faster LBs.
In the middle of all of this, during the late 1980s, an offense called the Run & Shoot emerged in the NFL. It was the brainchild of a coach named Darrel "Mouse" Davis. He first deployed it at the high school level, then at Portland State University, and then the CFL with the Toronto Argonauts, and Houston Gamblers and Denver Gold of the USFL, before he finally got hired as Offensive Coordinator under Wayne Fontes in Detroit. His offense worked at every level, but came under much criticism in the NFL before it got a great chance to do well. Jerry Glanville, Kevin Gilbride, and June Jones all ran it with success at the NFL level. Glanville and Jones were run out of the league as crazies, and Gilbride pretty much had to stop running it to keep a job. The fact is, though, it worked.
What makes the preceding troika all forms of offense is that there is an underlying philosophy behind them. The Gillman/Coryell vertical scheme seeks to move defensive players back from the line of scrimmage, and to make their first step be backward, thus allowing a runner more room to run straight to an assigned hole. The Walsh West Coast scheme seeks to make defenders move laterally, thus allowing vertical running lanes to open when the defender gets knocked down with the help of his own momentum. The Run & Shoot used minimum protection, and sent receivers running both vertically and horizontally. The innovative idea with it though, and what most people forget now, is that the scheme featured a QB rollout or half-roll on every passing play. That rolling out allowed the QB more time to find all those receivers, despite the minimum number of blockers. With all of that time, went the Mouse Davis philosophy, there's no way a defense has enough good CBs to contend with 4 good WRs.
Now, what is a spread offense? Well, a lot of offensive schemes are called spread offenses, but there is wild variability between the characteristics of them. Generally speaking, what is called a spread offense is really just a new take on the philosophies of the Walsh West Coast scheme or the Mouse Davis Run & Shoot. The idea is still to make defenses cover the whole field, from sideline-to-sideline. The term "spread" typically comes from a few common personnel groupings and formations.
If you watched the Florida Gators at all this year, you'd have an idea what I am talking about. Their version of the "spread" is a combination of a zone-blocked West Coast passing and running scheme, with a triple option package as a bonus, and it's all run almost entirely out of the shotgun. It looks new and fresh, but it's actually a combination of two time-tested and venerable schemes. West Virginia's version is similar also, and even more run-heavy. Both seek to run the ball creatively, more than anything.
If you look at Missouri's or Texas Tech's offense, they're more pass-happy. They're not doing nearly as much option stuff, and they're really running a mix of West Coast and Run & Shoot concepts when you get down to it, with 3 and 4 WR personnel.
The New England Patriots have run a lot of shotgun/multi-WR stuff the past couple years, but it's still the same West Coast ideas that 2/3 of the NFL runs. They just get their most threatening personnel on the field to accomplish it.
With Jeremy Bates this year, it was the same story. Toward the end of the season, with no healthy RBs, Marshall-Royal-Stokley-Scheffler-Graham was really just the 5 most threatening guys he had to work with. That is not a spread offense. There was no seismic shift in philosophy, just a decision made on personnel groupings and formations. If Torain or Hillis were healthy, I'm certain that there would have been less of it, though particularly with Hillis, he looked his best when he was running out of spread-out formations.
A personnel grouping alone doesn't make something a form of offense. That's the overarching point here, that the wheel doesn't get reinvented too frequently, it only seems that way if you listen to people who don't really know what they're talking about. If you ask any supposed innovator, like Mike Shanahan or Urban Meyer or Josh McDaniels, I'm sure they'd tell you that what they're doing isn't really anything new, just a subtle change and an attempt at improvement from things which have worked in the past.
I hope for coaches who will work to think of ways to best attack defenses, and threaten their weak spots. I like what I have seen from Jeremy Bates in that respect, and Josh McDaniels certainly displays a good track record in that way also. Let's not take good and creative coaching, though, and give it some name which means nothing in particular, but which has people's value judgments attached to it. Let's be more intelligent than that, because there aren't enough TV jobs for all of us.

hometeam
01-12-2009, 05:43 PM
I think Thigpen did very well considering our situation. I would like to see him in competition against a mid-round draft pick at QB~

RedZones
01-12-2009, 07:26 PM
As I had said in a post a few days ago.

Good Coaches, coach to their players strengths.

And one other argument about defenses adjusting to our offense after halftime....

If any of you have played organized football besides little league, you would know that each week you are playing a new opponent. Did your team go into each week with the exact same game plan even though you used the same one last week? No... Most teams (especially NFL teams) spend all week studying their next opponent. They formulate game plans, and make adjustments all week based on what their opponent will be trying to do. Then of course when game time comes you have tactics laid out based specifically on the team that is lined up across the ball from you.

Teams make adjustments all week to try and stop us, and then they make adjustments at halftime, just like any team does. But my argument is that our offense didn't sputter after halftime because the defense "figured us out".... They had all week to do that; and if that was the case, we wouldn't have been productive in the 1st Half.

My belief is that our offense stalled in the second half due to inexperience, our players were not experience enough to take the adjustments that our coaches made for them, and apply them that quickly in a game situation without practicing them first. You can be as athletic as ever, and practice all you want, but you cant substitute real hands on experience.

Thanks, and I like the article that was posted about the origin of different Offenses.

Pro_Angler
01-12-2009, 09:55 PM
I like thigpens chances way better then a drafted QB for next year. i say take a QB in 2-3rd rounds and let him sit for a few years. i think with a good o-line we could have a trent green in the making.

RedZones
01-12-2009, 10:49 PM
Thanks for the Agreement!

Good luck Tyler! Most of us have your back!

Bike
01-12-2009, 10:54 PM
I like thigpens chances way better then a drafted QB for next year. i say take a QB in 2-3rd rounds and let him sit for a few years. i think with a good o-line we could have a trent green in the making.
I think we are sticking with Thig. We just signed Martin to stay here. That tells me qb won't be a priority come draft time. I'm surprised though we are making these personnel decisions without new GM signed yet...

Coach
01-12-2009, 11:04 PM
1. The clock doesn't run as fast. As Big Daddy Tek wrote, the emphasis on the pass causes the TOP to favor the other team. There's a reason that the no-huddle Bills of the 90s never won the SB - they couldn't control the clock in the big game.

Likewise, when the Chiefs throw, throw, throw and our running game isn't a serious threat, the TOP will almost always favor the other team. Teams running the spread don't usually have long, time-consuming drives. This puts their defenses out there longer, which tires them out. Especially smaller defenses like ours.

2. Of course most HCs not named Herm are continually adapting. But defenses were not used to our spread offense, and it caught them by surprise most games at its effectiveness. Once they figured it out, they made the necessary halftime adjustments, and its effectiveness went way down.

Look at the Chiefs effectiveness in the 2nd half as compared to the first this season under the spread. Teams made the necessary halftime adjustments and were able to whoop us in the second half of games. The NE teams were just too talented to fall off in the 2d half, until . . .

3. The Pats lost in the SB specifically because the Giants were able to control the clock and bring pressure on defense. The Giants put on a clinic of how to stop a spread offense (just like the Pats did against the pass heavy offense of the Rams in 2001). Despite the fact that NE had the most talented team perhaps in NFL history, they got beat by a mediocre Giants team because the Giants were able to control the clock.

A team with a good front four and a good running game will almost always defeat a team running the spread, no matter the talent level of the team running the spread. And it isn't exactly like we're getting Welker, Moss, Brady, Faulk, and that OL any time soon.

Look at the past few SB winners. The Giants played ball control. The 2007 Colts, usually a pass heavy team, moved to a ball control offense for the playoffs. The Steelers and Pats dynasty teams weren't spread teams (they had big, bruising backs in Smith and Dillon to eat clock). The 2002 Bucs were a ball control team. As were the 2000 Ravens. As were the 97-98 Broncos. In fact, the only exception I can think of to this rule is the 99' Rams, and they were a much better running team than people remember.

We will never win playoff games in a spread offense.

You are confusing Spread formation with play selection. You can run out of a spread offense. And when you do, the clock runs just the same as when you run out of any other formation.

tornadospotter
01-12-2009, 11:36 PM
We ran a multiple receiver spread set allot with Trent Green as QB.

theaxeeffect4311
01-13-2009, 08:32 PM
I think that we are forgetting that the the spread offense was instituted half way through the season. That means we did not go through the off-season, preseason, and beginning of the season with the offense that the Chiefs trained/planned to use for the season. Which means the Chiefs needed to put new pages into the playbook and learn a new offense. While they may have practiced the shotgun, they did not train for the entire offense to revolve around that. I think teams may have been able to figure out our offense, but on top of that, the Chiefs may have just ran out of plays. For what the Chiefs were able to do with the short amount of time to learn the offense, I think it is impressive. Thigpen deserves to be given a chance to build an offense to his abilities and learn a playbook that they will use through the season.

vqman
01-14-2009, 12:02 AM
Thigpen seems like a young Rich Gannon to me. It's just nice to see what he's capable of early in his career vs. Gannon getting to show off his skills in the final 1/4 of his career.

tornadospotter
01-14-2009, 12:17 AM
Thigpen seems like a young Rich Gannon to me. It's just nice to see what he's capable of early in his career vs. Gannon getting to show off his skills in the final 1/4 of his career.
:sign0156: :sign0098: :bananen_smilies046: Thig is a play maker!:11:

lordchillz
01-14-2009, 12:24 AM
Two things contradict each other as far as the spread offense goes and Herm edwards.The spread moves the ball fast and scores many points when executed.Herm can't stand scoring thirty points as he's stated many times.he was probably gritting his teeth with every score we made.We'll just have to wait and see if herm flips a new leaf.