Chiefs' Thigpen Has The Intangibles
After every session with the media, I like Tyler Thigpen more and more. He's just 26 years old but says all the right things like a savvy veteran would. He doesn't throw his teammates under the bus and continually takes accountability for the only statistic that matters - wins and losses
He's not impressed with his statistics, even if one was a career high:
"Bottom line is we didn’t win. You can take that career passing and use whatever you want but we didn’t win. That’s what it comes down to."
The weather isn't an excuse:
"It’s football. It’s what you signed up to play for. Whether it’s college or the NFL you have to deal with it. This is football weather playing in December."
Really, no excuses:
"No, never going to use any excuses. I thought I did a good job of keeping my hand warm between plays. A couple of snaps dropped where I didn’t focus but we were lucky to get them back."
[Read the entire interview here.]
His demeanor with the media is refreshing. He's direct and accountable to the team, not the player.
Now is usually the time reality sets in. Thigpen's numbers aren't spectacular. In fact, he's in the bottom third of the league in just about all categories to which he can be fairly compared to other players despite playing in half the games.
Completion %: 30th
Average Yards Per Pass: 28th
Yards Per Game: 25th
Interceptions: 9th
1st Down %: 27th
He's got the intangibles which is certainly important. But it's only important when you're putting up the numbers to go with that.
0 recs |
47 comments
|
Comments
Got To Say
Though I like Thigpen a lot, he’s got a long way to go to establish himself as a franchise guy. I think his performance was acceptable for this year but those numbers have simply got to get better next season if he wants to be the starter here.
Herm Edwards will not be the Chiefs' head coach next season.
by UCrawford on Dec 21, 2008 7:23 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I definitely root for him because he seems like a normal guy but I’m being careful about putting blinders on regarding his performance…relative to the rest of the league, he’s not very good.
by Joel Thorman on Dec 21, 2008 7:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Lot Of Bad Habits There
He throws into double coverage way too much, and though his mobility is necessary behind this line he’s got to learn that scrambling like that should be a weapon of last resort for him as QB.
Herm Edwards will not be the Chiefs' head coach next season.
by UCrawford on Dec 21, 2008 7:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Something to think about
His #1 target (Tony G.) will likely be gone after 2009 (if not sooner).
by Joel Thorman on Dec 21, 2008 7:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's one thing that really worries me about Thigpen
He uses Tony G as a crutch sometimes even when he shouldn’t (like when he’s double covered). How many times has Tony G bailed him out with some ridiculously fantastic catch on 3rd and long? When Tonys gone, he won’t have that anymore.
by ChiefDJ on Dec 21, 2008 9:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
However
I don’t necessarily blame him for utilizing the resources available to him.
by Joel Thorman on Dec 21, 2008 9:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't blame him
Just wondering if he would still be as good without a Hall of Fame TE.
by ChiefDJ on Dec 21, 2008 9:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
This Is The Biggest Reason
I think we need to look at an offensive tackle if we can’t get Bradford and Monroe or Oher is available. That line has got so many issues that it’s going to be tough to develop any QB behind it. Even if they can stay healthy, they’re going to develop bad habits as survival skills.
Herm Edwards will not be the Chiefs' head coach next season.
by UCrawford on Dec 21, 2008 7:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm down with that
I think as high as we are picking that will be the best value and we “should” be able to get a pass rush DE at the top of the 2nd round.
by TheQ on Dec 21, 2008 7:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not really
Picking a tackle with our first only makes sense if we take an LT, which would require moving Albert. It is not a good “value” to take an RT with the second overall pick.
by Chiefs4Life on Dec 21, 2008 8:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point
It is not a good value to take a RT that high. But my theory on the draft is this, it doesn’t matter where you draft a player if he can come in and play at a high level for your ball club. Every year players taken in lower rounds end up being Pro Bowlers and high picks end up being busts. I think you should target the players that you think will impact you team the most and draft them. If that is an elite tackle like Andre Smith, who would be an awesome player at RT, then I for one wouldn’t mind to see us take an O lineman that high considering how bad our line has been for a few years. All that being said, I am one of the few people who is really holding out hope that we draft Bradford. I think QB should be our top priority next season, and taking a QB that high is not a reach if he has the potential that Bradford has.
by TheQ on Dec 21, 2008 8:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We do need to
address the O line but the only position worth drafting in the top 5 for the O line is LT. We can grab a quality RT with our very high 2nd round pick. I for one don’t think Bradford will declare for the draft this year, and if he doesn’t the only QB worth spending a high pick on will be Stafford, who will likely be picked by Detroit (and might not be worth a number 2 pick anyway). We will try to fish for a QB in FA with our shiny new GM and head coach. We will also try to find one or more LBs in FA so we can draft a DE we think will solve our pass-rush woes with our 2nd overall pick. We address the O line in round 2 and probably draft Harrel (Texas Tech QB) in round 3. We try spending the 4th rounder on an MLB out of a smaller school. Rounds 5, 6, and 7 go to the BPA.
by Chiefs4Life on Dec 21, 2008 10:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Truth is we are drafting so high and we have so many needs
we can hardly go wrong. Unless we cannot evaluate talent. But that aside, I can think of many scenarios that we would benefit from as a team and yours is one of them. The only QB I think is worthy of that high a pick is Bradford, and if he doesn’t come out then we should spend that pick on either the O line or the D line. I am just not sure yet that there is a DE that is worthy of #2 overall, but there are some O tackles that would appear to be.
by TheQ on Dec 21, 2008 10:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
draft
I agree I don’t think there are any DEs worth the #2 overall. All the DEs coming out are underweight in my opinion, much like Tamba Hali is.
However I don’t think we should be spending a pick that high on O-line. We have our LT in Albert. We can get a good RT in the 2nd or even if they just wanted to to trade up into the latter part of the 1st for another one, but paying a RT #2 or 3 overall money just doesn’t make sense.
by ChiefDJ on Dec 21, 2008 10:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And if we are unable to trade down
which would be ideal because we need more depth, then does the #2 overall become a curse? Or maybe a middle linebacker now makes more sense? Still seems very high for that position too?
by TheQ on Dec 21, 2008 10:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If there is a good QB still available
And they decide they want to stick with Thigpen (though honestly with a brand new GM, there is no question he will take Bradford if he is there) I think they will be able to find a trading partner somewhere. But generally a QB is the only guy that teams will get real gung ho about trading up that high for.
If they don’t want the QB and they can trade back, I think they have to do it. There is no real sure fire top 5 DE this year in my opinion. Some good Tackles, but we don’t really need a LT.
by ChiefDJ on Dec 21, 2008 10:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Left Tackles
are high value draft picks. We currently don’t need one since Albert is playing well, but other teams do. I think we’ll see more interest from teams trying to trade up for a top LT than we saw last year, since the best trade-bait was MacFadden and RBs are easily replaced.
by Chiefs4Life on Dec 22, 2008 11:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you guys are right and that option is availible to us
but only if Bradford is already gone. It does seem likely that Detroit would have to consider it.
by TheQ on Dec 22, 2008 6:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would imagine
That teams with excellent bookend tackles are successful. I can see your point.
by Joel Thorman on Dec 21, 2008 7:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
A great year for a "rookie"!
People come down too hard on the guy. Last year he attempted 6 passes. He is a rookie in all accounts. He has only started 10 games now. Our offense is cooking compared to the pre-Thigpen days, which include 2 prior seasons under Herm. Not to mention, LJ was averaging close to 8 ypc and they only gave it to him 12 times in the freezing weather. That’s pretty poor coaching to put it all on a rookie’s back like that when the running game is working so well.
You might say, “3 interceptions!!” Well, only 2 of them really count since the third was in desperation with little hope. Hey, they say Favre is a sure-thing Hall of Famer and he usually has the same stats as Thiggy did today.
Horrible SOFT/Sissified defense, PLUS a horrible offensive line, PLUS horrible coaching for not running more, PLUS first year starter EQUALS 31 points on offense. (Pretty good wouldn’t you say?)
Thigpen deserve another year as the guy. I think he is a future star in this system.
ChiefsUniverse.com
by Chiefs Universe on Dec 21, 2008 8:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
He's not a rookie
He was in this system for over a year before he started playing. Just because the guy didn’t attempt 35 passes on Sunday doesn’t mean he didn’t know the offense and/or wasn’t getting reps.
by Joel Thorman on Dec 21, 2008 8:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh
And I know what you meant when you said “rookie”. I just don’t like ignoring the fact that he is or should have been plenty familiar with the offense.
by Joel Thorman on Dec 21, 2008 8:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
In Fairness
The system hasn’t been around for a year…it was revamped at midseason. We ran loser ball last year and at the beginning of this year.
Thigpen’s not a rookie, but he’s also still new to this offense at this level.
Herm Edwards will not be the Chiefs' head coach next season.
by UCrawford on Dec 21, 2008 9:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Plenty Familiar With the Offense
The Offense they installed in week 9? :)
I think we forget sometimes that the offense Thigpen has been running was put together on the fly. Its not something Chan Gailey sat around for a couple months in the offseason putting together. They had to throw that out the window.
by ChiefDJ on Dec 21, 2008 9:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He's never played in a traditional pro offense
Save the Atlanta game, he’s been playing in a quasi-spread which he should be familiar with (since that was the offense he ran the last time he played regularly).
by Joel Thorman on Dec 21, 2008 9:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're right though
I forget that too.
by Joel Thorman on Dec 21, 2008 9:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
And
There’s like a 25% turnover rate with OCs in the NFL. 8 teams a year, bringing in a new coordinator and quarterbacks still playing well.
by Joel Thorman on Dec 21, 2008 9:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's something that is really going to suck next year
It will be the third offense these guys will have learned in three years and a lot of these guys haven’t even been in the NFL that long.
by ChiefDJ on Dec 21, 2008 9:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Per Dictionary.com
intangible
adjective
1. (of especially business assets) not having physical substance or intrinsic productive value; “intangible assets such as good will” [ant: tangible]
2. incapable of being perceived by the senses especially the sense of touch;
3. hard to pin down or identify; “an intangible feeling of impending disaster”
4. lacking substance or reality; incapable of being touched or seen; “that intangible thing—the soul”
Yeah, he’s got plenty of intangibles.
RD 1 or 2 (depending if the top 3 QB’s are still available): And the Chiefs pick…..the QB from -———-
or
Dear Mr. QB F/A…welcome to the KC Chiefs
Either scenario above (or both)…Gentlemen, you’ll be competing for the starting position against….Tyler Thigpen.
’nuff said
Bill Parcell’s: "You are what your record says you are."
The Chiefs need to be playoff contenders in 2009 for me to consider improvement. Clark wanted it in 2008...I'll give them an additional year.
by THE_TRUTH on Dec 21, 2008 8:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Out of curiousity
Just what offense is he supposed to be so familiar with?
The " do just enough to get on the board then fade back" offense?
Or The " we only designed 15 plays because Herm depends on his defense to win games" Offense?
Hey, Maybe it’s the, " Let’s toss a coin in the air or ask the Ouija board what we should plan for the second half" offense.
Gentlemen, there is no way any of us can beleive that MrThigpen isn’t given what to do for over 60% of his performance. It is most certainly not his call for the majority of plays run. That comes from the coaches.
I will go back to find the article, bt I recall Chan Gailey saying somewhere that Because of Thigpens on the filed inexperience, they were giving him the rookie treatment and rookies do NOT call the shots.
They get opportunities and get a choice of 3 or four plays to work from in spots to give him some room to learn the on the spot decision making skills, but the plays come mostly from the sideline.
I agree, he has made some poor throws and scrambled at bad times or basically made what most call rookie mistakes.
It’s one thing to read the playbook and watch the video every day like the other guys, but the opportunity to put it all into practical experience isn’t there unless you’re in the number one or two spots. That’s on any football team.
I like Thigpen. He has shown incredible potential and succeeds more often than he fails, which is twice better than the Chiefs season record thus far.
He deserves the chance to see how far he can take it, or, like many have said, he at least has earned the opportunity to be in the contest for the starting job next year.
I still think that if we improve the people around him, he will improve himself.
Big Bear
by bigbearomaha on Dec 21, 2008 9:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
He has shown incredible potential and succeeds more often than he fails
Well he’s 1-9 as a starter. There have been several instances where the ball was in his hands at the moment they lost.
I have two big concerns about Thigpen:
1) Will he be a good QB outside of the Spread Offense which I don’t believe will be succesful long term (we don’t know this yet).
2) Is he the type of guy that just wins games?
We have seen that he can score points, but when the game is on the line and the ball is in his hands, is he the type of QB that has that knack for winning? There have been several instances where he has had just that opportunity and failed. A lot of that is probably inexperience and I’m willing to give him more time to see if he can overcome that, but a guy that can overcome whatever obstacles and just plain win is something you have to have in your QB.
by ChiefDJ on Dec 21, 2008 9:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I just can't work with this type of argument.
by bigbearomaha on Dec 21, 2008 9:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I just can't work with this type of argument.
sorry, The notion that a teams winning or losing hinges on one player is ridiculous to me.
looking at only W and L is what gets it done, but not just by him.
To look at his play individually, he has improved over the season, it has beenb pointed out by several people here and elsewhere.
To lump the whole game on him is incorrect and ignores the poor play and coaching of the rest of the team.
by bigbearomaha on Dec 21, 2008 9:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The notion that a teams winning or losing hinges on one player is ridiculous to me.
Sometimes it does. If Bowe doesn’t fumble the onside kick against San Diego, the Chiefs win that game. If Bowe doesn’t drop a TD pass in the end zone against New England in week 1 the Chiefs could have won that game. If Thigpen doesn’t burn 35 of 40 remaining seconds on a 10 yard scramble when they needed 50 yds the Chiefs could have won a different game.
Sometimes it all does come down to one player and one play.
I’m not getting down on Thigpen at all. He shows a lot of promise and I would like to see how he does next year (if he gets the opportunity) with a full offseason of him preparing to be the starter and a year of experience under his belt.
But what I’m saying is that some guys have the knack to win at the end of the game no matter what has happened before. John Elway could. Brett Favre. Jay Cutler and Phillip Rivers do a pretty good job of it now.
That’s not saying that, like in todays game, that he had a bad performance. He scored 31 points. But he’s the guy in the drivers seat. He’s the guy that has to deliver a clutch performance when the chips are down and today he choked. Horrible passes, couple bad interceptions. Hopefully that’s not how its always going to be.
In baseball there are good hitters when theres no pressure but choke in the clutch. Those guys are great, but they only do you so much good if you can’t rely on them to win the game for you. I’m just saying we don’t know if Thigpen is that clutch guy we can depend on yet because, despite several opportunities, he hasn’t been able to deliver yet.
by ChiefDJ on Dec 21, 2008 9:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree it's not one player
Each of the examples you give for the one player-one play argument are because the rest of the team failed, not just that one player. Go back to the SD game, is it all on Bowe for dropping that onside kick? No. Should he have held on? Yes. His play was part of the problem. The rest of the problem was the Houdini disappearing act our defense pulled. It’s a team game, won and lost as a team.
by Chiefs4Life on Dec 21, 2008 10:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You miss the point
There are points in every game where you are at a tipping point and whether you win or lose is determined and whatever else happened in the game doesn’t matter.
Of COURSE every player contributes to each win or loss and they can contribute both ways. In the San Diego game Patrick Surtain intercepted a pass that ended up being a touchdown. He also later bit on a playaction pass and got burned for 40 yards that ended up costing them the game.
What I’m saying is that you want a guy at QB that has that knack for pulling a win out when you are at that tipping point. It doesn’t matter if a baseball hitter is batting .387 with 50 home runs, if he strikes out every time he is at bat with the game on the line he has limited usefulness to you.
by ChiefDJ on Dec 21, 2008 10:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I posited it elsewhere, but...
You name names. How did your cast of QBs do, and with what kind of tools in thier first seaon as starters? Also, what kind of prep did they get?
I acknowledge that Bones might well not be all that and a bag of chips, but holy cow, look at the adversity, please. 3rd stringer tossed in when the first two went down – he wasn’t groomed for the starter’s job. A poor O-line to begin with, at the very least, even if they did improve some. A brand-new offensive scheme that nobody knew from the outset, and not much depth for play-calling. No running game in the traditional sense. A defense that couldn’t be relied on to generate stops, especially late in the game.
Do you really think that any of the QBs you mention could do better, in their first seasons as starters? I do not, sir.
Now, it’s possible that Thiggy really can’t cut it – but given the hurdles he was up against this year, I say he should get the chance to /try/. Competition? Sure, bring it. We come up with a better QB from it, and no more need be said. TT can prep as the #2 guy, no skin off my nose.
BUT. For a 3rd-stringer handed a mess, he’s performed beyond all possible expectations, in my book. I say the starting job’s his to lose, and any othe QB should be required to beat him flat out, come next camp.
by Bleedingredandgold on Dec 22, 2008 3:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, here are my two answers to your questions...
1) Yes, it will work long term. What makes you think it won’t? New England is proving that it works. Now, obviously, ours is a different variation, but it is bogus to claim that the spread isn’t a long term solution. With the variations we have, we can get a power running game out of it. It fits LJ, at least enough to get by. It fits Jamal perfectly. It allows us to get by with a weaker O-Line. What is the negative, again? It isn’t something that NFL Coordinators can just ‘figure out’. It is a full-fledged offense that can work just as well as traditional, under-center offenses.
2) That is ridiculous. I mean, DJ, come on. I am usually on your side of the argument in the always epic DJ/UC debates, but that is just ridiculous. My favorite example of this is last year, in college, in the first game between Virgina Tech and Boston College. Matt Ryan played like absolute shit for the first 55 minutes of the game, mixing overthrows and underthrows and throws behind and too far ahead of receivers. He threw some terrible interceptions, and generally looked lost out there. If you were to blame one person for their loss, it could very likely have been Matty Ice that would have received the honors. But then, he started to play well, led BC on a scoring drive, they recovered an onsides kick, he leads an outstanding drive topped off by an unbelievable throw and WHA-LA, BC wins and Matty Ice is championed someone who “just wins games”. But, if he had just played passably the first three-and-a-half quarters, they wouldn’t have been down by 10, and instead in a much better position to win. Tied, even. And if they win in that situation, Ryan is demeaned for an average night, although he is given a semi-break because of the victory.
See how stupid this whole “guy who just wins games” argument is? Nine times out of ten, the guy who simply “wins games” is only in that situation because of mistakes he made earlier in the game. Plus, it is a trait that often comes with experience. Even if you do believe that it is a tangible quality that any successful QB must have, it is ludicrous to expect someone to have this skill already developed this early in their career.
by rockchalk on Dec 22, 2008 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He IS a rookie
Sure he sat behind Brokie Croyle and Damold Huard for a year, but that isn’t game time. It is the same at every position, you have to have the reps in a GAME to have experience. Practice is only to make sure everyone knows the plays and formations and adjustments. It’s the game experience that makes the difference, which is what the preseason is for.
He currently has a higher rating than Peyton Manning had in his first year. Thigpen has a horrible line and a High School defense or his record would be speaking for him. Nobody could possibly lay the losses at Thigpen’s feet. 31 points? That should be enough if the defense was even halfway competent. Not to mention the fact that LJ had over 100 yards on 12 carries. What kind of numb brain coach doesn’t give him the ball more?
ChiefsUniverse.com
by Chiefs Universe on Dec 21, 2008 9:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I've made that same point
several times.
He can help the offense score between 21 to 35 points that should be enough to win any game. If you have a defense that doesn’t just lay down that is.
And, what kind of numb brain coach? maybe like the one who expects the leagues worst defense to hold up a 21 point lead and still loses in the last two minutes of the game.
Namely, Herm “the UnCoach” Edwards
by bigbearomaha on Dec 21, 2008 9:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Nobody could possibly lay the losses at Thigpen’s feet
Sure you can. Yes theres all kinds of other things that go into a loss. The defense giving up 38 points is ridiculous. Yet, in several games this year the ball has been in his hands with plenty of time on the clock and he has failed. Today is just one more example.
Now is that to say that he can’t outgrow that and become the guy you depend on at the end of the day to deliver a clutch performance with the game on the line if he is surrounded by some better, more experienced talent? Not at all. He could turn out to be that guy. But he isn’t going to have Tony Gonzalez forever and no QB has a roster full of Pro Bowlers around him.
Some guys have the ability to overcome adversity and win despite it. We haven’t seen Thigpen do that yet.
by ChiefDJ on Dec 21, 2008 9:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
So
Aaron Rodgers is a rookie? He didn’t start a game until year 4.
I know what you’re saying, though. I just wanted to point out that he’s been on the team for nearly 2 years at this point.
by Joel Thorman on Dec 21, 2008 9:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Thigpen...
Thigpen is being screened by most people as a 7th round draft pick. if you eliminate his draft position and treat him like a #1 you’d have no question about him for next year. Look at mr. can’t miss in oakland? He’s a joke right now – and hasn’t yet showed nearly the promise Thigpen has – but since he’s a flashy #1 he gets some slack. To draft a QB #1 would be irresponsible for the organization – all the reports seem to start with how the offense fails to move the ball in the 2nd halk – although true, the defense NEVER stops anyone in the 2nd half…that needs to be priority #1 in the dradft. Do not forget his rushing numbers are terrific. If you eliminate he early starts he’s been just fine. I also believe the poor 2nd halfs are a reflection of a team that is continually outcoached at halftime…the other team adjusts and we basically do not. A pass rusher makes Dorsey better, the secondary better—-and therfor the defense better – which would take the pressure of Thigpen and the pressure he must feel to combat a PATHETIC defense. Look at Flacco in Baltimore – picture Thigpen with that field position being provided by his defense? I like the guy – and he owns the intangibles – and that is HUGE in my book.
by Gary123chiefs on Dec 21, 2008 10:09 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I believe
That a lot of you are missing one very important thing that Thigpen hasn’t had and that is he lacks leadership skills. He doesn’t get his offense fired up. He doesn’t lead them, they lead him. I’m not saying that his offense doesn’t respect him, I think they do, he seems to be a stand up guy. Right now he seems to be buddy, buddy with them and for a leader to do that can be bad. Sometimes you just have to smack one up side the helmet and tell him he did wrong and to get his stuff together. He’s not doing that sort of thing. He’ll be here next year, I just don’t know in which capacity.
I don’t put the recent losses all on the players at all, mostly it’s the coaching staff. In at least the last five games they have been two different teams in the two halves. Somethings smelling really fishy here and it wasn’t the fins this weekend. It’s almost like Edwards has told them " Okay, Chan and Gunther you coach the first half and I’ll coach the second." Also, Edwards is buddy, buddy with the players, he’s their friend, big mistake, he’s NOT their coach.
by oldchiefsfan on Dec 21, 2008 10:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Thigpen is what he is
A plucky Qb with good legs and an OK arm who is in over his head. He melts down in the clutch on a regular basis and barely completes 50% of his passes in a gimmicky offense designed to exploit his skills.
I understand his popularity. We have been competitive in games down the stretch and he has been a huge part of that. After his first couple of games none of us expected this level of play so we are pleasantly surprised. He has grit.
This is absolutely no reason to cave in to the fantasy that Tyler is a legitimate NFL starting QB or the ridiculous assumption that he is the QB of the future. He has done a fine job as an EMERGENCY option, (“Rampart, it is pretty bad here, I’m starting Thigpen and some D5W”) and has won himself an NFL paycheck for several more years-standing at the ready while the actual QB of the future leads the team.
Our positive take on Tyler is more of a by-product of searching for positves on a team without very many than having him shine that brightly. Throw out the fantasy numbers- and the fantasy dreams.
Put the pipe down!
No, Really!
by KHAZAD on Dec 22, 2008 2:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I guess everyone has their own take on him...
I would say thet he reminds me a little of rich Gannon. before everyone wants to tell me he’s not the next rich Gannon, you would have to go back and look at Gannon when he was 26 – and not playing for anyone! he is not the Gannon that lead the Raiders to great things…but if he has many of the qualities Gannon had (and the shortcomings)…so to say he is not the answer after 10 starts is a bit premature. If this team had everything else covered I would say upgrading at QB would be a priority – the problem is they have nothing on defense—-especially a pass rush. So that is the biggest hole and I do not look at QB as the biggest need—-especially when early drafted QB’s are such a crap shoot. I am framing this withint the context of the draft—-I don’t think there’s any way we take a QB in round 1. They’ll sign a veteran and help the D in the first 2 rounds. That is why they are losing the close games…along with coaching and special teams.
by Gary123chiefs on Dec 22, 2008 12:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 























