Tebow is the Eminem of the NFL

bandit0013 wrote:

Seriously, statistically he's not anywhere near aaron rodgers et al, but Terrible? Simple? I think some of you guys have a bias that is really clouding your view on things.

Look at his rushing numbers. Cam Newton ran for 709 and 14TD. 14TD is a statistical anomaly, he'll probably never again come close to that. Tebow ran for 665 and 6TDs and played less games. Cam Newton is in the discussion for Rookie of the Year and Tebow is Terrible, unfit to grace a football field? (Cam Newton is a better passer, but his passing rank this year was solidly average, Tebow is near the bottom, but not last)

Let's go head to head, with Cutler thrown in the mix because I was curious:
http://www.nfl.com/stats/headtohead?......

Tebow had less interceptions(6 versus Newton's 17), and got sacked 2 less times than Newton, but played 2 fewer games.

Newton either beats, or blows away Tebow in every other stat.

cube wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Seriously, statistically he's not anywhere near aaron rodgers et al, but Terrible? Simple? I think some of you guys have a bias that is really clouding your view on things.

Look at his rushing numbers. Cam Newton ran for 709 and 14TD. 14TD is a statistical anomaly, he'll probably never again come close to that. Tebow ran for 665 and 6TDs and played less games. Cam Newton is in the discussion for Rookie of the Year and Tebow is Terrible, unfit to grace a football field? (Cam Newton is a better passer, but his passing rank this year was solidly average, Tebow is near the bottom, but not last)

Let's go head to head, with Cutler thrown in the mix because I was curious:
http://www.nfl.com/stats/headtohead?......

Tebow had less interceptions(6 versus Newton's 17), and got sacked 2 less times than Newton, but played 2 fewer games.

Newton either beats, or blows away Tebow in every other stat.

Sure does, but I wasn't ever arguing that Tebow is better than Newton. I'm just taking issue with the word Terrible being applied to a guy who when put at the helm took a team that was dead last to 7-3 over their final games and defeated a team in the playoffs that was supposed to crush them. And yes, in that playoff game he beat the Steelers (#1 defense) in the air.

Is he a great technical quarterback? No, definitely not. He's decidedly below average. He's not terrible though. As you point out, big thing about Tebow that led his team to success is that he didn't turn the ball over.

Ask Aaron Rodgers how well an NFL team does, regardless of talent, when they have a lot of turnovers.

1) Peyton Manning is not just "a player". He's arguably one of the best QBs ever and, even if you deny that, you have to accept the fact that that team was completely built around him. He has the ability to control a game, call plays, and, most importantly, get rid of the ball in time. That was a bad offensive line for years, and only Manning's ability to get rid of the ball made them win. He is, in fact, good enough to make that much difference, and he's probably the only player I can think of in my lifetime of watching football I can say that about.

2) Leaf was terrible because of his draft position and attitude. He had the raw skills and did not have the willingness to refine them. Tebow, on the other hand, has all the willingness and leadership, and does not have the skills.

3) Wins are remembered when it is convenient. The generic example is Trent Dilfer has one Super Bowl, Dan Marino has none. Nobody would suggest Dilfer is better than Marino. Players are judged by the quality of play they bring their teams. Tebow completed 46.5% of his passes, gets sacked a lot, is incredibly inaccurate, and has the slowest throwing motion I have ever seen. Byron Leftwich mocks him.

4) Cam Newton's TD mark is most certainly a statistical anomaly. More importantly, having four OT wins in one season is also an anomaly. Marion Barber not running out of bounds and then fumbling later is an anomaly. Being terrible in quarters 1-3 and then moving against prevent defenses is an anomaly. The simple fact is Cam Newton was far better than Tim Tebow this year.

5) Denver's defense was amazingly good this year. During a four-game stretch of Denver wins, Denver didn't score more than 17 points and won all four games. In those games, Vonn Miller and Elvis Dumervil had ten sacks. That defense ate other teams alive.

6) Denver played an easy schedule this year; their division is horrible. Schedules make a huge difference. I am a Buccaneers fan. See 2010, then 2011.

7) Tebow gets his credit because he is a white evangelical Christian and no other reason.

The NFL is currently completely and utterly a passing league. It is designed to allow players to run free across the middle, catch short passes, and run (thanks, Bill Polian). That is how you win. Those are the throws Tebow has shown no ability to make. If he is the starting QB next year, Denver won't win six games.

bandit0013 wrote:
boogle wrote:

All your 'statistical anomaly' and predictive crap on Newton is just that, crap. We honestly don't know if he will get those numbers again, but he might.

anomaly n. , pl. , -lies . Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.

Cam newton had 13 rushing touchdowns this season. Only 5 QBs in the history of football have had more than 10 in a season. The guy who had 12 did it in 1976. No QB in the history of football has ever rushed for double digit touchdowns in multiple seasons, let alone back-to-back.

That my friend, is a statistical anomaly until he does it again. Care to figure the odds on it given the dataset?

I figure its 50/50 for a Bayes Naive hypothesis. There is no need to be cute. Is Cam Newton an anomaly? Yes. [/i]Is his season an anomaly from his career? Maybe.

Tell that to the Colts without Peyton Manning this season. Contender to last place... one player.

Yes, your one example surely indicates a wonderful correlation. I didn't say it didn't exist, I'm just saying it is not a wonderful metric on its own as you are using it.

Nobody remembers football teams for how many options they had, how many plays in the playbook. They remember them for wins. The Broncos were 1-4 under Orten and 7-3 with Tebow. So again, you're tossing a word like 'sh*t' out there at a player who is winning ball games. I disagree.

Ask all the defensive coordinators who have schemed against the Pats 2 TE set this year. Its the ability for them to run so many different things out of a single formation that gives them the ability to spread defenses thing. Its that ability which opens up gaps. I'm throwing 'sh*t' at a player who is on a winning team. It is your deterministic view of quarterbacks and wins that is tainting this.

bandit0013 wrote:

Sure does, but I wasn't ever arguing that Tebow is better than Newton. I'm just taking issue with the word Terrible being applied to a guy who when put at the helm took a team that was dead last to 7-3 over their final games and defeated a team in the playoffs that was supposed to crush them. And yes, in that playoff game he beat the Steelers (#1 defense) in the air.

The week after, they couldn't score against the worst defense in the league. What's your point again?

John Elway completed 47.5% of his passes in his rookie campaign. He was sacked 28 times. His QB rating was 54.9.

Tim Tebow completed 46.5% of his passes in his rookie campaign and won a playoff game. He was sacked 33 times. His QB Rating was 72.9

Again, if he is terrible and has no business being on a football field, neither did John Elway in his rookie campaign. You guys are really jumping the gun on him.

bandit0013 wrote:

John Elway completed 47.5% of his passes in his rookie campaign. He was sacked 28 times. His QB rating was 54.9.

Tim Tebow completed 46.5% of his passes in his rookie campaign and won a playoff game. He was sacked 33 times. His QB Rating was 72.9

Again, if he is terrible and has no business being on a football field, neither did John Elway in his rookie campaign. You guys are really jumping the gun on him.

Different era. We're in an era now where 60% completion is normal; that was what Bradford did as a rookie (with no WRs to speak of). Going back to Bradshaw, he was under 50% most of his career, because that's what happened back then. Even in the mid-80s, accuracy wasn't nearly as high as it is today. It wasn't until teams really started adopting West Coast offense that completion % started to consistently rise.

Tebow also has the advantage of playing behind a very good offensive line, and he plays in an era that by far favors the passer. Comparing Elway to other passers his rookie campaign and Tebow to others last year shows that Tebow is far, far below average.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

John Elway completed 47.5% of his passes in his rookie campaign. He was sacked 28 times. His QB rating was 54.9.

Tim Tebow completed 46.5% of his passes in his rookie campaign and won a playoff game. He was sacked 33 times. His QB Rating was 72.9

Again, if he is terrible and has no business being on a football field, neither did John Elway in his rookie campaign. You guys are really jumping the gun on him.

Different era. We're in an era now where 60% completion is normal; that was what Bradford did as a rookie (with no WRs to speak of). Going back to Bradshaw, he was under 50% most of his career, because that's what happened back then. Even in the mid-80s, accuracy wasn't nearly as high as it is today. It wasn't until teams really started adopting West Coast offense that completion % started to consistently rise.

Tebow also has the advantage of playing behind a very good offensive line, and he plays in an era that by far favors the passer. Comparing Elway to other passers his rookie campaign and Tebow to others last year shows that Tebow is far, far below average.

Yeah, it's a different era. Tebow also didn't get any solid off season work because of the lockout and not being the starter at the beginning of the season wasn't taking reps with the first team until midway. Again, you guys are calling for his demise as a QB too soon.

cube wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Sure does, but I wasn't ever arguing that Tebow is better than Newton. I'm just taking issue with the word Terrible being applied to a guy who when put at the helm took a team that was dead last to 7-3 over their final games and defeated a team in the playoffs that was supposed to crush them. And yes, in that playoff game he beat the Steelers (#1 defense) in the air.

The week after, they couldn't score against the worst defense in the league. What's your point again?

That you don't seem to really have a good understanding of football.

New England surrendered a ton of yards on defense, but they only surrendered more than 28 points one time. Once. Their total points against was actually pretty decent. Also the majority of the points scored against them came in late quarters when the games were already in hand.

In other words, their defense is better than you think.

edit: Additionally, the Rams had the worst defense in the league, so you're wrong about that too.

bandit0013 wrote:
cube wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Sure does, but I wasn't ever arguing that Tebow is better than Newton. I'm just taking issue with the word Terrible being applied to a guy who when put at the helm took a team that was dead last to 7-3 over their final games and defeated a team in the playoffs that was supposed to crush them. And yes, in that playoff game he beat the Steelers (#1 defense) in the air.

The week after, they couldn't score against the worst defense in the league. What's your point again?

That you don't seem to really have a good understanding of football.

New England surrendered a ton of yards on defense, but they only surrendered more than 28 points one time. Once. Their total points against was actually pretty decent. Also the majority of the points scored against them came in late quarters when the games were already in hand.

In other words, their defense is better than you think.

Total yards 502 NE, 252 DEN http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=320114017. What ton of yards you say?

Don't forget about the 10 points. Which is about a third of 28.

Threads like this make me comfortable with my conclusion that that religion and sports are just about the same: people endlessly bitching about crap that really doesn't matter.

OG_slinger wrote:

Threads like this make me comfortable with my conclusion that that religion and gaming are just about the same: people endlessly bitching about crap that really doesn't matter.

Fixed for ultimate hypocrisy!

boogle wrote:

Total yards 502 NE, 252 DEN http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=320114017. What ton of yards you say?

He was referring to their defense as worst in the league (not true).

Their total yards for the season was high. Hence the ton of yards. Also, more than a third of their points against came in the 4th quarter.

I mean crap guys, the stats are out there, just look before you shoot your mouth off.

I just looked it up. Points per game, New England was 15th. And when I think about defense, the whole purpose of a defense is to not get scored on. So uh, yeah, far from worst.

Now in rankings where they put total yards, etc in as a factor they do fall near the bottom, but it doesn't matter if you give up 10000 yards in a game if the other team only scores 17 points.

boogle wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Threads like this make me comfortable with my conclusion that that religion and gaming are just about the same: people endlessly bitching about crap that really doesn't matter.

Fixed for ultimate hypocrisy!

When did GWJ become ESPN "The Ocho"?

bandit0013 wrote:

I just looked it up. Points per game, New England was 15th. And when I think about defense, the whole purpose of a defense is to not get scored on. So uh, yeah, far from worst.

Now in rankings where they put total yards, etc in as a factor they do fall near the bottom, but it doesn't matter if you give up 10000 yards in a game if the other team only scores 17 points.

How many teams did New England beat that had winning records?

boogle wrote:

Yes, your one example surely indicates a wonderful correlation. I didn't say it didn't exist, I'm just saying it is not a wonderful metric on its own as you are using it.

Philly's record without vick.
Dallas' record without romo
Houston when they lost Schaub

Losing your starting QB is devastating. So yes, one player depending on the position makes a heck of a difference. You lose a mediocre RB or QB and you're in big trouble in the NFL. Statistics back this up.

boogle wrote:

Ask all the defensive coordinators who have schemed against the Pats 2 TE set this year. Its the ability for them to run so many different things out of a single formation that gives them the ability to spread defenses thing. Its that ability which opens up gaps. I'm throwing 'sh*t' at a player who is on a winning team. It is your deterministic view of quarterbacks and wins that is tainting this.

Tim Tebow has no receivers on his roster the quality of Gronkowski, Hernandez, and Welker. Hell, Branch is the #4 receiver on the pats and he'd probably be a 1 or a 2 on the broncos. I'm not really sure what you're going for with this argument though, that Brady is a product of the system and isn't good?

Paleocon wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

I just looked it up. Points per game, New England was 15th. And when I think about defense, the whole purpose of a defense is to not get scored on. So uh, yeah, far from worst.

Now in rankings where they put total yards, etc in as a factor they do fall near the bottom, but it doesn't matter if you give up 10000 yards in a game if the other team only scores 17 points.

How many teams did New England beat that had winning records?

Not sure why that's relevant to points allowed? Plenty of teams (denver, SF, Baltimore, Pittsburgh) who were playoff contenders didn't score a lot of points. So I'm not sure what opponent record has to do with defensive efficiency.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I assumed the Tebow mania had a good deal to do with the "Rudy" factor. (ie. subpar underdog guy with a big heart leads his team to victory)

"Rudy"? Don't you mean "Radio"?

IMAGE(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/9422/32176311.jpg)

TheGameguru wrote:

Growing up in West Philly during the formation of rap..

Let me guess: 'til a couple of guys who were up to no good started making trouble in your neighborhood?

EDIT: To add the video of Jesus' encounter with Tebow, which I think says it all.

Nope, I meant Rudy:

IMAGE(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTI1NTc4NjA4M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDYwOTgxMQ@@._V1._SY317_CR3,0,214,317_.jpg)

bandit0013 wrote:
boogle wrote:

Yes, your one example surely indicates a wonderful correlation. I didn't say it didn't exist, I'm just saying it is not a wonderful metric on its own as you are using it.

Philly's record without vick.
Dallas' record without romo
Houston when they lost Schaub

Losing your starting QB is devastating. So yes, one player depending on the position makes a heck of a difference. You lose a mediocre RB or QB and you're in big trouble in the NFL. Statistics back this up.

boogle wrote:

Ask all the defensive coordinators who have schemed against the Pats 2 TE set this year. Its the ability for them to run so many different things out of a single formation that gives them the ability to spread defenses thing. Its that ability which opens up gaps. I'm throwing 'sh*t' at a player who is on a winning team. It is your deterministic view of quarterbacks and wins that is tainting this.

Tim Tebow has no receivers on his roster the quality of Gronkowski, Hernandez, and Welker. Hell, Branch is the #4 receiver on the pats and he'd probably be a 1 or a 2 on the broncos. I'm not really sure what you're going for with this argument though, that Brady is a product of the system and isn't good?

You have proved that losing your starter negatively impacts your projected wins. Good job. You have not proven that Denver's wins are attributable to Tebow. Also as to your second point, Eric Decker and Demaryius Thomas are not chopped liver sir.

boogle wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:
boogle wrote:

Yes, your one example surely indicates a wonderful correlation. I didn't say it didn't exist, I'm just saying it is not a wonderful metric on its own as you are using it.

Philly's record without vick.
Dallas' record without romo
Houston when they lost Schaub

Losing your starting QB is devastating. So yes, one player depending on the position makes a heck of a difference. You lose a mediocre RB or QB and you're in big trouble in the NFL. Statistics back this up.

boogle wrote:

Ask all the defensive coordinators who have schemed against the Pats 2 TE set this year. Its the ability for them to run so many different things out of a single formation that gives them the ability to spread defenses thing. Its that ability which opens up gaps. I'm throwing 'sh*t' at a player who is on a winning team. It is your deterministic view of quarterbacks and wins that is tainting this.

Tim Tebow has no receivers on his roster the quality of Gronkowski, Hernandez, and Welker. Hell, Branch is the #4 receiver on the pats and he'd probably be a 1 or a 2 on the broncos. I'm not really sure what you're going for with this argument though, that Brady is a product of the system and isn't good?

You have proved that losing your starter negatively impacts your projected wins. Good job. You have not proven that Denver's wins are attributable to Tebow. Also as to your second point, Eric Decker and Demaryius Thomas are not chopped liver sir.

How about Indy without Manning? There's a great example of the impact of a good quarterback if I ever saw one.

bandit0013 wrote:
boogle wrote:

All your 'statistical anomaly' and predictive crap on Newton is just that, crap. We honestly don't know if he will get those numbers again, but he might.

anomaly n. , pl. , -lies . Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.

Cam newton had 13 rushing touchdowns this season. Only 5 QBs in the history of football have had more than 10 in a season. The guy who had 12 did it in 1976. No QB in the history of football has ever rushed for double digit touchdowns in multiple seasons, let alone back-to-back.

That my friend, is a statistical anomaly until he does it again. Care to figure the odds on it given the dataset?

You've just thrown down on statistics with a math major. Hang on, lemme go get the popcorn.
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/aKQa8.gif)

The argument isn't about Tebow not being sh*t. That is my humble (or not so :)) opinion. The argument is is Tebow something special that justifies this amount of hype outside of his appeal to white evangelicals. He is not as proven by other outspoken, black quarterbacks that rate better than him. This makes him the Eminem of football in that he is a figurehead for a movement which feels that the black players in the NFL aren't best to represent it. I don't like that.

I think that it is important to note that what makes a quarterback great is two things:

1 - How he plays as a quarterback; and
2 - How well he leads/motivates his team.

Now, by no stretch of the imagination is Tebow a great quarterback. Will he become one in time? Who knows. But, the Broncos players believe in Tebow and will work hard under him if he is the QB, and they see him as one of the team leaders. That helps a lot for the team.

As for his position in the spotlight, I don't think that he asks for any of it. He is having it thrust upon him because, as mentioned above, it puts eyeballs on screens when a story is about him.

boogle wrote:

The argument isn't about Tebow not being sh*t. That is my humble (or not so :)) opinion. The argument is is Tebow something special that justifies this amount of hype outside of his appeal to white evangelicals. He is not as proven by other outspoken, black quarterbacks that rate better than him. This makes him the Eminem of football in that he is a figurehead for a movement which feels that the black players in the NFL aren't best to represent it. I don't like that.

I still think he's more the Sanjaya of football. Eminem actually has talent and has proven staying power. I suspect Tebow won't last as long as Tim Couch.

boogle wrote:

The argument isn't about Tebow not being sh*t. That is my humble (or not so :)) opinion. The argument is is Tebow something special that justifies this amount of hype outside of his appeal to white evangelicals. He is not as proven by other outspoken, black quarterbacks that rate better than him. This makes him the Eminem of football in that he is a figurehead for a movement which feels that the black players in the NFL aren't best to represent it. I don't like that.

Honestly, I follow football closely. This thread is the first time I've really encountered people suggesting that Tebow being white has anything to do with the hype. I've always thought it was the comeback wins and the religion.

boogle wrote:

You have proved that losing your starter negatively impacts your projected wins. Good job. You have not proven that Denver's wins are attributable to Tebow. Also as to your second point, Eric Decker and Demaryius Thomas are not chopped liver sir.

I was going to name WRs that were better than Decker and Thomas, but I pulled the 2011 receiving statistics and I really don't want to take the time to list all 70+ receivers...

bandit0013 wrote:
boogle wrote:

You have proved that losing your starter negatively impacts your projected wins. Good job. You have not proven that Denver's wins are attributable to Tebow. Also as to your second point, Eric Decker and Demaryius Thomas are not chopped liver sir.

I was going to name WRs that were better than Decker and Thomas, but I pulled the 2011 receiving statistics and I really don't want to take the time to list all 70+ receivers...

Which actually brings me back to the point I made earlier about missing training camp and not getting first team reps. Thomas and Decker both have little to no experience in the NFL. Young receivers biggest weakness? Timing and Route running. Pair that with Tebow's QB situation and it's really not all that shocking that his completion percentage was low. As I said before, the Tebow is terrible and not worthy of NFL starts is premature.

As far as I can tell, no one has presented a credible argument that Tebow's skin color makes him more popular with the media or the fans. It is certainly possible that it does, but you probably shouldn't just bundle that into statements about his football skills (ie: 'Tebow is not a good quarterback and only popular because he wins and he's white). As others have pointed out, no non-white QB has achieved such success in such bizarre fashion this season, so I'm not sure you can argue the skin color thing in that way.