PDA

View Full Version : Trending: 1st round QB's play significant time in first two years



Northman
11-02-2010, 02:12 AM
This is the list of every 1st round draft choice on Qb's in the last decade. Some have gone on too do very well and some have perished in flames but there is one constant denominator. 99% of them have had significant playing time in their first two years in the league no matter what their teams status is or where they were drafted in the first round. Some teams had veterans in front of them and some are on teams simply REBUILDING.


Chad Pennington- 18th (1 game first year)
Pennington got his first actual start his 3rd year following a 9-7 season by
Testeverde.

Michael Vick- 1st (8 games first year)
David Carr- 1st (1st Year)
Joey Harrington- 1st (14 games first year)
Patrick Ramsey- 32nd (10 games first year)
Carson Palmer- 1st (13 games first year)
Byron Leftwich- 7th (15 games first year)
Kyle Boller- 19th (11 games first year)

Rex Grossman- 22nd (3 Games first year)
Got the starting job in his second year following a 11-5 season under our very own Kyle Orton.

Eli Manning- 1st (9 games first year)

Philip Rivers- 4th (2 games first year)
Was sitting behind Drew Brees who had decided to start playing at that point.

Ben Roethlisberger- 11th (14 games first year)
J.P Losman- 22nd (4 games first year)
Alex Smith- 1st (9 games first year)

Aaron Rodgers- 24th (3 games first year)
Sat behind Brett Favre a future HOF

Jason Campbell- 25th (7 games first year)
Vince Young- 3rd (15 games first year)
Matt Leinart- 10th (12 games first year)
Jay Cutler- 11th (5 games first year)
JaMarcus Russell- 1st (4 games first year)

Brady Quinn- 22nd (1 game first year)
Probably would of started the entire year if Anderson hadnt had a career year of his own.

Matt Ryan- 3rd (1st year)
Joe Flacco- 18th (1st year)
Matt Stafford- 1st (10 games first year)
Mark Sanchez- 5th (15 games first year)
Josh Freeman- 17th (10 games first year)
Sam Bradford- 1st (8+ games first year)
Tim Tebow- 25th (?)


So basically what this tells us is this.

A LOT of the QB's drafted played significant time in not only their first year but also at times got the starting job by year 2 in some cases. So the question is what makes Tebow so special that he needs to sit? Are the Denver Broncos rebuilding or not? If they are, than the kid needs to play. If we are not rebuilding than drafting Tebow was a waste of a pick that couldnt help Orton who is playing at a high level. Never the less, even if Tebow doesnt see the field this year it wouldnt be far fetched to see him get significant playing time next year or even start the season. The fact that he has more mobility than Orton will be very hard for McD to ignore down the stretch.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 03:07 AM
Your wrong about the year in which some of the players started. But read this because it completely goes against the idea of rushing a QB on the field.

:defense:

On March 18, the Seattle Seahawks traded the 40th overall pick in the 2010 NFL draft to the San Diego Chargers for the 60th pick and the rights to the Chargers' third-string quarterback, Charlie Whitehurst.

San Diego GM A.J. Smith couldn't hide his elation while addressing the media afterward. "We presented them a deal we thought was good for us, and we are thrilled it was accepted," Smith said. Local papers agreed, with one columnist noting: "It can be argued the Chargers bought at least the possibility of steak by bartering with a scrap."

Perhaps they had; the 40th pick has a lot of value, overall (one example: in 2000, the Denver Broncos drafted Ian Gold there; he became a Pro Bowler; Tracy Porter, who sealed the Super Bowl with a pick of Peyton Manning, was also a No. 40 pick). This is a draft many are calling the deepest in years. Additionally, six-time Pro Bowler Donovan McNabb was traded for the 37th overall pick just weeks later.

Whitehurst is a strong-armed, long-haired Green Bay native who last threw a regular-season pass in 2005 … as a senior at Clemson. He threw 11 TDs against 10 INTs that year, after throwing seven TDs and 17 INTs the year before. He never made first-team All-ACC.

There is also good reason to believe that, among all the QBs associated with the 2010 NFL draft (Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen included), Whitehurst will have the best pro career.

Of the 128 quarterbacks drafted since 2000, 43 got their first start in their first season in the NFL. This data -- courtesy of ESPN Stats & Information -- shows that among this large group, the longer a QB waits to start, the better he performs once he does. In fact, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and yards per attempt all rise over the course of his career the longer a QB sits to begin it.

Drafted QBs who didn't get to start until their third or even fourth years have TD/INT rates nearly 50 percent better, and complete passes at a rate a full five percent better than rookie starters. But that's not just in the first season; that's for their careers.

Naturally, the contention will be this: The lower a QB is drafted, the less of a push there is for him to start immediately. That's just politics (politics often correlates to money). When Matthew Stafford was granted the starting job by the Detroit Lions last season, he may not have been better than Daunte Culpepper, but he was already guaranteed more money than the Redskins had promised Albert Haynesworth.

Jim Mora Sr. started Peyton Manning from Day 1 in 1998, but that was in a dire situation for the Indianapolis Colts.

"It was kind of unique," Mora said this week. "It was my first year. It was Bill Polian's first year with the team. There wasn't any pressure on myself or Polian to win right away -- and we didn't."

The Colts went 3-13, and Manning had "some pretty bad games," Mora said. The young QB had zero commercials and 27 INTs in 1998. But, Mora says, the team knew early on it wanted to give Manning the reins, and didn't go and get a QB it felt was better; Manning was an easy choice. As Mora says, "I went with the guy who gave us the best chance to win," but, he admits, "we knew it would be a struggle."

In 2003, the Cincinnati Bengals took a different tack.

The Bengals picked Carson Palmer with the No. 1 pick, brought him into camp, saw the potential, the huge arm, the Heisman credentials and cool head -- and gave him zero snaps all season.

"I don't think you want to start a rookie, because you know the realities of it, but it's a situation where you ask, 'Can I survive this startup period?'" says Ken Zampese, who was a first-year quarterbacks coach for the Bengals during Palmer's rookie year. Zampese says Palmer's year on the bench was invaluable, partly because he was able to draw knowledge from a seasoned pro. "The value of those games sat has everything to do with the player. Does he prepare like he's a starter even when he knows he's backing up? Does he break down film and approach game days with the seriousness of a starter? Carson did, but he also learned that from Jon Kitna, who was a great mentor."

A who's who of the best quarterbacks of the past decade is also a tale of professional incubation. Aaron Rodgers didn't start until his fourth year, Philip Rivers his third, Chad Pennington his third, Marc Bulger his third, and Palmer and Drew Brees in their second years. The draft circumstances of Matt Cassel and Vince Young couldn't be more different, but each benefited from thousands of practice reps between starts. Cassel didn't start until his fourth year, but has largely succeeded, and Young went back to the bench for a prolonged break before returning to the starter's role with great success.

Draft position doesn't seem to matter.

The average draft position of QBs who didn't start until their fourth year, for example, was 155.7. The average for guys with first-year starts is 82.2. Yet those on the four-year plan had 46 percent better TD/INT ratios, better completion percentage and yards per attempt. Since 2000, nine first-round picks started within their teams' first three games. Only Matt Ryan and Ben Roethlisberger have a positive TD/INT ratio in their career.

The wait worked. Across a wide range of data.

Recent draft picks who started early, such as Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco, seem to be ready to help the reputations of top picks who start as rookies -- a realm dotted with failures like Tim Couch and Joey Harrington, or recent cases like David Carr and Alex Smith. Unfortunately, Stafford and Sanchez combined for 25 TDs and 40 INTs as rookies. And based on the data, only confidence in their talent should assure fans they figure to get much better. (Sanchez, for one, built those numbers behind one of the game's best offensive lines.)

The numbers say the question shouldn't just be how good a QB can become because he started as a rookie. It could be: What part of his potential was damaged because he did?

Last year, Malcolm Gladwell authored "Outliers: The Story of Success" and concluded that data points to 10,000 hours of practice as the barometer by which we can measure true mastery of a subject. He also wrote about the seemingly impossible art of projecting quarterbacks, concluding: "There are certain jobs where almost nothing you can learn about candidates before they start predicts how they'll do once they're hired."

But maybe "once they're hired" is too soon to measure. Maybe a few years -- or four, in the case of Rodgers -- is better. Maybe it's not the meat, it's the marinating.

"Perhaps," said Gladwell via e-mail earlier this week, "the learning curve for game performance is much steeper once someone has done the intellectual preparation first. That's certainly the pattern for surgeons. They spend a good portion of their time standing and watching and doing only the most rudimentary procedures, before getting actual 'game-time' preparation."

In looking at this draft, that could bode well for Tim Tebow. Our own Todd McShay says Tebow will need at least a couple of years on the bench before he could be NFL-ready. Scouts believe the Florida star all but needs to re-invent himself before he'll find NFL success. The idea also certainly bodes well for Whitehurst. Just consider the guy he'll back up in Seattle. Matt Hasselbeck was a sixth-round pick and didn't start a game until his third year, when Seattle recognized his talent and exchanged draft picks with the Packers to get him.

Aaron Rodgers and Matt Hasselbeck both became Pro Bowl quarterbacks, their greatest similarity being a shared view from the sidelines, watching and waiting behind Brett Favre. If forced to wait behind more experienced surgeons before wielding your own blade, you could do far worse.
:defense:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?page=NextLevel1

Bosco
11-02-2010, 03:27 AM
Putting him in this year would be idiotic. Orton is still playing pretty well and putting Tebow in doesn't solve any problems plus it comes with the potential locker room ramifications. Let the kid sit, continue to develop and then you can re-evaluate the situation going into 2011.

Dirk
11-02-2010, 06:44 AM
I'm on the side of letting Tebow sit this year. However, if there is NO chance of winning a game like the Raiders game, he should go in for a few series to get some in game experience.

Tebow has a ton of intangables but still needed work to get to the pro level. Sitting him this year was very smart in getting him "ready" to play.

The only thing I can think of as to why McD didn't put him in during the Raiders game is he thought that Orton made more sense to get points on the board.......but he forgot that the defense SUCKS this year.

Shazam!
11-02-2010, 10:04 AM
There is no reason not to think about the future now. This season is all but over. TT should start, not only to give him experience and see what he can do, the next year having tape of TT will help his development substantially.

If McD is out the incoming coach needs tape.

Orton is not the long term solution at QB despite the numbers. Sorry.

BroncoStud
11-02-2010, 10:09 AM
At least give him a few series a game to get the butterflies out. That way he's under no pressure and the Broncos can see how he responds.

Northman
11-02-2010, 10:46 AM
Your wrong about the year in which some of the players started. But read this because it completely goes against the idea of rushing a QB on the field.

So, are you of the opinion that rushing guys in their first year like Stafford, Bradford, P. Manning, Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, etc is a mistake?

Ravage!!!
11-02-2010, 11:08 AM
I don't think putting the rookies on the field is rushing them in. Every one of them.. EVERY one of them that has sat, has said that they learned a LOT more when on the field than they did sitting. So no matter when you sit, or when you play, that first playing experience is by FAR the best learning experience you can have.

I'm not sure its not the right time. We are a BAD team. We can't score, and its not saying that Tebow can change that. But what we are doing is not working. It is NOT giving TT any experience by sitting him on the bench.

If he's not ready to get some playing time, then it was a dumber choice than I thought to draft him.

I Eat Staples
11-02-2010, 11:50 AM
None of those players were picked by McD. Tebow is not a first round talent.

missingnumber7
11-02-2010, 12:07 PM
I don't think Tebow should start in fact I am dead set against it. But do I think Tebow could be and has been a good gimmick...hell yea. And everytime he is on the field, be it for one or two plays here and there, he is learning the game speed, seeing what it takes and grasping for the pieces he needs to be a quality QB. The other thing that happens is him playing bits and pieces of games saves us that O Crap moment when Orton gets dinged in the 1st or 2nd quarter. We are screwed because we have designated Quinn as the #3 QB because Tebow has a slight idea of game speed, has played with the 1st stringers, and understands the reads he needs to make.

Northman
11-02-2010, 12:09 PM
I don't think Tebow should start in fact I am dead set against it.

At 2-6 why do you feel that way?

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 01:44 PM
So, are you of the opinion that rushing guys in their first year like Stafford, Bradford, P. Manning, Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, etc is a mistake?

You mean first year starters like Tim Couch, Joey Harrington, David Carr and Alex Smith? Of course Im for sitting Tebow until hes ready.


From my article in my last post.

"Drafted QBs who didn't get to start until their third or even fourth years have TD/INT rates nearly 50 percent better, and complete passes at a rate a full five percent better than rookie starters. But that's not just in the first season; that's for their careers."

Also, "the longer a QB waits to start, the better he performs once he does. In fact, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and yards per attempt all rise over the course of his career the longer a QB sits to begin it."

Historically, Qbs who sit and develop (especially under veterns who they can learn from) have much better careers.

Its not a discussion that Qbs who wait to start have better careers. The best thing for Tebow would be to sit and develop.

BroncoTech
11-02-2010, 02:06 PM
I've personally been pondering Shanny benching McNabb. Could it be you can use a quarterback like a closer? Have him practice the 4 and 2 minute offense and bring in a fresh quarterback in the middle of the 4th quarter every game.

They do it in baseball, and they get good results with a fresh arm. On a professional level there shouldn't be much drop off between players.

slim
11-02-2010, 02:07 PM
There is no right answer. The answer is different for each player (what is right for one player is not necessarily right for another).

And I don't think you can judge it based on past experience. You cannot definitively say that Tim Couch would have had a better career if he had sat on the bench a few years or that Aaron Rodgers would have failed if he had started right away. There is just no way to know. So, it is really all just speculation.

Personally I believe it doesn't matter if a rookie QB starts or sits. I would argue that you can either play the game, or you can't. That won't change based on your position on the depth chart.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 02:18 PM
There is no right answer. The answer is different for each player (what is right for one player is not necessarily right for another).

And I don't think you can judge it based on past experience. You cannot definitively say that Tim Couch would have had a better career if he had sat on the bench a few years or that Aaron Rodgers would have failed if he had started right away. There is just no way to know. So, it is really all just speculation.

Personally I believe it doesn't matter if a rookie QB starts or sits. I would argue that you can either play the game, or you can't. That won't change based on your position on the depth chart.


It does matter if a rookie Qb sits or starts.

The rookie Qbs would sit generally have better careers than the Qbs who start right away. Thats a fact.

"Of the 128 quarterbacks drafted since 2000, 43 got their first start in their first season in the NFL. This data -- courtesy of ESPN Stats & Information -- shows that among this large group, the longer a QB waits to start, the better he performs once he does. In fact, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and yards per attempt all rise over the course of his career the longer a QB sits to begin it."

Your "there is no right answer" argument doesnt fly.

slim
11-02-2010, 02:22 PM
It does matter if a rookie Qb sits or starts.

The rookie Qbs would sit generally have better careers than the Qbs who start right away. Thats a fact.

"Of the 128 quarterbacks drafted since 2000, 43 got their first start in their first season in the NFL. This data -- courtesy of ESPN Stats & Information -- shows that among this large group, the longer a QB waits to start, the better he performs once he does. In fact, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and yards per attempt all rise over the course of his career the longer a QB sits to begin it."

Your "there is no right answer" argument doesnt fly.

There is no way to know how their careers would have turned out if they started earlier, that is the point. Maybe they still would have had better careers than their counterparts. There is just no way to know.

I Eat Staples
11-02-2010, 02:34 PM
I've personally been pondering Shanny benching McNabb. Could it be you can use a quarterback like a closer? Have him practice the 4 and 2 minute offense and bring in a fresh quarterback in the middle of the 4th quarter every game.

They do it in baseball, and they get good results with a fresh arm. On a professional level there shouldn't be much drop off between players.

Different sport, you can't compare it.


There is no right answer. The answer is different for each player (what is right for one player is not necessarily right for another).

And I don't think you can judge it based on past experience. You cannot definitively say that Tim Couch would have had a better career if he had sat on the bench a few years or that Aaron Rodgers would have failed if he had started right away. There is just no way to know. So, it is really all just speculation.

Personally I believe it doesn't matter if a rookie QB starts or sits. I would argue that you can either play the game, or you can't. That won't change based on your position on the depth chart.

I agree, my problem with this whole thing is that I don't think Tebow can play at the NFL level.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 02:38 PM
There is no way to know how their careers would have turned out if they started earlier, that is the point. Maybe they still would have had better careers than their counterparts. There is just no way to know.

Look, the statisics show over a wide range of data that Qbs who sit have better careers.

"The average draft position of QBs who didn't start until their fourth year, for example, was 155.7. The average for guys with first-year starts is 82.2. Yet those on the four-year plan had 46 percent better TD/INT ratios, better completion percentage and yards per attempt. Since 2000, nine first-round picks started within their teams' first three games. Only Matt Ryan and Ben Roethlisberger have a positive TD/INT ratio in their career.

The wait worked. Across a wide range of data."

Try and dispute the facts all you want, but saying there is no way to legitmently compare rookies who started right away to rookie Qbs that waited is rediculous. If the examples were around 10 then you would have an argument, but looking at the careers of over 120+ NFL Qbs is more than enough to find an answer.

Bosco
11-02-2010, 02:43 PM
There isn't any point in arguing about it really. McDaniels knows what it takes to develop quarterbacks and I'd bet anything that he agrees with the "sit em and let em learn" philosophy.

Northman
11-02-2010, 02:44 PM
You mean first year starters like Tim Couch, Joey Harrington, David Carr and Alex Smith? Of course Im for sitting Tebow until hes ready.

Obviously ive pointed out the bad vs good in my initial post. But since there have been some very good QB's to perform in their first year it kind of defy's what your stating here.


Its not a discussion that Qbs who wait to start have better careers.

No its not, its about 1st round QB's getting gametime experience in their first year of being on a team regardless of situation. Again, what you've tried to outline in that article is not the norm nor does it prove that 1st round QB's cant be great if they play in their first year.


The best thing for Tebow would be to sit and develop.

Not really accurate. It would be "ok" to sit him and certainly wouldnt "hurt" his development. However, looking upon our w/l situation it would not "hurt" him to play in some games either. That is the whole point here. Now, if your ONE of those who believe he cant handle it like a Manning and is more like a Ryan Leaf than just come out and say it. Because really, thats the only difference when it comes to 1st round QB's. Either they can handle playing some games or they just werent good to begin with. Since its not a "given" that those who wait are better than those who start it all falls down to the player themselves and how good they are at the pro level.

Ravage!!!
11-02-2010, 02:48 PM
It does matter if a rookie Qb sits or starts.

The rookie Qbs would sit generally have better careers than the Qbs who start right away. Thats a fact.

"Of the 128 quarterbacks drafted since 2000, 43 got their first start in their first season in the NFL. This data -- courtesy of ESPN Stats & Information -- shows that among this large group, the longer a QB waits to start, the better he performs once he does. In fact, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and yards per attempt all rise over the course of his career the longer a QB sits to begin it."

Your "there is no right answer" argument doesnt fly.
So you are saying that this cut-n-paste makes your opinion correct??:confused: How so?

You trying to tell me that you know for a fact that Phillip RIvers wouldn't have succeeded has he started his rookie year? Or that Tom Brady wouldn't have been as good had he gotten the chance to start his rookie season? You are telling me that guys like Carson Palmer, who sat behind Kitna for a sesason, are BETTER off than those like Matt Stafford, Ben Rothlesburger, Matt Ryan, the Mannings, Drew Brees, Joe Flacco, and Sam Bradford? Based on what?? That tiny lil blurb you just posted?

I would VERY MUCh say that Rivers would be the same QB he is today if he started his rookie season. I would say Palmer would be the same guy. I would say that Aaron Rodgers would be the same QB if he got to start his rookie year. These guys didn't learn how to play by sitting. They were already top draft choices BECAUSE they already knew how ot play the game.

Not to mention, the 128 doesn't designate what round each QB was drafted in, only that they were drafted. Some of those weren't intended to EVER start, but to merely be back-ups.

Northman
11-02-2010, 02:48 PM
You cannot definitively say that Tim Couch would have had a better career if he had sat on the bench a few years or that Aaron Rodgers would have failed if he had started right away.

Excellent example.

I was looking at another article last night from a couple of years ago. And it eluded too the fact that the writer said "Quinn sitting is the best thing for the Browns". This obviously was after Derek Anderson had his big year and Quinn was sitting behind him. In the end it didnt do anything for him and he didnt perform the way they expected. But, even with that he still got playing time his first couple of years and that was a bad team, one that wasnt competing for a division or playoff spot.

WARHORSE
11-02-2010, 02:49 PM
Well, in our case, we have the best of both worlds and I think it is helping him tremendously. Will that translate to wins with Tebow under center in the future? We dont know.

He is not starting, but he is getting on the field and helping the team.

He is being afforded the chance to get his feet wet.


Tebow is chomping at the bit.

But sitting him is the best thing imo.


If he were to go in and play subpar, I think he would still rise above in spite of it later on.

But many young QBs cant handle the pressure that comes from starting early on and then on top of that not doing well in the first slew of games they start.



The ideal situation is for Tebow to know the offense like the back of his hand first, and to get game time reps like he is, is ideal imo.



I dont think Tebow should start. But I do think he should start throwing the ball in his packages.

Northman
11-02-2010, 02:51 PM
Look, the statisics show over a wide range of data that Qbs who sit have better careers.

"The average draft position of QBs who didn't start until their fourth year, for example, was 155.7. The average for guys with first-year starts is 82.2. Yet those on the four-year plan had 46 percent better TD/INT ratios, better completion percentage and yards per attempt. Since 2000, nine first-round picks started within their teams' first three games. Only Matt Ryan and Ben Roethlisberger have a positive TD/INT ratio in their career.

The wait worked. Across a wide range of data."

Try and dispute the facts all you want, but saying there is no way to legitmently compare rookies who started right away to rookie Qbs that waited is rediculous. If the examples were around 10 then you would have an argument, but looking at the careers of over 120+ NFL Qbs is more than enough to find an answer.


Were not talking about EVERY QB here Nor. Thats your problem. We are talking about 1st round QB's and THAT only.

Northman
11-02-2010, 02:54 PM
Not to mention, the 128 doesn't designate what round each QB was drafted in, only that they were drafted. Some of those weren't intended to EVER start, but to merely be back-ups.

Booya!

When you cant follow a simple thread and subject matter you already lose the arguement.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 03:02 PM
Obviously ive pointed out the bad vs good in my initial post. But since there have been some very good QB's to perform in their first year it kind of defy's what your stating here.



No its not, its about 1st round QB's getting gametime experience in their first year of being on a team regardless of situation. Again, what you've tried to outline in that article is not the norm nor does it prove that 1st round QB's cant be great if they play in their first year.



Not really accurate. It would be "ok" to sit him and certainly wouldnt "hurt" his development. However, looking upon our w/l situation it would not "hurt" him to play in some games either. That is the whole point here. Now, if your ONE of those who believe he cant handle it like a Manning and is more like a Ryan Leaf than just come out and say it. Because really, thats the only difference when it comes to 1st round QB's. Either they can handle playing some games or they just werent good to begin with. Since its not a "given" that those who wait are better than those who start it all falls down to the player themselves and how good they are at the pro level.

Ive already proved that Qbs who sit have better careers than those who dont. Overwhelming the data show it. You can disregaurd the study I provided but unless you provide an overall study of drafted Qbs instead of singular examples, then your opinion worthless and simply your opinion. However, Ive backed up my contention with factual studies.


So you are saying that this cut-n-paste makes your opinion correct??:confused: How so?

You trying to tell me that you know for a fact that Phillip RIvers wouldn't have succeeded has he started his rookie year? Or that Tom Brady wouldn't have been as good had he gotten the chance to start his rookie season? You are telling me that guys like Carson Palmer, who sat behind Kitna for a sesason, are BETTER off than those like Matt Stafford, Ben Rothlesburger, Matt Ryan, the Mannings, Drew Brees, Joe Flacco, and Sam Bradford? Based on what?? That tiny lil blurb you just posted?

I would VERY MUCh say that Rivers would be the same QB he is today if he started his rookie season. I would say Palmer would be the same guy. I would say that Aaron Rodgers would be the same QB if he got to start his rookie year. These guys didn't learn how to play by sitting. They were already top draft choices BECAUSE they already knew how ot play the game.

Not to mention, the 128 doesn't designate what round each QB was drafted in, only that they were drafted. Some of those weren't intended to EVER start, but to merely be back-ups.

Again, you can bring up singular examples all you want but theres no totality about your argument.

The article I posted is based on over 120+ Qbs over long periods of time, not a handful. It holds much more weight than your examples. You can dispute the article all you want, but until you come up with a better study your singular examples are weak.

Northman
11-02-2010, 03:08 PM
Ive already proved that Qbs who sit have better careers than those who dont. Overwhelming the data show it. You can disregaurd the study I provided but unless you provide an overall study of drafted Qbs instead of singular examples, then your opinion worthless and simply your opinion. However, Ive backed up my contention with factual studies.



Again, you can bring up singular examples all you want but theres no totality about your argument.

The article I posted is based on over 120+ Qbs over long periods of time, not a handful. It holds much more weight than your examples. You can dispute the article all you want, but until you come up with a better study your singular examples are weak.

What part of "this isnt about 120+ QB's" do you not comprehend?

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 03:10 PM
Were not talking about EVERY QB here Nor. Thats your problem. We are talking about 1st round QB's and THAT only.

Again, first round pick or not doesnt matter. First round picks benifiet just as much from sitting as qbs drafted later.

"Draft position doesn't seem to matter.

The average draft position of QBs who didn't start until their fourth year, for example, was 155.7. The average for guys with first-year starts is 82.2. Yet those on the four-year plan had 46 percent better TD/INT ratios, better completion percentage and yards per attempt. Since 2000, nine first-round picks started within their teams' first three games. Only Matt Ryan and Ben Roethlisberger have a positive TD/INT ratio in their career.

The wait worked. Across a wide range of data."

The study does differenciate between rounds and my contention holds true. Whether it be a first round pick or later, develpoing the qb is more benificial.

Northman
11-02-2010, 03:14 PM
Again, first round pick or not doesnt matter.

It does matter Nor, thats what my topic is about. Look, im trying to be as civil as i possibly can be about this. If your not going to stay on the topic that ive presented than please, just get out of the thread.

I will also add that im not concerned right now about how their careers turned out. The point that im bringing up is that of all the 1st round QB's drafted in the last decade MOST of them played a significant amount of time their first 2 years.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 03:22 PM
It does matter Nor, thats what my topic is about. Look, im trying to be as civil as i possibly can be about this. If your not going to stay on the topic that ive presented than please, just get out of the thread.







You really are stubborn.

The point is that it does not matter if Tebow is a first round pick or not. ALL Qbs benifiet from sitting, whether it be a first rounder or seventh.

The article specifcally address first round picks and concludes that it makes no difference.

Do you understand that or would you like me to spell it out for you?

Northman
11-02-2010, 03:28 PM
You really are stubborn.

The point is that it does not matter if Tebow is a first round pick or not. ALL Qbs benifiet from sitting, whether it be a first rounder or seventh.

The article specifcally address first round picks and concludes that it makes no difference.

Do you understand that or would you like me to spell it out for you?


Last chance and then ill just let the Mods handle you from here. Here is the topic mate. Try again.


I will also add that im not concerned right now about how their careers turned out. The point that im bringing up is that of all the 1st round QB's drafted in the last decade MOST of them played a significant amount of time their first 2 years.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 03:29 PM
I will also add that im not concerned right now about how their careers turned out. The point that im bringing up is that of all the 1st round QB's drafted in the last decade MOST of them played a significant amount of time their first 2 years.

And my point is that the Qbs who didnt start right away overwhelmingly went of to have better careers.

You care that all these Qbs started right away, but not the consequence of it? :confused: Doesnt make any sense.

Northman
11-02-2010, 03:34 PM
And my point is that the Qbs who didnt start right away overwhelmingly went of to have better careers.

You care that all these Qbs started right away, but not the consequence of it? :confused: Doesnt make any sense.

Consequence only applies if the player was bad to begin with. Slim tried to point that out too you that no player is a given at the pro level. So while your "theory" does work at times it also isnt 100% fail proof because of guys like Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Troy Aikman, Big Ben, and so on. So basically, IF Tebow is worth a grain of salt like fans and media alike believe than he will be ok to play a few games this year. Ryan Leaf and David Carr werent "ruined" because they started or played games early in their careers mate. They were bad or average to begin with.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 03:48 PM
Consequence only applies if the player was bad to begin with. Slim tried to point that out too you that no player is a given at the pro level. So while your "theory" does work at times it also isnt 100% fail proof because of guys like Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Troy Aikman, Big Ben, and so on. So basically, IF Tebow is worth a grain of salt like fans and media alike believe than he will be ok to play a few games this year. Ryan Leaf and David Carr werent "ruined" because they started or played games early in their careers mate. They were bad or average to begin with.

No, the consequences apply to every Qb drafted, whether good or bad.

Again, you can provide a couple success stories but it will never overshadow the fact that most Qbs, even simply just first round picks, have better careers if they wait and develop.

Sure, the fact that most Qbs who sit have better careers than those who dont isnt 100% full proof. Thats why I say and the article says most!

If history proves that sitting a Qb gives the player the best chance of succeeding in his career, why would anybody want Tebow to start his rookie year? Dont we as fans want whats best for Tebow?

Northman
11-02-2010, 04:03 PM
Dont we as fans want whats best for Tebow?

We dont know whats best for Tebow. We can only give our opinions on what we "think" is best for him. Since there is no certainty that starting or sitting a QB will harm or hurt said QB all we have to go on is what we feel is the best move in that present time.

You think he should sit. Ok, im cool with that.

I think because the season is gone that i would like to see what he has to offer and let him get some gametime experience now.

Fact is dude, neither one of us is right because neither one of us is a fortune teller. At the end of the day Tebow will either be a bust, a average QB, or a HOF. History has shown that some of the best QB's to play the game got into games very early in their careers and did very little sitting. This includes Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, John Elway, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Steve Young, etc. Even Tom Brady was playing a lot of time by his second year. The list could go on man. Either we have a guy like that in Tebow or we dont. Simply sitting him for 3 years really doesnt mean a whole lot when it comes to the guys with the "it" factor if that is what Tebow has.

Italianmobstr7
11-02-2010, 04:15 PM
Elway didn't sit very long and he turned out okay. Same with Marino. I've backed Orton the whole time, but not putting Tebow in now is pointless. I won't chant "Tebow" or anything of that sort, but why not put him in? We're 2-6 and just lost in back to back weeks to the Raiders and 49ers? Might as well let him get SOME experience so that we have a shot next season. If he goes in next year with NO game experience, it's still a crapshoot and we might be even worse than we are this year.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 04:33 PM
We dont know whats best for Tebow. We can only give our opinions on what we "think" is best for him. Since there is no certainty that starting or sitting a QB will harm or hurt said QB all we have to go on is what we feel is the best move in that present time.

You think he should sit. Ok, im cool with that.

I think because the season is gone that i would like to see what he has to offer and let him get some gametime experience now.

Fact is dude, neither one of us is right because neither one of us is a fortune teller. At the end of the day Tebow will either be a bust, a average QB, or a HOF. History has shown that some of the best QB's to play the game got into games very early in their careers and did very little sitting. This includes Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, John Elway, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Steve Young, etc. Even Tom Brady was playing a lot of time by his second year. The list could go on man. Either we have a guy like that in Tebow or we dont. Simply sitting him for 3 years really doesnt mean a whole lot when it comes to the guys with the "it" factor if that is what Tebow has.

The fact is Northman, your opinion is wrong and has zero factual evidence to back it up. My opinion however is backed up by a factual study of numerous Qbs over a long period of time. Im not simply just naming a handful of Qbs that back up my claim and acting like that means something like you have for about the 3rd time. Again, a handful of 1st round qb who started right away and there success stories means squat and leaves out the more numerous Qbs that have failed. You fail to look at the entierty of this issue and chose to ignore the facts that are presented to you because of your inability to let go of your obvious bias. Feel free to believe that Qbs who start right away makes no difference at all, go with your unfactual opinion thats based on absolutley nothing and ignores the facts. Until you acctually bring something to back up your opinion, please leave me the frustration of reading another one of your post in this thread.

If you dispute the article, that fine. What about it isnt true or being ignored? But dont act like ive brought nothing to the table like you. My facts are facts and your opinion has none.

We do know whats best for Tebow and that would again be having him sit and develop. My facts have shown that. Have yours?

And saying Tebow shouldnt sit because he has the "it" factor?!?! I mean this is just another horrible example of your argument.

Northman
11-02-2010, 04:43 PM
The fact is Northman, your opinion is wrong and has zero factual evidence to back it up.

John Elway says your wrong. Thats pretty factual isnt it? :confused:


My opinion however is backed up by a factual studie of numerous Qbs over a long period of time.

Actually, all your article really does is show that not every NFL QB is deemed for greatness. If INDEED your article was factual guys like Elway, Montana, Manning, etc would of failed because they didnt sit. How exactly do you explain their success if they didnt sit?


Im not simply just naming a handful of Qbs that back up my claim and acting like that means something like you have for about the 3rd time.

Are you bi-polar? Just curious.

Your not naming certain Qb's but i am concentrating on 1st rounders playing significant time in their first 2 years. This is something that your really struggling to stay on topic with. When you can LEARN to talk about the actual topic then we can continue this discussion. If not, like i said get out or ill just report you for trolling and trying to hijack my thread.

Northman
11-02-2010, 04:45 PM
And saying Tebow shouldnt sit because he has the "it" factor?!?! I mean this is just another horrible example of your weak ass argument. My counter argument of that 3rd grade logic would be Tebows only a 70 in madden he not ready! SIMPLY STUPID!

Seeing how you cant stay on topic ill let the mods deal with it. This is getting ridiculous.

slim
11-02-2010, 04:49 PM
Seeing how you cant stay on topic ill let the mods deal with it. This is getting ridiculous.

Is this fact or opinion?

I can't tell.

Northman
11-02-2010, 04:51 PM
Is this fact or opinion?

I can't tell.

Im sure ill get an article telling me that my opinion is wrong. :lol:

Ravage!!!
11-02-2010, 05:09 PM
The fact is Northman, your opinion is wrong and has zero factual evidence to back it up. My opinion however is backed up by a factual study of numerous Qbs over a long period of time.

I don't have to go any further than this to point out how incorrect you are.. PERIOD.

1) Opinions can't be wrong.

2) Opinions don't have to have factual evidence to back it up.

3) your opinion isn't a fact, no matter how much "factual study" you have. Its an opinion either way.

4) You have been given MULTIPLE and MULTIPLE examples as to how sitting doesn't have any effect on the the "consequences" of their careers. If it were a "fact" (as you put it) then we would see simply 1 or so cases that strayed from the normal. When in "fact" we see many cases that are clearly outside of what you are claiming to be a "factual" impossibility. I mean, if its a "Fact" then we wouldn't see success outside of what your "factual study" is proving.

4) The study hasn't taken into account ANY factors of sitting such QBs adn how that may address their success.

Do you think that Rivers would have been a bad QB had he started from game one? I don't think so, but then, I'm going to assume that you are going to say my opinion is "wrong"... right? So the study only takes into account the result of him sitting, rather than having ANY kind of analysis as to how he would have done if he didn't sit. Is that really a "fact".. or is it purely ignoring factors? I believe this isn't really a scientific study, but one that is based PURELY on numerical data.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 05:16 PM
John Elway says your wrong. Thats pretty factual isnt it? :confused:



Actually, all your article really does is show that not every NFL QB is deemed for greatness. If INDEED your article was factual guys like Elway, Montana, Manning, etc would of failed because they didnt sit. How exactly do you explain their success if they didnt sit?



Are you bi-polar? Just curious.

Your not naming certain Qb's but i am concentrating on 1st rounders playing significant time in their first 2 years. This is something that your really struggling to stay on topic with. When you can LEARN to talk about the actual topic then we can continue this discussion. If not, like i said get out or ill just report you for trolling and trying to hijack my thread.

Again you fail to give significant examples. You name one guy out of the numerous that have been drafted and think that means something. You will never be able to look at this issue in its entierty, only basing your opinion off the few players that have succedded and discounting the numerous that have failed.

You again start talking in absolutes when I have never used any. Saying "If INDEED your article was factual guys like Elway, Montana, Manning, etc would of failed because they didnt sit." is simply incorrect and is the not what the article has said. Go back and read it. Its saying that for the most part, sitting and developing the rookie is best for the players career. Sure, some of the qbs who started ended up to be great like Montana, Elway. But the players who sat ended up playing better for the most part. It takes into account all the Qbs drafted and not just a handful. You keep saying "were only talking about 1st round picks" when the article specifically address first round picks says they beifiet more from sitting. Go on, ignore all this.

"So the question is what makes Tebow so special that he needs to sit" is the only question you asked in the OP. Ive aswered why he should sit, because they histroically have better careers. Stop acting like Im high jacking this thread because Im giving you answers backed up with facts that you dont like.

Lancane
11-02-2010, 05:17 PM
It's not an exact science how best to handle a first round quarterback, some are more pro ready then others, some become such by being thrown to the wolves sort of speak and others do better by learning behind others. IMHO, Tebow is better being played sparingly his first season like Joe Montana was, rather then being thrown into the mix like Troy Aikman was.

I was all for Cutler starting sooner because he was pro ready, but an entire year on the bench might have done him some good. If we rush Tebow we might see the end of his career rather then the beginning.

slim
11-02-2010, 05:20 PM
I don't have to go any further than this to point out how incorrect you are.. PERIOD.

1) Opinions can't be wrong.

2) Opinions don't have to have factual evidence to back it up.

3) your opinion isn't a fact, no matter how much "factual study" you have. Its an opinion either way.

4) You have been given MULTIPLE and MULTIPLE examples as to how sitting doesn't have any effect on the the "consequences" of their careers. If it were a "fact" (as you put it) then we would see simply 1 or so cases that strayed from the normal. When in "fact" we see many cases that are clearly outside of what you are claiming to be a "factual" impossibility. I mean, if its a "Fact" then we wouldn't see success outside of what your "factual study" is proving.

4) The study hasn't taken into account ANY factors of sitting such QBs adn how that may address their success.

Do you think that Rivers would have been a bad QB had he started from game one? I don't think so, but then, I'm going to assume that you are going to say my opinion is "wrong"... right? So the study only takes into account the result of him sitting, rather than having ANY kind of analysis as to how he would have done if he didn't sit. Is that really a "fact".. or is it purely ignoring factors? I believe this isn't really a scientific study, but one that is based PURELY on numerical data.

Completely unscientific. There is no way you could possibly conduct a thorough analysis on this topic. There are way too many variables (none of which were considered in this "study").

I thought it was an interesting story, but it doesn't tell the whole story and it's certainly not gospel.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 05:30 PM
"Your OPINION is just as biased as you are claiming that North's is. Everyone is allowed an opinion. The article you posted didn't specifically pertain to the thread topic. He asked a very specific question.

Until Tebow becomes one of those statistics, NONE of us knows how he will turn out or which is the better route for him. We can give our OPINION of what we think, but there are no FACTS when it comes to Tebow and his future."

Of the 128 quarterbacks drafted since 2000, 43 got their first start in their first season in the NFL. This data -- courtesy of ESPN Stats & Information -- shows that among this large group, the longer a QB waits to start, the better he performs once he does. In fact, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and yards per attempt all rise over the course of his career the longer a QB sits to begin it.

Drafted QBs who didn't get to start until their third or even fourth years have TD/INT rates nearly 50 percent better, and complete passes at a rate a full five percent better than rookie starters. But that's not just in the first season; that's for their careers.

This is not my opinion, but several facts. Stop acting like its not.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 05:32 PM
It's not an exact science how best to handle a first round quarterback, some are more pro ready then others, some become such by being thrown to the wolves sort of speak and others do better by learning behind others. IMHO, Tebow is better being played sparingly his first season like Joe Montana was, rather then being thrown into the mix like Troy Aikman was.

I was all for Cutler starting sooner because he was pro ready, but an entire year on the bench might have done him some good. If we rush Tebow we might see the end of his career rather then the beginning.

Talking in absolutes again.

Nobody saying its an exact science. But NFL history brings to light the best method.

Lancane
11-02-2010, 05:46 PM
Talking in absolutes again.

Nobody saying its an exact science. But NFL history brings to light the best method.

I was not talking about absolutes, I'm talking about what we've learned through the history of football itself, particularly at the pro level. Those whom have had questionable mechanics have statistically been better after sitting out for a season or two. Montana was considered much the same as Tebow in almost every aspect, he was a third round draft pick who played sparingly his first year, he was not the starter till his second season and he had an up and down season...it was his third when he broke out. Steve Young is another who had questionable mechanics, as did Brady and a good number of pretty damn good quarterbacks. An absolute would be to say that those with good mechanics are the only true successful pro quarterbacks, which is not true.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 05:57 PM
I was not talking about absolutes, I'm talking about what we've learned through the history of football itself, particularly at the pro level. Those whom have had questionable mechanics have statistically been better after sitting out for a season or two. Montana was considered much the same as Tebow in almost every aspect, he was a third round draft pick who played sparingly his first year, he was not the starter till his second season and he had an up and down season...it was his third when he broke out. Steve Young is another who had questionable mechanics, as did Brady and a good number of pretty damn good quarterbacks. An absolute would be to say that those with good mechanics are the only true successful pro quarterbacks, which is not true.

Reguradless of mechanics, its a fact that most qbs who sit have better careers than those who dont.

Ravage!!!
11-02-2010, 06:01 PM
"Your OPINION is just as biased as you are claiming that North's is. Everyone is allowed an opinion. The article you posted didn't specifically pertain to the thread topic. He asked a very specific question.

Until Tebow becomes one of those statistics, NONE of us knows how he will turn out or which is the better route for him. We can give our OPINION of what we think, but there are no FACTS when it comes to Tebow and his future."

Of the 128 quarterbacks drafted since 2000, 43 got their first start in their first season in the NFL. This data -- courtesy of ESPN Stats & Information -- shows that among this large group, the longer a QB waits to start, the better he performs once he does. In fact, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and yards per attempt all rise over the course of his career the longer a QB sits to begin it.

Drafted QBs who didn't get to start until their third or even fourth years have TD/INT rates nearly 50 percent better, and complete passes at a rate a full five percent better than rookie starters. But that's not just in the first season; that's for their careers.


This is not my opinion, but several facts. Stop acting like it not.

You obviously don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.

Not to mention, you still haven't grasped that your lil stat there doesn't really hold much "fact" to it.

Let me illustrate what I'm talking about.

What your study has shown, is tht if a player starts, they have a lesser career than those that waited. HOWEVER... this is the problem. You only have two categories. (A)Starting (B) Waited

THe problem is, those that started can NEVER be truly compared to the waited. For we don't know if player (A) would have done better if he had waited. JUST as, if a player had to wait, he could never be compared to IF he would have started. Meaning, we couldn't go back and do a separate experiment and test to see if the same player would have had the same success had he simply started.

ALSO... since we have MANY examples of players that have succeeded by starteing from day one, then we have no way of knowing if Tebow is one of those players or not UNTIL he has played. However, if he does play, then he is IMMEDIATELY put into one of the (A) category and can NEVER go back or be included in the "other" category. This doesn't really hold much clout, and absolutely is not a science. ITs not fact. The ONLY fact it has to it, is labeling the results of those that have already played, and doesn't have a single way of judging on how someone WILL play....because we've seen FARRRRRRR too many variables as to why one might succeed (or fail) if they start OR wait.

Ravage!!!
11-02-2010, 06:05 PM
its not even really a "study".. its more of just listing QBs and comparing what someone thinks is a better career. Thats hardly something to take as "Fact" at all.

I Eat Staples
11-02-2010, 06:09 PM
I think Tebow should sit.

My opinion is better than yours because I said it and it's backed up by me.

Ravage!!!
11-02-2010, 06:17 PM
I think Tebow should sit.

My opinion is better than yours because I said it and it's backed up by me.

I think Tebow should get some playing time. My opinion is 'fact' because its a FACT that we suck. :tsk:

Lonestar
11-02-2010, 06:34 PM
So, are you of the opinion that rushing guys in their first year like Stafford, Bradford, P. Manning, Matt Ryan, Mark Sanchez, etc is a mistake?

Yes except pehaps Manning who will become the leader is all catagories after Frave retires he is like having a coach in the field.

As the story suggests sanchez had one of the best olines in the NFL and running games. Yet thru 20 picks.and one of the worst QBrating in the league. We will never know if sitting would have made him better as the study suggests

Did he learn. But then was also not in DEN with this oline and RB fubar.

Let the kid sit as throwing him to the wolves does niothing but get him hurt either mentally or phyiscally. IMO. We have nothing to lose in keeping him on the bench. For the rest of the year with some spot duty like he has done a few plays here and there.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Bosco
11-02-2010, 07:06 PM
1) Opinions can't be wrong.

2) Opinions don't have to have factual evidence to back it up.

I think we have our candidate for the "Dumbest Post of the Year" award.

frauschieze
11-02-2010, 07:12 PM
I think we have our candidate for the "Dumbest Post of the Year" award.

Actually, it's not even remotely dumb since there are a significant number of people who post on this site who are unaware of the difference between opinion and fact.

That is my opinion. And I have no facts to back it up.

:hi:

Bosco
11-02-2010, 07:17 PM
Actually, it's not even remotely dumb since there are a significant number of people who post on this site who are unaware of the difference between opinion and fact.

That is my opinion. And I have no facts to back it up.

:hi:

I was referring to the complete and total nonsense that "opinions can't be wrong." That shit is comical.

claymore
11-02-2010, 07:21 PM
I was referring to the complete and total nonsense that "opinions can't be wrong." That shit is comical.

Not in my opinion.

Bosco
11-02-2010, 07:30 PM
Not in my opinion.

You know, there was a certain church that was of the opinion that the universe revolved around the sun too. That worked out well for them.

Just saying.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 07:31 PM
You obviously don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.

Not to mention, you still haven't grasped that your lil stat there doesn't really hold much "fact" to it.

Let me illustrate what I'm talking about.

What your study has shown, is tht if a player starts, they have a lesser career than those that waited. HOWEVER... this is the problem. You only have two categories. (A)Starting (B) Waited

THe problem is, those that started can NEVER be truly compared to the waited. For we don't know if player (A) would have done better if he had waited. JUST as, if a player had to wait, he could never be compared to IF he would have started. Meaning, we couldn't go back and do a separate experiment and test to see if the same player would have had the same success had he simply started.

ALSO... since we have MANY examples of players that have succeeded by starteing from day one, then we have no way of knowing if Tebow is one of those players or not UNTIL he has played. However, if he does play, then he is IMMEDIATELY put into one of the (A) category and can NEVER go back or be included in the "other" category. This doesn't really hold much clout, and absolutely is not a science. ITs not fact. The ONLY fact it has to it, is labeling the results of those that have already played, and doesn't have a single way of judging on how someone WILL play....because we've seen FARRRRRRR too many variables as to why one might succeed (or fail) if they start OR wait.

In fact, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and yards per attempt all rise over the course of his career the longer a QB sits to begin it.

Thats a fact.

You believe theres no way to compare rookies that started right away to those who sat. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Ravage!!!
11-02-2010, 07:36 PM
I think we have our candidate for the "Dumbest Post of the Year" award.


I was referring to the complete and total nonsense that "opinions can't be wrong." That shit is comical.


You've just proved the point that most don't know the difference between fact and opinion. Your statement alone, fits the definition of ironony for calling my post "Dumb" when you obviously don't know of which you talk. I would talk about how you are full of shit, but I would be afraid that FACT would go over your head.

An opinion is a personal view point. It can't be right nor wrong.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_opinions_be_wrong

An opinion is subjective by its very nature, to the voicer of such opinion it can never be wrong...

a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty;

opin·ion (ə pin′yən, ō-)

noun

1. a belief not based on absolute certainty or positive knowledge but on what seems true, valid, or probable to one's own mind; judgment
2. an evaluation, impression, or estimation of the quality or worth of a person or thing
3. the formal judgment of an expert on a matter in which advice is sought
4. Law the formal statement by a judge, court referee, etc. of the law bearing on a case


You may base your opinion on fact, but your opinion is still just an opinion nontheless, and your opinion has no more clout than anyone else's.....ESPECIALLY when you feel that your opinions are facts!! :laugh:

frauschieze
11-02-2010, 07:40 PM
I was referring to the complete and total nonsense that "opinions can't be wrong." That shit is comical.



o·pin·ion
   /əˈpɪnyən/ [uh-pin-yuhn]
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second Medical opinion.
4. Law . the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6. a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.


Funny....I don't see anything in the definition of opinion that states or would imply an opinion can be wrong.

In fact, by the definition of the type of opinion we're talking about (that'd be numbers 1 & 2 for all you playing at home), there is not only no way to prove an opinion, but it's entirely personally subjective. Therefore, an opinion cannot be wrong.

swaiy
11-02-2010, 07:40 PM
In fact, completion percentage, TD/INT ratio and yards per attempt all rise over the course of his career the longer a QB sits to begin it.

Thats a fact.

You believe theres no way to compare rookies that started right away to those who sat. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I believe that he means:

There is no way to prove that a rookie that started, would have done much better if he sat. The only way you would have a true and flawless comparison would be to let the rookie start his career right away until it plays out.

Then you would have to go back in to time and let that rookie sit, and then have his career play out. Only then would be you have a true comparison by using only that QB's stats.


The problem with the study you have presented is the fact that there are too many variables. Different teams, different times, different coaches, different colleges. I could go on forever. You can never have a sound experiment because not every circumstance is the same.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 08:12 PM
I believe that he means:

There is no way to prove that a rookie that started, would have done much better if he sat. The only way you would have a true and flawless comparison would be to let the rookie start his career right away until it plays out.

Then you would have to go back in to time and let that rookie sit, and then have his career play out. Only then would be you have a true comparison by using only that QB's stats.


The problem with the study you have presented is the fact that there are too many variables. Different teams, different times, different coaches, different colleges. I could go on forever. You can never have a sound experiment because not every circumstance is the same.

The study showed that Qbs who started as rookies did not have as good careers as those who sat. Therefore, the ones who sat became more successful, generally speaking.

I dont think there are many viables. You can compare the success rate of players by what round there are drafted in. The statistics show that the higher the round a player is drafted in, the better chance that player will have success in the NFL......different team, coaches, colleges. Doesnt matter. Your nit picking.

Bosco
11-02-2010, 08:24 PM
Funny....I don't see anything in the definition of opinion that states or would imply an opinion can be wrong.

That's only if your opinion truly fits the criteria of being an actual subjective opinion, which isn't always the case. Example...

"I like blue. I think it is the best color."

This is a subjective opinion. It cannot be wrong because it is based on a person's subjective preference. Now let's try this again, visiting the example I used earlier...

"I think the Sun revolves around the Earth"

This "opinion" IS wrong because it's based on a factual inaccuracy and can be explicitly proven wrong. No amount of subject opinion will make this statement correct.

And that, concludes this lesson.

Northman
11-02-2010, 08:32 PM
Its my opinion that NoCal has destroyed my thread because he doesnt understand the simplicity of the topic at hand.

swaiy
11-02-2010, 08:35 PM
The study showed that Qbs who started as rookies did not have as good careers as those who sat. Therefore, the ones who sat became more successful, generally speaking.

I dont think there are many viables. You can compare the success rate of players by what round there are drafted in. The statistics show that the higher the round a player is drafted in, the better chance that player will have success in the NFL......different team, coaches, colleges. Doesnt matter. Your nit picking.

First, nobody is "nit-picking". I'm merely pointing out that things aren't as black and white as you try to make them to be.

Second, before you refute something as fact, it should be noted that the argument cannot have any holes.

"The statistics show that the higher the round a player is drafted in, the better chance that player will have success in the NFL"


While this statement may be partially true, it is not always true. IE: Jamarcus Russell. So while there is a great chance they will have success by being drafted in the higher round, that's not always true.

If it was absolute there would be no way for me disprove it. IE: 1 comes before 2.

Bosco
11-02-2010, 08:38 PM
Its my opinion that NoCal has destroyed my thread because he doesnt understand the simplicity of the topic at hand. Thanks a lot dillweed.

What did you expect? Orton has a 90+ passer rating for the year and you're talking about replacing him with a rookie.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 08:43 PM
[QUOTE=Northman;1110147]Its my opinion that NoCal has destroyed my thread because he doesnt understand the simplicity of the topic at hand.
"So the question is what makes Tebow so special that he needs to sit?"

You ask that question, not me.

Dont ask questions you dont want to hear the answers to. :lol:

Northman
11-02-2010, 08:46 PM
What did you expect? Orton has a 90+ passer rating for the year and you're talking about replacing him with a rookie.

Dude, if you dont understand the topic of the thread do not post in it.

Its really a SIMPLE concept here.

The season is gone, we are not winning jack shit this year. The team has a lot of problems and Orton cannot carry us to the promise land.

So (now try and stay with me here sweet cheeks) since the season is gone it would be a great idea to give Tebow some gametime experience to help his progression as a QB.

The point of the thread was too show that 1st round QB's have gotten a lot of playing time within the first 2 years and i was showing it was not out of the norm for teams to do that.

Now, try and stay with me here.

Nothing in my original post says that Orton is the fault for where the season has gone.

Now, is there anything i can explain to you or are you going to continue to ignore the obvious like NoCal?

At this point all you two are doing is trolling and its frankly pretty pathetic even by your standards.

Bosco
11-02-2010, 08:55 PM
Yeah, I get all that. The stupid part (and the part you're getting blasted for) is arguing for replacing a guy who is statistically the 7th best QB in the NFL right now. That's asinine no matter which way you slice it. The only logical reasoning would be that you think Tebow could outperform Kyle and even a big Tebow fan like myself knows the chances of that are between slim and none.

Northman
11-02-2010, 08:58 PM
Yeah, I get all that. The stupid part (and the part you're getting blasted for) is arguing for replacing a guy who is statistically the 7th best QB in the NFL right now. That's asinine no matter which way you slice it. The only logical reasoning would be that you think Tebow could outperform Kyle and even a big Tebow fan like myself knows the chances of that are between slim and none.

I dont think Tebow can outperform Orton so you would be totally incorrect here but thats not the first time you've whiffed.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 08:59 PM
First, nobody is "nit-picking". I'm merely pointing out that things aren't as black and white as you try to make them to be.

Second, before you refute something as fact, it should be noted that the argument cannot have any holes.

"The statistics show that the higher the round a player is drafted in, the better chance that player will have success in the NFL"


While this statement may be partially true, it is not always true. IE: Jamarcus Russell. So while there is a great chance they will have success by being drafted in the higher round, that's not always true.

If it was absolute there would be no way for me disprove it. IE: 1 comes before 2.

Again genius, Ive never argued or asserted anything in absolutes.

What part of the sitting a rookie gives him a better chance at success do you not understand?

Sure, Tebow could come in a dominate the league right off the bat and have a great career. But chances are the best course of action is to sit the rook. It a probability issue and the percentages are in favor of sitting the player.

Nothing is for sure in the NFL, however some things are more likely than others.

If you dont believe that, then you would probably argue that playing the lottery is a for sure thing because dick, tom and harry won it last turdsday.

:lol:

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 09:03 PM
Dude, if you dont understand the topic of the thread do not post in it.

Its really a SIMPLE concept here.

The season is gone, we are not winning jack shit this year. The team has a lot of problems and Orton cannot carry us to the promise land.

So (now try and stay with me here sweet cheeks) since the season is gone it would be a great idea to give Tebow some gametime experience to help his progression as a QB.

The point of the thread was too show that 1st round QB's have gotten a lot of playing time within the first 2 years and i was showing it was not out of the norm for teams to do that.

Now, try and stay with me here.

Nothing in my original post says that Orton is the fault for where the season has gone.

Now, is there anything i can explain to you or are you going to continue to ignore the obvious like NoCal?

At this point all you two are doing is trolling and its frankly pretty pathetic even by your standards.

Thats where you wrong, slick, and thats all Ive been talking about.

You just assume its a good idea to start Tebow, but history and many of us Broncos fan dont go by that narrative.

Northman
11-02-2010, 09:05 PM
Thats where you wrong, slick, and thats all Ive been talking about.

You just assume its a good idea to start Tebow, but history and many of us Broncos fan dont go by that narrative.


:lol:

Yea, keep backpeddling.

Bosco
11-02-2010, 09:05 PM
I dont think Tebow can outperform Orton so you would be totally incorrect here but thats not the first time you've whiffed.

I never said you believed that. I said that would be the only logical premise under which you could advocate benching Orton in this instance.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 09:09 PM
:lol:

Yea, keep backpeddling.

How bout you tell us all WTF your talking about. Id love to hear.

I Eat Staples
11-02-2010, 09:11 PM
I think we have our candidate for the "Dumbest Post of the Year" award.

I agree, thank you for nominating yourself.

Northman
11-02-2010, 09:11 PM
How bout you tell us all WTF your talking about. Id love to hear.

Ive explained it hundred times to you. Im done and since the mods feel its ok for you too hijack and insult other posters in this thread im done. Otherwise ill get banned. Time to put you on ignore.

NightTrainLayne
11-02-2010, 09:14 PM
Several instances of personal attacks have been cleaned up in this thread on both sides of the argument.

Stop the personal attacks or the thread will just get shut down. This topic can be discussed in an adult manner.

Broncolingus
11-02-2010, 09:22 PM
Here...this should help the mood on this thread.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTCDMX6_NK-rrGsX6JlVAwyFhFzVR8djAuD1alfhLlfyso_b54&t=1&usg=__OXyO5d6lklknfXTTac75TDxamvk=

(...once again, Lingus to the rescue...:dancing:)

swaiy
11-02-2010, 09:25 PM
Again genius, Ive never argued or asserted anything in absolutes.

What part of the sitting a rookie gives him a better chance at success do you not understand?

Sure, Tebow could come in a dominate the league right off the bat and have a great career. But chances are the best course of action is to sit the rook. It a probability issue and the percentages are in favor of sitting the player.

Nothing is for sure in the NFL, however some things are more likely than others.

If you dont believe that, then you would probably argue that playing the lottery is a for sure thing because dick, tom and harry won it last turdsday.

:lol:



You posted because you wanted a discussion. I approached you in a respectful manner and you respond in a condescending tone. I did not even mention Tebow in my post. I actually agreed with what your original premise is. I was just trying to point out what others were debating with you.


Thanks for that though. Before you question anyone's intelligence again, I'd do one hell of a job to ensure you don't look like a complete moron in the process.

Have a nice day.

I Eat Staples
11-02-2010, 09:27 PM
That's only if your opinion truly fits the criteria of being an actual subjective opinion, which isn't always the case. Example...

"I like blue. I think it is the best color."

This is a subjective opinion. It cannot be wrong because it is based on a person's subjective preference. Now let's try this again, visiting the example I used earlier...

"I think the Sun revolves around the Earth"

This "opinion" IS wrong because it's based on a factual inaccuracy and can be explicitly proven wrong. No amount of subject opinion will make this statement correct.

And that, concludes this lesson.

That's not an opinion. That is a wrong statement, or wrong telling of an implied fact.

That concludes your brief lesson. Listen well young man.

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 09:31 PM
You posted because you wanted a discussion. I approached you in a respectful manner and you respond in a condescending tone. I did not even mention Tebow in my post. I actually agreed with what your original premise is. I was just trying to point out what others were debating with you.


Thanks for that though. Before you question anyone's intelligence again, I'd do one hell of a job to ensure you don't look like a complete moron in the process.

Have a nice day.

Oh snap!

Burn.

Broncolingus
11-02-2010, 09:36 PM
You know what? I found Northman's high-five to my post above patronizing and non-heartfelt...in fact, I think it was a 'charity high-five.'

I mean c'mon! I give BF the joy and innocence of Puppies & Flowers to bring peace and all it get veiled sarcasm?

MODS...engage!

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIFENwinp3vyT2jNW5fJycCfTknqoV_-7FbsbUk42I_6rJmMY&t=1&usg=__8hMxmsQ_Fjy8NBETslIIjpHV7aY=

(...:D...)

NorCalBronco7
11-02-2010, 09:37 PM
:lol:

Ravage!!!
11-02-2010, 09:44 PM
That's not an opinion. That is a wrong statement, or wrong telling of an implied fact.

That concludes your brief lesson. Listen well young man.

Thats like thinking those in the past had the "opinion" that the earth was flat. That wasn't an opinion. That was an incorrect fact. BIG difference. Stating an incorrect fact is not stating an OPINION that is wrong. Fact and Opinion are not one in the same.

When I was in school, they taught us that Pluto was a planet within our solar system. That has since changed. Was it an "opinion" that Pluto was a planet rotating within our solar system? No. Thats not an opinion.
:beer:

frauschieze
11-02-2010, 10:10 PM
That's only if your opinion truly fits the criteria of being an actual subjective opinion, which isn't always the case. Example...

"I like blue. I think it is the best color."

This is a subjective opinion. It cannot be wrong because it is based on a person's subjective preference. Now let's try this again, visiting the example I used earlier...

"I think the Sun revolves around the Earth"

This "opinion" IS wrong because it's based on a factual inaccuracy and can be explicitly proven wrong. No amount of subject opinion will make this statement correct.

And that, concludes this lesson.

I would like to draw your attention BACK to the definition of opinion:


1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

Your given opinion of "I think the Sun revolves around the Earth" is not a wrong opinion.....because it is not an opinion at all! There are sufficient grounds to prove the statement true or false.

Previous conclusion still stands: There is no such thing as a wrong opinion.

Next time on Schoolin' with Frau: What are valid conclusions that can be drawn from comparisons, AKA an experiment without a control group is not an experiment at all.

Bosco
11-03-2010, 01:18 AM
I would like to draw your attention BACK to the definition of opinion:



Your given opinion of "I think the Sun revolves around the Earth" is not a wrong opinion.....because it is not an opinion at all! There are sufficient grounds to prove the statement true or false.

Previous conclusion still stands: There is no such thing as a wrong opinion.

Next time on Schoolin' with Frau: What are valid conclusions that can be drawn from comparisons, AKA an experiment without a control group is not an experiment at all.

Congratulations. You've managed to find and agree with my general point.

frauschieze
11-03-2010, 08:23 AM
Congratulations. You've managed to find and agree with my general point.

:facepalm:

Your "general point"


I was referring to the complete and total nonsense that "opinions can't be wrong." That shit is comical.

was completely and utterly destroyed. In no way did I ever, nor will I ever agree with that piece of fantasy.

Opinions can't be wrong, period. And that's a fact that cannot be disputed.

Northman
11-03-2010, 08:29 AM
:facepalm:

Your "general point"



was completely and utterly destroyed. In no way did I ever, nor will I ever agree with that piece of fantasy.

Opinions can't be wrong, period. And that's a fact that cannot be disputed.

Frau,

You do realize you are talking to the smartest man on the planet right? How dare you question him.

frauschieze
11-03-2010, 08:36 AM
Frau,

You do realize you are talking to the smartest man on the planet right? How dare you question him.

How dare I?

http://www.spareroom.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Wrong-on-Internet.jpg

missingnumber7
11-03-2010, 08:43 AM
At 2-6 why do you feel that way?

Because Orton has proven to be a better QB and the offense isn't the reason we are losing games.

missingnumber7
11-03-2010, 08:44 AM
I am supprised no one has used this quote yet


Opinions are like arseholes everyone has them and most of them stink

Ravage!!!
11-03-2010, 10:49 AM
That's only if your opinion truly fits the criteria of being an actual subjective opinion, which isn't always the case. Example...

"I like blue. I think it is the best color."

This is a subjective opinion. It cannot be wrong because it is based on a person's subjective preference. Now let's try this again, visiting the example I used earlier...

"I think the Sun revolves around the Earth"

This "opinion" IS wrong because it's based on a factual inaccuracy and can be explicitly proven wrong. No amount of subject opinion will make this statement correct.

And that, concludes this lesson.

:lol: For someone that keeps telling everyone how much smarter they are then everyone, and how you brag about admitting when you are wrong, you sure seem to enjoy proving the opposite.

This example you just gave: ""I think the Sun revolves around the Earth" is NOT a statement of opinion. Even if the person said "its my opinion that the Sun revolves around the Earth" does not make it an opinionated statement. It makes it a statement of misinformation.

Thats like saying "I think that 2+2=5." Thats not an opinionated statement, either. No different than the example you gave. Opinions, by definition of the word (which was given to you twice), is subjective and thus can NOT be wrong.

Ravage!!!
11-03-2010, 10:51 AM
How dare I?

http://www.spareroom.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Wrong-on-Internet.jpg

hah.. I love this!

arapaho2
11-03-2010, 11:45 AM
There isn't any point in arguing about it really. McDaniels knows what it takes to develop quarterbacks and I'd bet anything that he agrees with the "sit em and let em learn" philosophy.

what qb did he develop?...

arapaho2
11-03-2010, 12:31 PM
Because Orton has proven to be a better QB and the offense isn't the reason we are losing games.


sure the defense was total ruined when mcd got rid of nolan..under wink its hidious

but the offense under josh is equally to blame

this season we have had 93 possesions

of those

43 have ened with a punt
12 have ended with a TO
9 have ended on downs or Mfg

thats 64 of our 93 drives ending in failure..roughly 68% of our drives end in offensive failure

of our successful offensive possesions...only 17 have ended with a td

about 18.5 % of our offensive possetions end in tds

lets see

18.5% of our possetions result in a TD
while 68% of our offensive possesions result in giveing the ball back

yeah id kinda say the offense is a problem

NorCalBronco7
11-03-2010, 12:49 PM
sure the defense was total ruined when mcd got rid of nolan..under wink its hidious

but the offense under josh is equally to blame

this season we have had 93 possesions

of those

43 have ened with a punt
12 have ended with a TO
9 have ended on downs or Mfg

thats 64 of our 93 drives ending in failure..roughly 68% of our drives end in offensive failure

of our successful offensive possesions...only 17 have ended with a td

about 18.5 % of our offensive possetions end in tds

lets see

18.5% of our possetions result in a TD
while 68% of our offensive possesions result in giveing the ball back

yeah id kinda say the offense is a problem

Defense plays a major role in average field position and Im sure the Broncos have had much longer drives to go than most NFL teams.

As far as the offense, yeah as a total its bad. Passing offense being ranked 2nd in the NFL and the running game being ranked dead last, we can know thats it is infact the running game holding the Broncos back.

Insinuating Orton is the problem for the Broncos offense is ridiculous considering it is the only strength of the entire team.

Either way, Ortons play doesnt merit benching and nobody can suppose Tebow would play as well. If Tebow starts, its because hes ready and hes simply not.

I Eat Staples
11-03-2010, 02:16 PM
In my opinion, Bosco was exposed for his limited knowledge.

arapaho2
11-05-2010, 11:35 AM
Defense plays a major role in average field position and Im sure the Broncos have had much longer drives to go than most NFL teams.

As far as the offense, yeah as a total its bad. Passing offense being ranked 2nd in the NFL and the running game being ranked dead last, we can know thats it is infact the running game holding the Broncos back.

Insinuating Orton is the problem for the Broncos offense is ridiculous considering it is the only strength of the entire team.

Either way, Ortons play doesnt merit benching and nobody can suppose Tebow would play as well. If Tebow starts, its because hes ready and hes simply not.


the opposing teams starting field position has a lot to do with the defense yeailding points also...you got to expect the offense to do its part in changing the field position...if the opposing team is continually getting the ball near midfield...you cant expect the defense to push them back to the goaline...the offense must change the field position!!..and in most cases...they cant

where did i insinuate anything ablut orton?....i am simply saying although the defense has taken a huge downgrade with josh getting rid of nolan...the offense isnt helping at all

when the overwhelming majority of offensive series ends in a turnover or punt....you cant expect a defense to continue to hold

Ravage!!!
11-05-2010, 12:25 PM
Either way, Ortons play doesnt merit benching and nobody can suppose Tebow would play as well. If Tebow starts, its because hes ready and hes simply not.

and there we have it, folks. The qualifying statement that will guarantee norcal to never be wrong.

If/when Tebow DOES start this year, it will because Tebow is ready, and norcal is right. If he doesn't and nothing changes, its because norcal is right