What passing aspect is most important for Tebow to improve?

[wayninja]

With Bull's poll, it's fairly obvious that almost anyone in their right mind believes Tebow must improve as a passer. However, there is still a lot of debate on what exactly needs to improve. Some folks see completion % as the end-all-be-all standard and some want to use a composite stat such as Passer rating, while others only need to see the improvement using the 'eyeball test'.

What do you think the most important metric for improvement is?

edit: This poll is catfish approved.

[claymore]

Everything. He throws the ugliest ball Ive ever seen. Plunkett is the only comparison that comes to mind. Its like his hands are to small to grip the ball.

[NightTerror218]

With Bull's poll, it's fairly obvious that almost anyone in their right mind believes Tebow must improve as a passer. However, there is still a lot of debate on what exactly needs to improve. Some folks see completion % as the end-all-be-all standard and some want to use a composite stat such as Passer rating, while others only need to see the improvement using the 'eyeball test'.

What do you think the most important metric for improvement is?

IMO.
I think statistically completion percentage needs to be about 55%. Needs to hold onto the ball and fumble less.

But overall the eye ball test of him seeing open WRs, looking comfortable in the pocket. Footwork looking crisper. No run this way then that way and taking 30 yard sacks.

[catfish]

I think YPA is the most important stat, it is not as reliant upon any other variables for its results

[wayninja]

I think YPA is the most important stat, it is not as reliant upon any other variables for its results

It still requires the receiver catch the ball. YAC influences this as well, but I see your point.

A higher YPA will almost certainly mean a rise in completion % too, but obviously lots of these stats are intermingled.

[claymore]

Everything. He throws the ugliest ball Ive ever seen. Plunkett is the only comparison that comes to mind. Its like his hands are to small to grip the ball.

I didnt know there was going to be a poll. Completion % reflects accuracy, and touch. Accuracy and touch reflect good footwork, release and timing.

The defense has to respect an accurate QB. All that other stuff will come with accuracy. IMO...

[wayninja]

I didnt know there was going to be a poll. Completion % reflects accuracy, and touch. Accuracy and touch reflect good footwork, release and timing.

The defense has to respect an accurate QB. All that other stuff will come with accuracy. IMO...

You guys are just too damn fast. It was a 10 banger!

And even without the poll. Everything? C'mon. That's hardly a reasonable answer. The most important aspect is all of them? I wish there was enough room for 'pretty passes'.

[NightTerror218]

I didnt know there was going to be a poll. Completion % reflects accuracy, and touch. Accuracy and touch reflect good footwork, release and timing.

The defense has to respect an accurate QB. All that other stuff will come with accuracy. IMO...

HOWEVER, it does not reflect how long he holds onto the ball, number of sacks he takes, number of fumbles from scrambling or seeing the first open WR. He can run hold on to it forever and finally see defense break down on his 1 read and hit him or scramble.

[Chef Zambini]

QBR takes all aspects of QB performance into consideration and gives added weught to perfprmance at critical times. it is the obvious choice for measurement stick and why TEBOW supporters fear it or will only quote it when it favors tebow!
(last 5 minutes of a miracle game)
All aspects of tebows game need DRAMATIC improvement. and if he is asked to perform within the framework of a pocket, he will fail miserably! Take tebows legs away from him, yes, thats just brilliant !

[catfish]

It still requires the receiver catch the ball. YAC influences this as well, but I see your point.

A higher YPA will almost certainly mean a rise in completion % too, but obviously lots of these stats are intermingled.

My thought process is if completion % goes up but YPA stays the same there is no benefit, if YPA goes up but comp% stays the same there is. Whether you complete 50% for 6 YPA or 60% for 6 YPA every time you throw the ball on average your team gains 6 yards. If you are 50% for 5 YPA or 50% for 10 ypa big difference in production.

[catfish]

QBR takes all aspects of QB performance into consideration and gives added weught to perfprmance at critical times. it is the obvious choice for measurement stick and why TEBOW supporters fear it or will only quote it when it favors tebow!
(last 5 minutes of a miracle game)
All aspects of tebows game need DRAMATIC improvement. and if he is asked to perform within the framework of a pocket, he will fail miserably! Take tebows legs away from him, yes, thats just brilliant !

are you referring to QBR or ESPN total QBR?

[wayninja]

My thought process is if completion % goes up but YPA stays the same there is no benefit, if YPA goes up but comp% stays the same there is. Whether you complete 50% for 6 YPA or 60% for 6 YPA every time you throw the ball on average your team gains 6 yards. If you are 50% for 5 YPA or 50% for 10 ypa big difference in production.

If YPA stays the same and completion % goes up, we will see a rise in the total yards per game. There is a benefit. It would also make 3rd down conversions more likely. The reverse is true too.

[wayninja]

are you referring to QBR or ESPN total QBR?

I didn't know there was a difference? I thought QBR was ESPN's stat they made up this year?

[NightTerror218]

My thought process is if completion % goes up but YPA stays the same there is no benefit, if YPA goes up but comp% stays the same there is. Whether you complete 50% for 6 YPA or 60% for 6 YPA every time you throw the ball on average your team gains 6 yards. If you are 50% for 5 YPA or 50% for 10 ypa big difference in production.

But if you go 6 for 10 for 6 YPA that is 36 yards. If you go 5 for 10 for 6YPA that is 30 yards. If completions go up then you are getting more plays of that yardage. But if he is completion is less and same yards (at end of game) his YPA goes up.

[catfish]

If YPA stays the same and completion % goes up, we will see a rise in the total yards per game. There is a benefit. It would also make 3rd down conversions more likely. The reverse is true too.

you wouldn't see an increase in total yards. Example

I throw 10 passes, complete 5 for 70 yards

You throw 10 passes complete 7 for 70 yards

we both have a YPA of 7 yards, but you have a higher completion %

[catfish]

But if you go 6 for 10 for 6 YPA that is 36 yards. If you go 5 for 10 for 6YPA that is 30 yards. If completions go up then you are getting more plays of that yardage. But if he is completion is less and same yards (at end of game) his YPA goes up.

you are thinking yards per catch, not yards per attempt

if I go 5 for 10 for at 6YPA it is 60 yards, if I go 6 for 10 for 6 ypa it is 60 yards

both make 10 attempts. YPA has a punishment for incompletions built into it as it sets the yards for that pass to 0

[wayninja]

you wouldn't see an increase in total yards. Example

I throw 10 passes, complete 5 for 70 yards

You throw 10 passes complete 7 for 70 yards

we both have a YPA of 7 yards, but you have a higher completion %

You are correct, no idea what the hell I was thinking.

[catfish]

You are correct, no idea what the hell I was thinking.

math is hard;)

[Dreadnought]

Eyeball/field/situational awareness. If this improves everything else improves. he has already shown he can throw a good accurate catchable ball, and hit a guy in stride, but he needs to see more of the field and find his targets much faster.

[catfish]

Eyeball/field/situational awareness. If this improves everything else improves. he has already shown he can throw a good accurate catchable ball, and hit a guy in stride, but he needs to see more of the field and find his targets much faster.

I would have picked that one if I could think of a way to quantify it. The mk.1 human eyeball is notoriously unreliable

[TXBRONC]

Everything. He throws the ugliest ball Ive ever seen. Plunkett is the only comparison that comes to mind. Its like his hands are to small to grip the ball.

I can't how they measure a quarterback's hand at the combine but Tebow's largest when he was there.

It looks to me like Tebow's hand engulfs a football.

That said I would like see him improve cutting out the wobble from his passes on a more consistent basis it makes the ball easier to catch.

[NightTerror218]

math is hard;)

easy for me I was just in left field in wrong category :tsk:

[cmc0605]

I think the 'eyeball test' is the most obvious choice, and most of the other stuff follows from that. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are accurate passers, but what really separates them is their ability to become the general on the field and recognize what defenses are doing. This applies both pre-snap and after the snap. That lets them change the play before the snap, or after the snap recognize who will be open (very often that means finding which guy is drawing the one-on-one coverage or recognizing if a WR is being covered by a linebacker).

Believe it or not these guys don't make a living throwing a perfect pass in a tight window between two defenders (although that helps sometimes). It's understanding what the safety is doing, recognizing pressure packages, recognizing who is covering who, and (just as important) the one thing these guys do well that Tebow needs to do is find the RB to dump off the ball to if no one is open. That will also improve the completion %, which is important, even if it is a short completion. 2nd and 5 vs. 2nd and 10 can help determine whether a drive stays alive or not.

As long as you aren't throwing for one yard per pass, the "yards per catch" isn't an incredibly meaningful stat, since it depends very much on what the opposing defense is presenting you with. Usually NFL defenses are good at taking away a single aspect of the game if they want to, and that includes the deep ball. We did that to Peyton Manning a couple times we played him, and he was happy picking us apart with dump passes that went for 6 or 7 yards each time. But it worked for them, since it occupied a lot of time, and moved the chains. Brady does those short throws a lot too. And if you can do that, very often defenses will move up and cheat, and that is when you can hit that long ball to Thomas with more consistency.

[catfish]

I think the 'eyeball test' is the most obvious choice, and most of the other stuff follows from that. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are accurate passers, but what really separates them is their ability to become the general on the field and recognize what defenses are doing. This applies both pre-snap and after the snap. That lets them change the play before the snap, or after the snap recognize who will be open (very often that means finding which guy is drawing the one-on-one coverage or recognizing if a WR is being covered by a linebacker).

Believe it or not these guys don't make a living throwing a perfect pass in a tight window between two defenders (although that helps sometimes). It's understanding what the safety is doing, recognizing pressure packages, recognizing who is covering who, and (just as important) the one thing these guys do well that Tebow needs to do is find the RB to dump off the ball to if no one is open. That will also improve the completion %, which is important, even if it is a short completion. 2nd and 5 vs. 2nd and 10 can help determine whether a drive stays alive or not.

As long as you aren't throwing for one yard per pass, the "yards per catch" isn't an incredibly meaningful stat, since it depends very much on what the opposing defense is presenting you with. Usually NFL defenses are good at taking away a single aspect of the game if they want to, and that includes the deep ball. We did that to Peyton Manning a couple times we played him, and he was happy picking us apart with dump passes that went for 6 or 7 yards each time. But it worked for them, since it occupied a lot of time, and moved the chains. Brady does those short throws a lot too. And if you can do that, very often defenses will move up and cheat, and that is when you can hit that long ball to Thomas with more consistency.

I agree with your post, just want to make sure I am clear that I am a fan of yards per attempt, not yards per catch

[Superchop 7]

He needs to focus on two things.

1) Reading his progressions. (Ever wonder why guys go backwards in year two? It's because defenses will figure him out and force him to go to his 2nd and 3rd read)

2) Mechanics. (He has to improve)

Reading defenses and changing the play will come with experience, not as high up the list but important.

I would also like to see him get totally drunk and take a few cheerleaders home.

[gregbroncs]

Making NFL passes consistently.

By this I mean:
1) Read the D and make a medium to short passes(slants, hooks, crosses and outs) to "open" recievers. By open I mean NFL open not college open.
2) Get passes off on time and don't hesitate so much.
3) Gain confidence in his read and don't be afraid to throw the ball over the middle.
4) Learn where his recievers are supposed to be so he can make the right pass.

He has a ways to go as an NFL passer. It was encouraging that they were able to win without being able to complete a lot of standard NFL passes.

[ShooterJM]

I picked footwork before I signed in. I'm hoping he'll make some significant strides this offseason with Elway's help.

[dogfish]

accuracy, ability to read defenses/go through progressions, decisiveness, footwork in the pocket, ball security. . . and anything else that will make dennis allen cry twice a year!

[bcbronc]

where's the "all of the above (except the last one)" option?

Can't really separate things this way imo, each option is influence by another. If he's improving in some categories, odds are he's getting better in most of them.

[MOtorboat]

Don't even really know where to start...

[TXBRONC]

Don't even really know where to start...

I didn't think it was possible for you to be speechless. :laugh:

[MOtorboat]

I didn't think it was possible for you to be speechless. :laugh:

I'd elaborate but so many people are convinced he's "close" that it's not worth the argument.

Clay is right when he says he's the worst passer he's ever seen. It's bad. But, hey, a few wins fixes that, right?

[TXBRONC]

I'd elaborate but so many people are convinced he's "close" that it's not worth the argument.

Clay is right when he says he's the worst passer he's ever seen. It's bad. But, hey, a few wins fixes that, right?

I can agree he has ways to go. But there are people who have gone way overboard in their criticism.

But what's with this criticism that a few wins fixes everything? I don't think eight wins just a few especially when one of those wins was in the playoffs against team we weren't expected to beat.

[arapaho2]

I can't how they measure a quarterback's hand at the combine but Tebow's largest when he was there.

It looks to me like Tebow's hand engulfs a football.

That said I would like see him improve cutting out the wobble from his passes on a more consistent basis it makes the ball easier to catch.


you know...i was noticing something about him....sometimes it seemed his grip was to far back on the nose of the ball

that would give a major flutter and wobble, with the nose pointed up a tad....


maybe im wrong though:confused:

[wayninja]

I'd elaborate but so many people are convinced he's "close" that it's not worth the argument.

Clay is right when he says he's the worst passer he's ever seen. It's bad. But, hey, a few wins fixes that, right?

You thought you should just let us know that you aren't going to comment?

How do you know clay is right? Is he your other account?

Personally, I'd rather be losing. I think we are all more comfortable with that.

[wayninja]

where's the "all of the above (except the last one)" option?

Can't really separate things this way imo, each option is influence by another. If he's improving in some categories, odds are he's getting better in most of them.

It's not an unfair point, but damn, party pooper much?

It's true that a lot of these are related/intermingled. But the question is which one, taking aside that that are related, would be the metric by which he should be most strongly judged?

We all saw how it was possible to have crazy QBR numbers while it being absurd that it said he was better than Aaron Rodgers in week 5.

We know that passer rating can tell a lot about a QB, but not necessarily the full story.

If Tebow were a traditional passer, this may be a bit more cut and dry, but I think for QBs like him, his value isn't necessarily (or really can't be) as a Rogers clone.

[weazel]

well to be honest, if he learns to throw correctly and on his mechanics the stats will be better, so there is no correct answer on that poll

[wayninja]

well to be honest, if he learns to throw correctly and on his mechanics the stats will be better, so there is no correct answer on that poll

It's not a test, weazel.

[weazel]

It's not a test, weazel.

I was hoping to at least get a B though

[wayninja]

I was hoping to at least get a B though

Dont' think I've ever tried question the validity of a question on a test and got a good grade. I'll give you a B though, for sticking with it.

[weazel]

well I got stuck and kinda wanted to hit the "all of the above" answer but never seen it

[wayninja]

well I got stuck and kinda wanted to hit the "all of the above" answer but never seen it

There's a lot of aspects and polls can only be 10 items in size. Having said that. Really? The most importing thing is everything?

That's like something a 3rd grader would say.

[weazel]

There's a lot of aspects and polls can only be 10 items in size. Having said that. Really? The most importing thing is everything?

That's like something a 3rd grader would say.

or someone that watched Tim throw the ball :lol: jokes.

I would have to say his throwing mechanics and his ability to quickly read the defenses and go through his progressions. I think if he can improve on those aspects of his game it will go a long way and all those stats will just fall in line, really.

[Lancane]

People would be more willing to give an honest assessment if his supporters didn't feel the need to be tactless and attack others for their views. And that's not pointed at anyone specifically, but let's face it, his supporters will argue their side - even if, flat out wrong till people get sick of arguing and walk away from the conversation only making them feel they've won. It's part of the reason why this topic is such an anathema. An even bigger problem is that his clutch ability and fourth quarter heroics forced his bad quarterbacking skills on the back burner because it did help the team win more games then originally expected - never mind the fact that Denver was forced to use a very non-traditional option offense that in the end proved worthless against teams that figured it out.

So what does Tim need to work on? I would say everything that doesn't include scrambling and running the ball himself.

[wayninja]

So what does Tim need to work on? I would say everything that doesn't include scrambling and running the ball himself.

The question is not 'what does Tim need to work on?'.

The rest is sort of a cop-out, isn't it? This is a forum, people will pick a fight over favorite color.

I agree Tebow tends to draw a more extreme crowd, but not posting because you are afraid of being attacked or don't want to feel you've 'lost' because you don't have the same capacity for arguing something stupid as a zealot is tantmount to letting terrorism win.

[bcbronc]

he's the worst passer he's ever seen.

Oh come on now, Demaryius Thomas looked way worse. :elefant:


It's not an unfair point, but damn, party pooper much?

It's true that a lot of these are related/intermingled. But the question is which one, taking aside that that are related, would be the metric by which he should be most strongly judged?

We all saw how it was possible to have crazy QBR numbers while it being absurd that it said he was better than Aaron Rodgers in week 5.

We know that passer rating can tell a lot about a QB, but not necessarily the full story.

If Tebow were a traditional passer, this may be a bit more cut and dry, but I think for QBs like him, his value isn't necessarily (or really can't be) as a Rogers clone.

But none are especially important removed from the context of the other options. If you complete more passes but for a shorter YPA, is that an improvement? How about if the mechanics improve, but he ends up taking more sacks? Reads defenses quicker but throws more picks?

I guess if I was forced to pick one thing I'll be looking for, it will be poise. For all the "Tebow Time" and clutch play, Tebow struggled to stay poised at times. Not composure poised, but cool and calm in the pocket poise. Tom Brady obviously isn't the running threat that Tebow is, but TB moves 1000x better than TT does, and poise under pressure is a big part of that. Too often even the slightest pressure gets Tebow running around like a headless chicken.

It carries over into some of the easy throws and reads he misses, imo. There's times he's sitting in the pocket, moving his feet and moving his head, but you know his eyes aren't getting through to his brain and he misses an open man. Or over thinks his throw and one bounces a 3rd down conversion.

He needs to get better at getting the ball out of his hand on time and to the right guy. Basically, just better at quarterbacking. All of it, not just one or two things.

[dogfish]

I'd elaborate but so many people are convinced he's "close" that it's not worth the argument.

Clay is right when he says he's the worst passer he's ever seen. It's bad. But, hey, a few wins fixes that, right?

so you're saying there's a chance?

[MOtorboat]

You thought you should just let us know that you aren't going to comment?

How do you know clay is right? Is he your other account?

Personally, I'd rather be losing. I think we are all more comfortable with that.

My original comment was "where do you start?" Since you really are seeming to take offense to people who say he needs to improve everything, which he does, I voted for eyeball test. So, I guess we can start there.

Clay and I are on the same page on this. And I never said I'm comfortable losing, but I can see this season for what it was and it's just as fluky as the six wins with Orton and McDaniels.

[Chef Zambini]

are you referring to QBR or ESPN total QBR?Total QBR, the other is actually, PASSER Rating, it doesnt even take into account any running stats, strictly the passing game.
it is NOT a QBR, it is a PR.
the ESPN QBR takes into account all aspects of a QBs contributions. It was designed with a QB like tebow in mind.

[Chef Zambini]

start with accuracyfrom a standing position. improve his ability to read defenses pre-snap and post snap. Tebow makes the mistake of looking for his receivers after the snap, thats second/ third tier quarterbacking.
a legitimate NFL QB knows where his receivers are going, so after the snap, TOP NFL QBS, look at the defenders, NOT their re3ceivers, to see where the defenders are going (LBs and Safeties) then he throwas to a window and expects his receiver to be there!
Tebow is nowhere close to this M.O. he has to watch his receiver run his route , and he cant stand still while doing it. his instincts and skill set make him completely resistant to the concept.

[claymore]

I can't how they measure a quarterback's hand at the combine but Tebow's largest when he was there.

It looks to me like Tebow's hand engulfs a football.

That said I would like see him improve cutting out the wobble from his passes on a more consistent basis it makes the ball easier to catch.



you know...i was noticing something about him....sometimes it seemed his grip was to far back on the nose of the ball

that would give a major flutter and wobble, with the nose pointed up a tad....


maybe im wrong though:confused:

Im not a throwing coach, but I see the same issues In Tebow that my 10 year old son has when he grips the ball wrong, or plays with a regulation size ball and doesnt adjust his grip.

The Ugly throws look exactly the same. Once I correct him, make him concentrate on his grip and stepping into his throws the pass returns to a very good long tight spiral.

One of my many issues with Tebow is that he has to many little things like this to overcome.

[Joel]

I think YPA is the most important stat, it is not as reliant upon any other variables for its results
I agree with that conclusion, but less with the reason (at least as worded.) Because it's yards per attempt rather than completion, completion percentage is a significant factor, but not an overriding or deterministic one. A QB with <50% completions can still lead the league in YPA--he just needs a TON of yards on each of his fewer completions. As long as he's not throwing picks, I'm satisfied with that; if I get the red zone on a regular basis I really don't care if it takes ten plays or two. I like ball control, but that's precisely why I dislike lots of passing: Passing turnovers are nearly three times as common as rushing turnovers, and incompletes stop the clock.

I know the poll asks what's "most important," but I really wish I had more options. Once we REACH the red zone, completing every third pass for sixty yards is no longer an option, and the importance of things like quick release, reading defenses, anticipating receiver breaks and completion percentage rises. That said, I'll take YPA if I must choose a SINGLE focus. Tebows TD% this year was just below and his Int% just above tenth in the league; if they remain there and his YPA joins them I'll be content, particularly since I know he'll often run for a red zone TD when he can't pass for one.

I didn't know there was a difference? I thought QBR was ESPN's stat they made up this year?
There are at least two, and arguably as many as four, stats using the term "Quarterback Rating," each to distinguish it from the "Passer Rating" the NFL explicitly says is not meant to rate all aspects of QB performance.

ESPNs rather complex esoteric model has so many factors, abstractions and complexities I doubt it ever catches on, because only ESPN can calculate it (then again, the same was long true of the NFL PRS, but here we are.)

Alternatively, several systems (including mine) just introduce rushing stats to the PRS. The Cold Hard Football Facts uses a version that does nothing more than that; rushing TDs are counted with passing TDs, positive runs are counted with completions, fumbles are counted with Ints and sacks are counted as (I think) incompletes for negative yards.

Personally, I prefer my own version because 1) it's older, 2) it weights fumbles more heavily than interceptions because they happen closer to ones endzone and 3) it's mine.

By far the oldest such system I've seen is Michael Nefts, from 1993, but it's a little more radical because, in addition to including rushing, it incorporates most of The Hidden Game of Footballs PRS modifications:
http://www.profootballresearchers.org/Coffin_Corner/15-01-506.pdf

Completion percentage is entirely gone (as it should be,) TDs are weighted as 31 yards instead of 80 (THGoF uses 10, for sound but unconvincing reasons it states,) Ints as 45 instead of 100 and fumbles as 58.

I still think the League TD weight best (since 11.11... yards=1 expected point, 7 points=77.77... yards, close to the 80 the NFL assigns TDs.) The real sticking point is turnovers, because without knowing the average line of scrimmage BEFORE AND AFTER a turnover they're impossible to precisely rate.

I'll give ESPN this though: Near as I can tell, they actually DID make up their stat; the one The Cold Hard Football Facts "debuted" this year is basically the same one I've been using since around 2007, except they treat fumbles as equal to fumbles instead of 1.5 times as much.

[catfish]

Total QBR, the other is actually, PASSER Rating, it doesnt even take into account any running stats, strictly the passing game.
it is NOT a QBR, it is a PR.
the ESPN QBR takes into account all aspects of a QBs contributions. It was designed with a QB like tebow in mind.

no I meant QBR it takes into account fumbles, rushing yards, int, passing yards, sack yards, and td. vs espns stat...which assigns a number to a QB based upon their evaluation of a game and assigning fault to the QB based upon whether certain plays were the best option etc. You can argue the benefits of either system I was curious which you chose...Joel elaborated on it already so I won't go into more detail

[wayninja]

My original comment was "where do you start?" Since you really are seeming to take offense to people who say he needs to improve everything, which he does, I voted for eyeball test. So, I guess we can start there.

Clay and I are on the same page on this. And I never said I'm comfortable losing, but I can see this season for what it was and it's just as fluky as the six wins with Orton and McDaniels.

I don't take offense to it, it's just not the question. It's totally fine with me if you feel that way, but 'everything is the most important' is silly. I could have 20 things wrong with my car, but getting it to start is more important than the crack in the windshield.

How many games in that flukey 6 win streak were Orton bringing us back from a deficit? I understand how you feel, and it's not illogical, but it seems to me that it's different. Maybe that's just wishful thinking.

[wayninja]

Oh come on now, Demaryius Thomas looked way worse. :elefant:



But none are especially important removed from the context of the other options. If you complete more passes but for a shorter YPA, is that an improvement? How about if the mechanics improve, but he ends up taking more sacks? Reads defenses quicker but throws more picks?

I don't know, that's for you to decide. Again, the question isn't 'what would make Tebow the best passer in the league'. The spirit of the question is what will he be most strongly judged by.

If you need to qualify it with something, go ahead. The options should not be taken such that it is an entrapment. In other words, if you chose eyeball/reading defenses, that assumes that he makes those reads without throwing a offsetting number of interceptions.



I guess if I was forced to pick one thing I'll be looking for, it will be poise. For all the "Tebow Time" and clutch play, Tebow struggled to stay poised at times. Not composure poised, but cool and calm in the pocket poise. Tom Brady obviously isn't the running threat that Tebow is, but TB moves 1000x better than TT does, and poise under pressure is a big part of that. Too often even the slightest pressure gets Tebow running around like a headless chicken.

That's interesting. I agree that he needs to improve here, but would not have guessed that you felt this was the most important thing. That's cool though.


It carries over into some of the easy throws and reads he misses, imo. There's times he's sitting in the pocket, moving his feet and moving his head, but you know his eyes aren't getting through to his brain and he misses an open man. Or over thinks his throw and one bounces a 3rd down conversion.

He needs to get better at getting the ball out of his hand on time and to the right guy. Basically, just better at quarterbacking. All of it, not just one or two things.

You are back to my original point though. I know he needs to improve at lots of stuff, but improvement very rarely increases completely across the board like that (even though some of these things are related). So are you saying that if everything doesn't improve markedly, that's not enough improvement?

[TXBRONC]

Im not a throwing coach, but I see the same issues In Tebow that my 10 year old son has when he grips the ball wrong, or plays with a regulation size ball and doesnt adjust his grip.

The Ugly throws look exactly the same. Once I correct him, make him concentrate on his grip and stepping into his throws the pass returns to a very good long tight spiral.

One of my many issues with Tebow is that he has to many little things like this to overcome.

His grip looks fine to me. I think he if fixes the footwork you'll see him throw the ball with tighter spin.

[catfish]

His grip looks fine to me. I think he if fixes the footwork you'll see him throw the ball with tighter spin.

agreed, it does seem when he steps into it correctly the ball looks normal, when he doesn't set his feet it is more dead duckish. I would figure if it was a grip issue none of them would look right

[CrazyHorse]

I really don't care as long as he wins consistently. He could be 4/20 but those 4 passes could be TD's. I'd be fine with that.

[NightTerror218]

His grip looks fine to me. I think he if fixes the footwork you'll see him throw the ball with tighter spin.

if he can get his throwing motion to be more consistent too. I read an article that his actual arm motion varies (not same path). I remember watching him warm up for 1st pats game they showed Tebow and Brady both warming up. When they showed then side by side with Tebow mirrored to look like a right handier he has great form and follow throw and was very similar to Brady (slower release) but threw a spiral. But i think that was because he was focusing on his throwing form and all.

[catfish]

if he can get his throwing motion to be more consistent too. I read an article that his actual arm motion varies (not same path). I remember watching him warm up for 1st pats game they showed Tebow and Brady both warming up. When they showed then side by side with Tebow mirrored to look like a right handier he has great form and follow throw and was very similar to Brady (slower release) but threw a spiral. But i think that was because he was focusing on his throwing form and all.

found this today. It's a fluff piece about Tom Martinez's take on Tebow.

the only interesting part IMO was when they asked him how long it would take him to "fix" Tebows mechanics


Martinez then was asked how long it would take to straighten out Tebow's mechanics. Given his success tutoring Brady over the years, Martinez expressed confidence in his ability to make Tebow more Brady-like in the pocket.

"Two weeks," Martinez said. "I could give him what I call correct mechanics in two weeks."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d826616a0/article/bradys-coach-sees-similarities-between-tebow-and-pats-qb

[NightTerror218]

found this today. It's a fluff piece about Tom Martinez's take on Tebow.

the only interesting part IMO was when they asked him how long it would take him to "fix" Tebows mechanics



http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d826616a0/article/bradys-coach-sees-similarities-between-tebow-and-pats-qb

I really want him to do it. I want the 'QB Guru to work with Tebow".....Tebow listen to me.....CALL MARTINEZ AND PAY HIM TO COACH YOU THIS OFF SEASON!!!!!!!!!!!!

[catfish]

I really want him to do it. I want the 'QB Guru to work with Tebow".....Tebow listen to me.....CALL MARTINEZ AND PAY HIM TO COACH YOU THIS OFF SEASON!!!!!!!!!!!!

try buying a billboard...history of sucess and whatnot;)

[NightTerror218]

try buying a billboard...history of sucess and whatnot;)

haha, I would just of good a chance as tweeting him to do it too.

[BroncoNut]

well, without looking at results before voting, I voted with the majority. I think his athleticeism and mechanics are fine enough. Everything ties in to his struggle with reading defenses. I just don't know if his brain is wired for that. he's got get the passes of quicker. It looks more cerebral than mechanical

[catfish]

well, without looking at results before voting, I voted with the majority. I think his athleticeism and mechanics are fine enough. Everything ties in to his struggle with reading defenses. I just don't know if his brain is wired for that. he's got get the passes of quicker. It looks more cerebral than mechanical

I agree with the need to improve those things, my only problem with this selection is the specification that the eye test would be used to measure growth. People see what they want to see more often than not. I would think improvement would show up in the numbers and that would be better used to track, but again it is my opinion only

[bcbronc]

I don't know, that's for you to decide. Again, the question isn't 'what would make Tebow the best passer in the league'. The spirit of the question is what will he be most strongly judged by.

If you need to qualify it with something, go ahead. The options should not be taken such that it is an entrapment. In other words, if you chose eyeball/reading defenses, that assumes that he makes those reads without throwing a offsetting number of interceptions.




That's interesting. I agree that he needs to improve here, but would not have guessed that you felt this was the most important thing. That's cool though.



You are back to my original point though. I know he needs to improve at lots of stuff, but improvement very rarely increases completely across the board like that (even though some of these things are related). So are you saying that if everything doesn't improve markedly, that's not enough improvement?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Are you saying that as long as the one thing improves markedly, whichever thing it is you are particular for, but nothing else improves at all, you'll consider it a success?

[catfish]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Are you saying that as long as the one thing improves markedly, whichever thing it is you are particular for, but nothing else improves at all, you'll consider it a success?

I dont think any of these are meant to be taken as stand alone, I think we can all agree there is room for improvement across the board. I personally would like to see al of these improve, but feel YPA will be the best gauge of growth for the reasons I have stated. I am not saying he only needs to get better in YPA

[Joel]

I agree with the need to improve those things, my only problem with this selection is the specification that the eye test would be used to measure growth. People see what they want to see more often than not. I would think improvement would show up in the numbers and that would be better used to track, but again it is my opinion only
That's my concern also; an unquantifiable standard tends to be very subjective, encouraging bias. We already have Gatorade and Haterade addicts cherry picking plays, games and stats to irrefutably "prove" their arguments. Remove the numerical metrics and that only gets a thousand times worse, and we're back to people saying he NEVER throws a spiral or fits balls into tight windows while others insist missing throws, not seeing receivers and holding the ball too long are rare. Criminal lawyers say an eye witness is the worst witness, because verifying what they saw (or think they did) is often impossible, and their memory of it subject to change.

[Canmore]

That's my concern also; an unquantifiable standard tends to be very subjective, encouraging bias. We already have Gatorade and Haterade addicts cherry picking plays, games and stats to irrefutably "prove" their arguments. Remove the numerical metrics and that only gets a thousand times worse, and we're back to people saying he NEVER throws a spiral or fits balls into tight windows while others insist missing throws, not seeing receivers and holding the ball too long are rare. Criminal lawyers say an eye witness is the worst witness, because verifying what they saw (or think they did) is often impossible, and their memory of it subject to change.

I took the eyeball test too. What I really want to see is third down conversion percentage improving markedly. Moving the chains on third down. I don't care how we do it and I know that this doesn't just incorporate passing but this is the metric I want to see go up. How many three and outs did we have? IIRC are third down conversion percentage with Tebow was in the twenties. Not good enough by a long shot.

[Ravage!!!]

That's my concern also; an unquantifiable standard tends to be very subjective, encouraging bias. We already have Gatorade and Haterade addicts cherry picking plays, games and stats to irrefutably "prove" their arguments. Remove the numerical metrics and that only gets a thousand times worse, and we're back to people saying he NEVER throws a spiral or fits balls into tight windows while others insist missing throws, not seeing receivers and holding the ball too long are rare. Criminal lawyers say an eye witness is the worst witness, because verifying what they saw (or think they did) is often impossible, and their memory of it subject to change.

Joel, you are a very analitical person and I respect that. But you take too many of the "never's" too seriously. People will always exaggerate to make their point. Tebow RARELY throws a spiral... and I mean RARELY. To me, it might as well be never. Just like the throwing into tight windows. Its very RARE to see. For a QB, it might as well be never. So don't take the word "never" so seriously.

That being said, numbers don't tell the whole story and never have. You can NOT judge a player on his numbers alone. People continue to try and do that, by pulling up stat sheets, as if those numbers prove anything. They don't. Throwing for 300 yrds on 10 passes doesn't make Tebow a great passer...it makes him have a lucky day. Catching 4 passes and going over 200 yards doesn't make DT a great WR, it means he had a one-n-only career/lucky day.

Stats and numbers are great to start a conversation, but they aren't the final end of the story. We have seen BAD players put up good numbers. Just as we've seen BAD QB'ing put up a good QBR or passer rating. Numbers only go so far.

Generally speaking, you can WATCH a player, not look at the numbers, and tell if the player had a good day or a bad day. You can WATCh a player and see if he's good and just had a bad day...or if he's just flat out bad. But when you simply look at the stats by themselves, those will often "lie" purely because you can't see the context around the play. Much like a misquote.

So I think the eye test is easily the best way to tell if a player is doing HIS job. Sometimes a QB will throw into triple coverage and have it bounce off the players and to another player...c ompleting a LONG TD pass. When you look at the stats, its just a big time pass, and a long TD (great for that passer rating). But it doesn't tell the real story.

[Joel]

I took the eyeball test too. What I really want to see is third down conversion percentage improving markedly. Moving the chains on third down. I don't care how we do it and I know that this doesn't just incorporate passing but this is the metric I want to see go up. How many three and outs did we have? IIRC are third down conversion percentage with Tebow was in the twenties. Not good enough by a long shot.
If Elway had written this poll I guarantee third down conversions would be listed, and I suspect it would be his own choice; I know he's mentioned it plenty of times. catfish sent me this link about the same time I googled it:
http://stats.washingtonpost.com/fb/leaders.asp?range=AFC&type=&rank=098&year=

Tebows third down percentage is 21.6, which is appallingly bad. To put it in context: Sam Bradford is next at 29.8, everyone else is >30, and Brees leads the list at 57.6. Third down percentage probably SHOULD be in the poll; if it were, I'd probably have to choose it over YPA. Tebows YPA is a hair below the league average but his third down percentage is through the floor, and yards don't help if you don't move the chains.

[Medford Bronco]

Everything. He throws the ugliest ball Ive ever seen. Plunkett is the only comparison that comes to mind. Its like his hands are to small to grip the ball.

Jim McMahon and Billy Kilmer are the ones that I though of.


The woulded duck passes.

[Medford Bronco]

Joel, you are a very analitical person and I respect that. But you take too many of the "never's" too seriously. People will always exaggerate to make their point. Tebow RARELY throws a spiral... and I mean RARELY. To me, it might as well be never. Just like the throwing into tight windows. Its very RARE to see. For a QB, it might as well be never. So don't take the word "never" so seriously.

That being said, numbers don't tell the whole story and never have. You can NOT judge a player on his numbers alone. People continue to try and do that, by pulling up stat sheets, as if those numbers prove anything. They don't. Throwing for 300 yrds on 10 passes doesn't make Tebow a great passer...it makes him have a lucky day. Catching 4 passes and going over 200 yards doesn't make DT a great WR, it means he had a one-n-only career/lucky day.

Stats and numbers are great to start a conversation, but they aren't the final end of the story. We have seen BAD players put up good numbers. Just as we've seen BAD QB'ing put up a good QBR or passer rating. Numbers only go so far.

Generally speaking, you can WATCH a player, not look at the numbers, and tell if the player had a good day or a bad day. You can WATCh a player and see if he's good and just had a bad day...or if he's just flat out bad. But when you simply look at the stats by themselves, those will often "lie" purely because you can't see the context around the play. Much like a misquote.

So I think the eye test is easily the best way to tell if a player is doing HIS job. Sometimes a QB will throw into triple coverage and have it bounce off the players and to another player...c ompleting a LONG TD pass. When you look at the stats, its just a big time pass, and a long TD (great for that passer rating). But it doesn't tell the real story.

The one spiral I remember was the last pass vs Pitt. That might have been his best pass since becoming an NFL QB

[Joel]

Joel, you are a very analitical person and I respect that. But you take too many of the "never's" too seriously. People will always exaggerate to make their point. Tebow RARELY throws a spiral... and I mean RARELY. To me, it might as well be never. Just like the throwing into tight windows. Its very RARE to see. For a QB, it might as well be never. So don't take the word "never" so seriously.
The problem is I'm often too literal. Part of it is that it's hard to convey tone in text (hence Poes Law,) and part of it is nearly 40 years of people using a handful of anomalies to "refute" my generalizations unless I explicitly qualify them (sometimes even then, but if I say, "GENERALLY..." and someone ignores it anyway, that's on them.) I almost never make categorical absolute statements (see what I did there? :tongue:) because I think there are few absolutes this side of the grave. When I see something stated as an absolute I often object for that reason alone.


That being said, numbers don't tell the whole story and never have. You can NOT judge a player on his numbers alone. People continue to try and do that, by pulling up stat sheets, as if those numbers prove anything. They don't. Throwing for 300 yrds on 10 passes doesn't make Tebow a great passer...it makes him have a lucky day. Catching 4 passes and going over 200 yards doesn't make DT a great WR, it means he had a one-n-only career/lucky day.

Stats and numbers are great to start a conversation, but they aren't the final end of the story. We have seen BAD players put up good numbers. Just as we've seen BAD QB'ing put up a good QBR or passer rating. Numbers only go so far.
So does the eyeball test. Stats help quantify things otherwise hard to quantify, and remove the need to remember every single act a player makes on the field. I don't have to recall every single time I saw Tebow shake off a tackle and run for a first down, because I can just check his 5.4 average on 122 rushes and know it happened a lot. I don't have to recall every time he missed a throw because completed 46.5% tells me it's a lot.


Generally speaking, you can WATCH a player, not look at the numbers, and tell if the player had a good day or a bad day. You can WATCh a player and see if he's good and just had a bad day...or if he's just flat out bad. But when you simply look at the stats by themselves, those will often "lie" purely because you can't see the context around the play. Much like a misquote.

So I think the eye test is easily the best way to tell if a player is doing HIS job. Sometimes a QB will throw into triple coverage and have it bounce off the players and to another player...c ompleting a LONG TD pass. When you look at the stats, its just a big time pass, and a long TD (great for that passer rating). But it doesn't tell the real story.
We can learn a lot by watching, because we can see how different factors work in concert when it matters, which is a lot more important than how they work in isolation when it doesn't. Unfortunately, that's subject to failings of bias and memory, and we can't see everything unless we have a lot of game tape handy, because too much is happening in too many different places.

The best approach, IMHO, is to start with the eye test, normalize that with stats (which have no INHERENT bias, though they can be selectively employed to serve one,) then see what we can conclude from the combination.

[Ravage!!!]

So does the eyeball test. Stats help quantify things otherwise hard to quantify, and remove the need to remember every single act a player makes on the field. I don't have to recall every single time I saw Tebow shake off a tackle and run for a first down, because I can just check his 5.4 average on 122 rushes and know it happened a lot. I don't have to recall every time he missed a throw because completed 46.5% tells me it's a lot.

This is what I"m talking about. It tells you the numbers, but doesn't really tell you anything. If this were the case, why watch the games at all? Just look at the stat sheet at the end, see the score stat, and all the other stats down the line and believe you've seen enough to know what happened. There are MANY times that people on here have complained about a player because of his "stats"... and many times you simply have to watch him play to see something ENTIRELY different. Many times you hear people brag about a player's "stats"...but they didn't watch him play. They only know how many yards he threw for, and how many fantasy points were given. That doesn't say anything. Your example is a perfect one. You are basically saying " I don't need to see what he did, because the numbers tell me." They don't.


We can learn a lot by watching, because we can see how different factors work in concert when it matters, which is a lot more important than how they work in isolation when it doesn't. Unfortunately, that's subject to failings of bias and memory, and we can't see everything unless we have a lot of game tape handy, because too much is happening in too many different places.
True, but judging everything off of numbers can create bias as well. Judging a player by their good number or their bad numbers, without actually watching can cause the same amount of bias.


The best approach, IMHO, is to start with the eye test, normalize that with stats (which have no INHERENT bias, though they can be selectively employed to serve one,) then see what we can conclude from the combination.

Numbers will only serve to substantiate or refute what we see with our eyes. The eye test is easily the most accurate when determining if a player is good or not. Like everything else (and including using stats and numbers) you have to have more than one game to use and watch. But if I watch a player, and see that he's bad..... the stats generally aren't going to convince me otherwise. I'm not going to say "Wow, when I watched him play, he looked awful. But now that I see his stats, I think he's pretty good!!" Not going to happen because the eye test is generally more accurate when gauging human activity and talent rather than numbers on a piece of paper. Yes, of course people are prejudice on what they see. But that doesn't necessarily mean it originated from some kind of negative place. I personally just don't think Tim will be the passer we need to have in the NFL. That prejudice came from watching him play, not from anything prior. I don't even watch college football and certainly didn't have anything against Tim for his time in Florida. So where is the prejudice that stats are going to change?

If stats said as much as the eye test, the NFL wouldn't spend so much money hiring scouts to go out and WATCH Players. They wouldn't spend time/money/resources by attending the senior bowl practices, watching game tapes, or going to SEE the players at the combine. They wouldn't go to a workout and time a player's 40 yrd dash, or watch them run through the drills. They would just pick up some pieces of printed off paper, and take a player based on the numbers (much like how Al Davis always drafted the player with the fastest 40 yrd time).

Stats have their place in a discussion of comparison means. But when evaluating a player, then stats don't really stand toe-to-toe with actually watching and seeing with our very own eyes.

[bcbronc]

That's my concern also; an unquantifiable standard tends to be very subjective, encouraging bias. We already have Gatorade and Haterade addicts cherry picking plays, games and stats to irrefutably "prove" their arguments. Remove the numerical metrics and that only gets a thousand times worse, and we're back to people saying he NEVER throws a spiral or fits balls into tight windows while others insist missing throws, not seeing receivers and holding the ball too long are rare. Criminal lawyers say an eye witness is the worst witness, because verifying what they saw (or think they did) is often impossible, and their memory of it subject to change.

I have to object to this perpetuating the myth that quantitative analysis is any more objective than qualitative. As this thread clearly shows, it's completely subjective which stats you include and exclude, and what hierarchy you place them in.

"Child mortality increased, average life expectancy decreased, but GDP increased? Success!"

(child mortality = interceptions, ALE = TD%, GDP = comp%)

[Joel]

This is what I"m talking about. It tells you the numbers, but doesn't really tell you anything. If this were the case, why watch the games at all? Just look at the stat sheet at the end, see the score stat, and all the other stats down the line and believe you've seen enough to know what happened. There are MANY times that people on here have complained about a player because of his "stats"... and many times you simply have to watch him play to see something ENTIRELY different. Many times you hear people brag about a player's "stats"...but they didn't watch him play. They only know how many yards he threw for, and how many fantasy points were given. That doesn't say anything. Your example is a perfect one. You are basically saying " I don't need to see what he did, because the numbers tell me." They don't.
Hold on now, all I said was that I do not have to recall each and every instance of Tebow making a big run or throwing an incomplete pass because the stats show it happened a lot. That doesn't mean I never saw it, or didn't see it a lot, only that I don't have to dredge up ALL of them from my all too human memory to support my general memory of it happening a lot. It means that even if a few big runs/bad passes stand out more than others in my memory, or I imprinted too much on the thirty yard sack against KC or the 51 yard over the shoulder spiral to Thomas against Pitt, checking the stats double checks my memory to give me a more objective and thorough, and thus more accurate, portrait than a few snapshots from memory.


True, but judging everything off of numbers can create bias as well. Judging a player by their good number or their bad numbers, without actually watching can cause the same amount of bias.
When judging by stats more is better; an accurate picture requires all the stats. Looking at some but not others can aid focus on some things, but often skew perceptions, too. That's why cherrypicking is ill advised. If/when we look exclusively at a given set of stats because they are unique to a particular situation we must bear in mind that limitation. We can't extrapolate from them to more general situations unless we factor in the other stats equally relevant to those situations.


Numbers will only serve to substantiate or refute what we see with our eyes. The eye test is easily the most accurate when determining if a player is good or not. Like everything else (and including using stats and numbers) you have to have more than one game to use and watch. But if I watch a player, and see that he's bad..... the stats generally aren't going to convince me otherwise. I'm not going to say "Wow, when I watched him play, he looked awful. But now that I see his stats, I think he's pretty good!!" Not going to happen because the eye test is generally more accurate when gauging human activity and talent rather than numbers on a piece of paper. Yes, of course people are prejudice on what they see. But that doesn't necessarily mean it originated from some kind of negative place. I personally just don't think Tim will be the passer we need to have in the NFL. That prejudice came from watching him play, not from anything prior. I don't even watch college football and certainly didn't have anything against Tim for his time in Florida. So where is the prejudice that stats are going to change?

If stats said as much as the eye test, the NFL wouldn't spend so much money hiring scouts to go out and WATCH Players. They wouldn't spend time/money/resources by attending the senior bowl practices, watching game tapes, or going to SEE the players at the combine. They wouldn't go to a workout and time a player's 40 yrd dash, or watch them run through the drills. They would just pick up some pieces of printed off paper, and take a player based on the numbers (much like how Al Davis always drafted the player with the fastest 40 yrd time).

Stats have their place in a discussion of comparison means. But when evaluating a player, then stats don't really stand toe-to-toe with actually watching and seeing with our very own eyes.
I agree stats only support or undermine what we see (or think we do.) I'm pretty sure I already said as much. ;) However, if they were wholly subordinate rather than complementary to the eye test they could ONLY support, NEVER undermine, it; any stat conflicting with the eye test would automatically be wrong. The biggest stat is wins/losses, in games, seasons and championships. It's shown many great athletes badly lacked what mattered despite passing the eye test throughout HS and college careers, into the Combine, onto practice fields and even through training camp. Looks can deceive, especially accompanied by a lot of back story.

I don't watch college ball either; I consider it "amateur" in all the worst senses of the word (ironically, not in the most literal sense, because the best "college" players aren't getting paid with a degree (at least) to play.) Double that for the SEC, then square it for the dozen or so chosen schools the SECAA deems worthy of nomination for election as each years "national champion." I'm pretty much the last guy who'd climb on a FL option QBs bandwagon; I was all in with Cutler, horrified when McDumbass drafted Tebow and fully expected him to crash and burn the moment he set foot on a pro field.

He didn't, and surprised my eyes enough I want to see how this ends. Odds are still against him because he spent four years playing for a typical SECAA coach in a typical SECAA system, but he's come a lot farther than I ever expected, and certainly much faster than I ever dared hope. It's not as pretty as Testaverde or Quinn, but I'm confident it'll end differently; whether better or worse I can only guess at the moment.

I have to object to this perpetuating the myth that quantitative analysis is any more objective than qualitative. As this thread clearly shows, it's completely subjective which stats you include and exclude, and what hierarchy you place them in.

"Child mortality increased, average life expectancy decreased, but GDP increased? Success!"

(child mortality = interceptions, ALE = TD%, GDP = comp%)
Stats are just measurements, but the measurements THEMSELVES are unbiased. The limitations are that they're useless without context and measurements for one thing can't be applied to another.

Is a fifteen foot snake long? If it's a cobra, yes; if an anaconda, no. Based on its fifteen foot length, how well can it drive a car? :tongue:

Interesting analogy though; I wonder how many who think a higher Int% and lower TD% is acceptable if completion percentage rises ALSO think a higher GDP makes increased child mortality and lower life expectancy OK?

[FlyByU]

I go with the Eye Ball test as you posted those three things would improve TT a lot with what he already has he does lack those 3 things in a good QB. I seen him improve as the season went on to a point but maybe the off season will improve it a lot more.

[catfish]

Hold on now, all I said was that I do not have to recall each and every instance of Tebow making a big run or throwing an incomplete pass because the stats show it happened a lot. That doesn't mean I never saw it, or didn't see it a lot, only that I don't have to dredge up ALL of them from my all too human memory to support my general memory of it happening a lot. It means that even if a few big runs/bad passes stand out more than others in my memory, or I imprinted too much on the thirty yard sack against KC or the 51 yard over the shoulder spiral to Thomas against Pitt, checking the stats double checks my memory to give me a more objective and thorough, and thus more accurate, portrait than a few snapshots from memory.


When judging by stats more is better; an accurate picture requires all the stats. Looking at some but not others can aid focus on some things, but often skew perceptions, too. That's why cherrypicking is ill advised. If/when we look exclusively at a given set of stats because they are unique to a particular situation we must bear in mind that limitation. We can't extrapolate from them to more general situations unless we factor in the other stats equally relevant to those situations.


I agree stats only support or undermine what we see (or think we do.) I'm pretty sure I already said as much. ;) However, if they were wholly subordinate rather than complementary to the eye test they could ONLY support, NEVER undermine, it; any stat conflicting with the eye test would automatically be wrong. The biggest stat is wins/losses, in games, seasons and championships. It's shown many great athletes badly lacked what mattered despite passing the eye test throughout HS and college careers, into the Combine, onto practice fields and even through training camp. Looks can deceive, especially accompanied by a lot of back story.

I don't watch college ball either; I consider it "amateur" in all the worst senses of the word (ironically, not in the most literal sense, because the best "college" players aren't getting paid with a degree (at least) to play.) Double that for the SEC, then square it for the dozen or so chosen schools the SECAA deems worthy of nomination for election as each years "national champion." I'm pretty much the last guy who'd climb on a FL option QBs bandwagon; I was all in with Cutler, horrified when McDumbass drafted Tebow and fully expected him to crash and burn the moment he set foot on a pro field.

He didn't, and surprised my eyes enough I want to see how this ends. Odds are still against him because he spent four years playing for a typical SECAA coach in a typical SECAA system, but he's come a lot farther than I ever expected, and certainly much faster than I ever dared hope. It's not as pretty as Testaverde or Quinn, but I'm confident it'll end differently; whether better or worse I can only guess at the moment.

Stats are just measurements, but the measurements THEMSELVES are unbiased. The limitations are that they're useless without context and measurements for one thing can't be applied to another.

Is a fifteen foot snake long? If it's a cobra, yes; if an anaconda, no. Based on its fifteen foot length, how well can it drive a car? :tongue:

Interesting analogy though; I wonder how many who think a higher Int% and lower TD% is acceptable if completion percentage rises ALSO think a higher GDP makes increased child mortality and lower life expectancy OK?

in reference to the eyeball test, the eye tends to see what it wants to see, someone who wants to see Tebow succeed will focus on the good passes, or write off sacks to poor protection, or low scores to drop balls, or see bad passes as throw aways. Someone who is looking to prove that he can't succed will do the exact opposite focus on the bad passes, assume every drop is because the pass was bad, claim sacks are all on the QB. There is a whole group of people on the board who claim Tebow showed quite a bit of improvement from the first game to the last, and there is another group that believs there was no improvement at all. Whichj set of eyes are the correct ones? Without tearing into the numbers as well as spending literally hours of time each week studying game film each week your eyes won't tell the whole story.

Case in point was the argument about the high # of sacks in the Detroit game. There were a huge number of folks claiming Tebow was holding the ball for 4-5 seconds and that is what caused the sacks amother group felt the protection was poor. The argument didn't end until Tned went back and analyzed each sack using NFL rewind and showed the time Tebow held the ball in each instance and showed screen captures of the coverage at the time he was hit. Unless people are going to do that type of analysis on every game they will not be able to speak with any authority, and any opinion they have will in reality just be an extension of their preferences.

I personally don't have the time or the inclination to break down film to that extent, not to mention that it still would be guesswork at best as I do not have the playbook, so I have no idea what was supposed to happen on any given play

edit: here is a paper on fallability of eyewitness accounts if there are any research nerds like me out there

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

[HammeredOut]

Tebow only scored 22 on the wonderlic test. That was way below the NFL average. It was also about half of what Brees, and Brady scored. So would that account for us only getting "half" a QB like Tim Tebow??

[catfish]

Tebow only scored 22 on the wonderlic test. That was way below the NFL average. It was also about half of what Brees, and Brady scored. So would that account for us only getting "half" a QB like Tim Tebow??

Ryan Fitzpatrick scored a 50, Dan Marino scored a 16. Pretty sure that the test isn't very indicitave. The average score is a 21, blaine gabbert got a 42, Cam Newton got a 21.

edit: the average score for a nfl QB is 24

[Joel]

in reference to the eyeball test, the eye tends to see what it wants to see, someone who wants to see Tebow succeed will focus on the good passes, or write off sacks to poor protection, or low scores to drop balls, or see bad passes as throw aways. Someone who is looking to prove that he can't succed will do the exact opposite focus on the bad passes, assume every drop is because the pass was bad, claim sacks are all on the QB. There is a whole group of people on the board who claim Tebow showed quite a bit of improvement from the first game to the last, and there is another group that believs there was no improvement at all. Whichj set of eyes are the correct ones? Without tearing into the numbers as well as spending literally hours of time each week studying game film each week your eyes won't tell the whole story.

Case in point was the argument about the high # of sacks in the Detroit game. There were a huge number of folks claiming Tebow was holding the ball for 4-5 seconds and that is what caused the sacks amother group felt the protection was poor. The argument didn't end until Tned went back and analyzed each sack using NFL rewind and showed the time Tebow held the ball in each instance and showed screen captures of the coverage at the time he was hit. Unless people are going to do that type of analysis on every game they will not be able to speak with any authority, and any opinion they have will in reality just be an extension of their preferences.

I personally don't have the time or the inclination to break down film to that extent, not to mention that it still would be guesswork at best as I do not have the playbook, so I have no idea what was supposed to happen on any given play

edit: here is a paper on fallability of eyewitness accounts if there are any research nerds like me out there

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm
A very interesting article, which made several points that correspond to my own experience (or maybe I just THINK they do because I'm recalling my experiences in a way that fits my personal narrative. ;))

"Memory is affected by retelling, and we rarely tell a story in a neutral fashion." We've certainly seen plenty of THAT with Tebow (and football in general.) I recall a few discussions with bcbronc where I had to go back and check replays because I remembered Daniel Fells as being "tightly covered" on his 40 yard reception against Pitt, and Beadles as "blowing a block" on Tebows fumble in the first NE game.

Turns out neither of those things happened; I remembered Fells as tightly covered because a defender quickly took his legs out--and because it fit my narrative. The truth is the defender was a few yards away when Fells made the catch but quickly caught up to put him on the ground. Likewise, with the unblocked defender against NE, Beadles had, and accomplished, a different assignment; if anyone missed a block (debatable,) it was Clady.

"Bias creeps into memory without our knowledge, without our awareness." Stat don't suffer from that liability (at least not directly; they still rely on our memory of context to give them meaning, and in that respect are subject to bias THROUGH its effect on memory.) It turns out Joe Friday often can't get "just the facts" from a witness, but forensics is a different matter.

Stats are, in many ways, the forensics of football. They can't give us the right answers if we ask the wrong questions, but are rigorously reliable for questions they DO answer. Either way, stats depend on us to provide the context that makes them meaningful. A DNA test can't establish motive any more than TD% shows if a QB senses the pass rush. Even things like third down efficiency are subject to debates over how much success/failure is due to the QB, blockers and/or receivers. Sadly, which side one takes in such debates often depends on the preferred narrative rather than reality, but the numbers themselves are, unlike the narrative, indisputable.

[Ravage!!!]

again. If the eyeball test was so inexact, why do the scouts insist on watching players play instead of just looking at the numbers sheet? Because the eye can see MUCH MUCH more than what any stat can tell you.

Thats the point. Stats alone can cause/create just as much bias.

[Joel]

Stats often SERVE bias, but seldom (if ever) cause it. If we avoid cherrypicking stats give an accurate, though limited, picture. Regardless, "what do scouts use?" cuts both ways; if the eye test trumped stats scouts wouldn't also look at 40 times, three cone tests, bench press etc. The eye test and stats work well in concert, but very poorly in isolation.