Thread: What passing aspect is most important for Tebow to improve?

Originally Posted by Joel

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%)

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by bcbronc

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?

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Joel

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?

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...er&tversky.htm

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??

Originally Posted by 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??

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

Originally Posted by catfish

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...er&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.

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.

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.