Pissing contests aside, that 1.1 td/to of Sanchez tells me in any given play, he is equally likely to score or give the ball away. that is pretty shitty IMO.
Um, no. So far from no its kinda silly. Case in point: Terrific overall athlete, his combine numbers were very similar to Cam Newton's from a year earlier... Good scrambler; was second on the team in rushing in each of his first two years but has learned to run less as a junior to preserve his health... Luck is just as much a dual threat as anyone, the thing is, he also happens to be the best throwing QB to com out in a long time.
i don't really care for tebow's numbers in a setting like this. but.. gdamn aaron rodgers is ridiculous. and mark sanchez really needs to cut down on his turnovers. those numbers look BLAH
You realize when you post that chart he has a 1/4 of the passing attempt as most of players on it that matter. Look I defend players and support them when warranted, but the title of this thread is not right in anyway based on his lack of starts. It like comparing a players one year of success against another players multiple years of stats ; which may be comprised of good and bad stats. Obviously his smaller portfolio will reflect better then others with a longer track record to compare. Much like if we look at Sanchez playoff Win's again Brady and Manning he is comparable in that respect , but he has not as of yet maintained a consistent track record during the regular season. Tebow is not elite and probably will get the chance to add to those stats , but not as a starter and that's a fact!
Not to beat a dead horse...Can Tebow running a ball beat Brady and Bellicheat? Because we all know what matters...Kicking patsie ass.
I appreciate the amount of work you put into this chart but it doesn't really mean anything. Touchdowns and turnovers are such a small number of plays out of all the overall plays in a football game, and I feel like you are not accounting for all the 3 and outs that result from Tebow. What's worse 15 3 and outs and no turnovers or no 3 and outs and 1 turnover. With your formula the latter is worse, and that is most likely not the case. The number that you should be concerned with for offensive efficiency is just a simple touchdown percentage. Whoever scores the touchdown does not matter, effective offenses score touchdowns, whether it be running or passing the player responsible is inconsequential in determining efficiency. And just to show here is a ranking of quarterbacks that accounts for a lot more variables. The qbs less efficient at passing are Blaine Gabbert,Caleb Hanie, Curtis Painter, Christian Ponder, John Skelton, Sam Bradford, AJ Feeley, and Matt Cassel. However, the most damning part is that there was only 2 qbs less efficient at rushing than Tebow; Blaine Gabbert and Tarvaris Jackson. http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb When you make a chart about offensive efficiency it should actually be about offensive efficiency, which your's is not. Basically this just says what is plain to see to anyone with eyes, Tim Tebow is a disaster of a quarterback who the Jets deserve because they are the only team in the league dumb enough to trade for said disaster.
Touchdown percentage is included.. All those passes that DIDN'T go for touchdowns? Like 3 and outs and things such as those go in there. BTW, I don't really care to read anything from FootballOoutsiders. One of the most retarded football ideas staticians came up with, is to try to break down football efficiency to individual football plays or to use drive stats in a vacuum setting and standardize it. It's hard enough to measure even major things such as touchdowns and interception accurately from player to player, team to team, and offense to offense. To break it down to the microscopic level and design a system, is a waste of time because each team, and each player approaches the game differently. Only players who play football the way Football Outsiders envisions it to be played will ever look good in their numbers. It doesn't even work trying to do that for basketball, where the number of games and play stats dwarfs that of football players, and each team is much closer to another to how they approach the game. And unfortunately despite all the time they took to create their systems, they still place far too much relevance on the work(plays, yards), rather than the results(touchdowns, turnovers). If you want to be accurate in football stick with tracking results, because of the huge difference from team to team, the more you break down things, the less accurate you will be. I've been more accurate tracking football with yards per point, but very much a fluid stat, which is about 100 year old, than DVOA. DVOA was positively worthless for the most part of last year and even they'll tell you there are better alternatives.
Not as many as you think in Tebow's case. But if you start taking things away, who decides what and how and why? And how's that any different than a short 5 yard pass for a TD in the red-zone? If you do that, should those also be taken away from passing quarterbacks? And then should we also take away 50% of Aaron's, Brady's Breese's and Peyton's yards? About half of their numbers are yards after catch on shot 2-3 yard catches that go for much longer than that. You're in a whole new territory when you go into that. And yes I would imagine teams with good running backs would hand the ball off, but again, that's one of Tebow's biggest strengths but if you go back and watch his games, a lot of them actually from from just outside the redzone. I know Cam Newton probably did have a lot of sneak red-zone TD's last year but i haven't actually counted them. Very few of his rushing TD's, maybe one or two, came from outside the red-zone. But even so, not an easy thing to do in the NFL. They make it look easy, but beforehand, teams had and still have a lot of trouble scoring in the red-zone. They're not guaranteed to score with most teams hovering right around the 50% when it comes to red-zone touchdowns. But Tebow's very effective from both the red-zone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo6tomX3pIg&feature=related And beyond it. This is from 25 yards against the Jets to cap a 95 yard drive: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KR638W3tRc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO3jF6p_2aU And this is a 40+ yard rushing TD. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because like I said, QB's get a lot of TD's from inside the red-zone as well. All the more power to him.
Everybody's numbers are different. That's why you use percentages. It doesn't matter how many attempts, as long as the sample is at least decent enough, and 580 plays is a big enough sample. There's nothing one can do but wait 10 years for Tebow to have a resume like Brady's. What makes his stats even more credible, is because he didn't go on some wild hot streak. This is what he ended up with despite, his string of inconsistency bot at the position, and as far as offenses and situations he's been in since he came into the NFL. That says a lot. I mean if he can put up scoring efficiency numbers like this when he's being bounced around left and right, what's he going to be able to do, when he's got something built around him? But in terms of percentages it gives you a good idea where he stands, what he's done and where he's going. And the idea that smaller sample sizes look better, is nonsense. NOT everybody's. Here... The under 2000 club. The rest of those guys aren't putting up numbers like Tebow. There's a huge difference between Tim Tebow's numbers and everyone esle's. That's why it's better to compare him using the full spectrum because as unfair as it may be TO HIM, he matches up much closer to Brady, Rodgers and Manning. With the exception of Cam Newton, these guys don't even come close. They're nearly double in touchdowns/to compared to everyone else. The average for this group is 0.6(which is atrocious btw) and Tim's at 2.0. All this does is make him look even better. I also have 2011 numbers, as well as post season numbers, and he's still very consistent in these categories and at the top of the lists. No matter the slice, no matter the company, Tim Tebow can score, and protects the football and is among the best in the NFL in doing so. For all the critics out there, I wouldn't hold my breath on his numbers getting much worse in the future. If anything, he's going to improve. It's actually quite necessary to compare them to the vets, because without doing so, you don't really have an idea where they stand. If I just said Tebow's TD% is 5.52...that's pretty meaningless. Is that good, is that bad? But when you see the full list and you see that only Aaron Rodgers is more efficient, and Brady's right under it, it begins to lighten up the picture... You're also able to tell things like Cam Newton's fumbling % is out of this world, especially considering his TD/Fumbles. That's a far cry from guys like Skelton who has a comparable % who doesn't fumble but is also in the negative because he can't score rushing touchdowns. And so is Tebow's passing interception %. If you ask me, there's a whole lot of OTHER guys that could use improvement. If anything trying to get him to change, will probably worsen things. If the boy can score, and not turn over the ball, he can win in this league and he's going to have a nice career.
Yeas, he couldn't last year but this is a much better Jets team then Denver was last year even though he beat us anyway.
I can't believe we were able to get such an elite QB for only a 4th round pick. And now the Jets are going to say he's BACKING UP Sanchez? How foolish is our coaching staff, Sanchez is the worst QB ever and we have an elite QB playing BEHIND him? I'm so confused. And don't try and tell me there's more to being an elite QB than scoring, because scoring wins games.
I never said traditional, and there are plenty of pocket passers in this league that scramble. And the league's rules favor pocket passers so much more than scramblers now, and he scales will continue to tilt that way. Tebow is a utility player. In the future of the NFL, there is no room for the type of 'quarterback' he can play.
