I'd have to say that CowboyFan is quite different that the Bills guy, packerfan, or Pat fans. He's not here trolling as they are.
Sure, the "top 12" kickers in the league hit 50+ last year at a rate of 67% or greater (and Prater was one of them); however, the discussion isn't about "hitting 50+ yard field goals". A 53, and a 59. As I'm sure you know, every yard over 50 makes a big difference. I don't want to do my own independent research/analysis right now, but I'd like to see statistics on 53+ yard field goals in 2011.
# of attempts divided by games played? I only copy/pasted Tebow's "rookie year" so that someone didn't ask me why I didn't. CowboysFan called their completion %'s "pretty much the same as Eli Manning" so I was comparing Manning's 52.8% to Tebow's 46.5%. As you just pointed out, given the fact that Tebow started only 3 games and Manning only 7 in their respective rookie years, it's fair to compare their 2011 and 2005 stats.
So I have to assume this means that Tebow's less likely to do "his thing" outside of Mile High. Despite your argument, the point is that no NFL QB who is "instrumental in comebacks" can force their team to live-or-die by the long ass FG.
Not really. First, Eli was the starter going into his second year, meaning that he got the reps in TC and OTAs. Second, you have the lockout. We could then add in the coaching changes that occurred. Additionally, coming in at the end of the season and starting three games essentially is just getting your feet wet. IOW, yes, it's valuable, but it's much less experience than starting for half of the season. In short, at the end of his second year in the league, Eli had 24 starts while Tebow has had only 16. That's a half of a year difference in experience.
You have to factor in the altitude and thin air of Denver. From a physics standpoint, it adds over 5 yards to a kicker's range.
What he's doing is even more civil, more respectful, more valuable. Yet they let Bills guy, packerfan, and Pat guy just run off their back. Their vigilance only seems to be triggered by optimism about Tebow.
One would think that -- he's not even hiding the ball at all. But still drives people nuts apparently.
Did we resolve the OP of whether Prater deserved to be on the list of 100? He played exceptionally well last year and I would have no problem with him being on the list. But why are you asking us nuts? The question would need to be addressed to the players. They created the list. Based on years of watching football - I don't think most players have a very high regard for kickers - other than that 5 seconds of pure joy if they happen to help win a game.
The OP is a trolling Tebow hater and the entire purpose of this thread is for him to say that Tebow's success last year was pretty much due to Prater.
Can you point out where I did that because the last thing I would ever do is associate # 1 jets fan with anyone else I have met here. Please stop making stuff up.
I stand by what I said 100% it is VERY comparable and similar . I did not say exact, and I did not say Tebow's was better. You comparing Tebow's second year, why not compare first 16 starts the number is less skewed that way? Also if you take what I say verbatim then I said first year, which means that tebow was indeed even slightly better. my original point :: Give Tebow a chance he can get better. .
I guess my question at this point is why all the hate on Tebow fans on this site in particular. I have seen a few of the so called Tebowites or Tebow nuts, but not an exorbitant amount. As a matter of fact I see more people posting about there own personal disdain for the guy than anything. Everything from comments on his sexuality to his ability to play football. Vanderbilt has done a nice job using statistics to prove his point on what he thinks of Tebow as a player and as are all posters on this site, more than justified to feel this way. I happen to disagree with his opinion of the player, but cannot disagree with his statistics. I also believe to this day that the use of Tebow's college statistics has very little correlation to his ability to succeed at this level of football. I do however with all people that dislike Tebow as a person or player like to point out that Tim Tebow as a starting QB with defense ranked in the 20th range took that team to the playoffs. Was their luck involved? The Bears game had some strange occurrences as did some of the games that ended with long field goals. However, if you ask most people the only thing that matters is whether you win or lose. And Tebow, not on his own but as a part of a team, took a team that had struggled mightily over the past few years and took them to the playoffs and won a game. Very little of what I have said here can be discounted. Frowned upon and excuse riddled but it still remains a fact.
if he hadn't shanked a 25 yarder in the chicago game there would be no need to hit a 59 yarder to tie. He kicked some long field goals sure. The air in Denver allows for 5-7 more yards distance of a field goal attempt so it isn't as big a deal as some are making it out to be. Overall the field goal kicking was pretty poor. going 3-7 from 40-49 yards is not good. I know there were 2 misses in Miami, another in KC and 1 more in oakland. the one I mentioned in Chicago of less than 30 yds, I think he made the first, but there was a penalty and he missed the second IIRC. Again not saying he was the worst guy in the league, but for anyone to insinuate he was the reason for the denver win streak is pretty laughable. here is a graph of % hit by LOS(add 17 for distance) http://www.advancednflstats.com/2011/10/janikowski-factor.html
Don't you mean subtract? Or are you talking about a "Mile High Stadium factor? EDIT: My bad, I see what you're saying. The X-axis is LOS not FG distance.
