Giving Tebow the ball with 55 seconds rather than 15 only lowers win % by 1%? LOL.

Either way, you said any play Barber made, which includes the fumble - and now you are attempting to get out of it with some word spinning and semantics.

Seriously, there is no way that can even be close to correct.

That chart means nothing. According to it the Bears had a 99% chance to win when Prater lined up his 59 yard attempt. His success rate in Denver is way higher than 1% on that kick so I'm just not going to consider that chart relevant at all.

.

before anyone jumps on me i agree with the notion that everything can be quantified. im just not sure we as a human race possess the ability as of right now the quantify things like the value of the extra .3 seconds a linebacker has to hesitate to decide if its run vs pass when its tebow under center vs orton, or the value of having a running qb that weighs 250 and benches more than 95% of his team vs a guy like michael vick.

zz,

Numbers from a website that think Prater's chances of making that kick were 1% aren't worth discussing, next.

advancednflstats is relatively legit... whether or not you agree with them. what do you think the odds were? 5%?

also do you see the irony in this quote:
if he is legitimately THAT bad, 1% sounds about right. so either you have a better grasp on NFL stats as they compare to win percentages than a site devoted to it does, or you are NOW claiming that tebow isnt nearly as bad as you PREVIOUSLY claimed.

Yeah, this also a weird number. Gould hit a 57 yarder, and Prater was hitting it from 70+ in warm-ups (albeit with a tee).

No. Gould, a notoriously short legged kicker hit a 57 yarder with room to spare earlier. Prater was hitting bombs in pregame and has a pretty good leg. I'd say 15% or so, possibly higher with the conditions. Either way 99% is ******ed.

I'm sure the website has some redeeming qualities and it's in general more knowledgeable than me on the NFL but that chart is terrible. As for Tebow having 55 seconds as opposed to 15 - he is now given what could be 6-8 plays instead of 2 to get in FG range so yes I think it is much higher than 1%.

Creating a false dichotomy where I have to choose accepting that Tebow is a good/better passer or saying that chart is correct is lol.

Mullen what do you honestly think is more likely - you have a better grasp on these numbers than the people who do it for a living, or you are incorrect? I think you are a smart dude based on your posting history but I am still going to go with the latter.

It's easy to look back and say "oh he was hitting bombs pregame" but pregame is not like game conditions, pregame he has a tee, etc. They took literally every single possible factor into account with prater hitting a 59 yard field goal in that situation and calculated it out. Your argument is relying on the "eye test" which up until now has not been good enough for you.

edit - My point is that this statement:
is based on 2 different things.

The STATS which is essentially ALL that tebow-doubters have been talking about indicate that given TEBOW and ONLY tebow as the quarterback, means there is only a 1% increase in winning percentage. Tom Brady, for example, would see an increase of like 15-20%. So if you are now saying "it was CLEARLY higher than 1%" then you have to admit that tebow's abilities as a QB goes beyond the raw numbers.

Zugz,
Are you claiming that it doesn't give you any pause when a site claims that we saw a 1-in-100 shot on that drive alone? That figure doesn't seem crazy to you?

LKJ see my edit; I think that stats can only account for so much. Obviously EVERYTHING is quantifiable, but that doesn't mean we have mastered the ability to quantify it.

The stats that tebow has put up during his NFL career indicate that in that situation, there was a 1% chance of Denver winning. They need to first get into FG range with a below avg QB, then have prater hit a 59 yarder JUST to put them back to 50-50 (assuming both teams are even money once we get to OT).

And they are wrong. That is saying Prater is going to miss that FG 99/100 times. I guarantee you, he would hit that at least 10 times in those conditions. I don't think that thing takes into account that it is Mile High because a 59 yard FG there is akin to a 45-50 in normal conditions (and those FGs are hit 20%+.) 1% is wildly false.


And for Tebow, the difference between 15 and 55 seconds is enormous. The chance of a comeback goes from like 5% to 30% since all they needed was a long FG.

Assuming they get the ball at the 20 on the punt they only have to go ~40ish yards for a realistic field goal try, and ~50-55 for a great percentage kick. If you have 15 seconds (and no timeouts) you have to run a 40 yard out then kick the FG or run like a 20-25 yard out and then throw a hail mary. With 55 seconds you have plenty of time and can run short outs which Tebow is capable of and we all know NFL defenses are ******ed on 1-2 minute drills.

As for the website I am not saying I am smarter than them on everything but those two statistics (only going from 93% to 92% and a 1% chance on a 59 yarder in Mile High) are damning. NFL average on 50+ yard kicks is like 45% or something and Mile High adds more than a few yards to a kick.

Gus this is the problem though! People want to evaluate tebow merely based on his statline, and when we see how that stat line translates into winning percentages, even you and the rest of the tebow doubters agree that purely numbers can't tell the whole story!

The literal only explanation left is that stats, as of this point in time, are incapable of accounting for everything. Either that, or the people who DO THIS FOR A LIVING, aka the wronger they are the more money they lose, are not as good at calculating winning % as your eye test is.

ok so if the stats, as much as humans are able to calculate them, are wrong, why do you insist on using them as a primary evaluator of Tebows value? im not being sarcastic, if you have a better way to calculate them then you should apply for a job at that site. according to stats and stats alone, the percentage changed by 1%. so if we ALL agree that 1% is wrong, can we also agree to the statement that tebows value goes beyond something that is currently quantifiable?

jackyes.gif


I'd only run a hurry up offense if I were an OC since NFL teams are terrible at stopping these.




I'm not seeing how that is a problem. Everyone wants to say he has a "skillset." And I don't think he has that, so his numbers are bad means he is hurting his team.

Ughhh. Just because they make a couple mistakes or are wrong about a couple small things doesn't mean I am more knowledgeable about the NFL.
The 1% figure is way off, come on.

Zugz,
This isn't baseball where statistically significant samples can form in half a season. This is why you routinely see NFL teams have great regular seasons and crap out in the playoffs; because their method of winning simply isn't sustainable and only had to withstand a sample of 16 games.

The last team I can remember getting this many breaks was the 2001 Bears and their many ridiculous last-minute wins. It was no surprise that they couldn't handle the playoffs.

I think the anti-Tebow crowd overstates their case, but let's not act like 8 games of a guy's career prove much of anything.

Those "stats" are made up by a website's opinion/model or whatever. Tebow's statline is his hard performance.

Only because the pro-Tebow crowd overstates their case originally. If some random was doing this, I doubt there would be as much praise and stupid sayings such as "he just wins games." Anyone who says that is automatically a moron and is completely missing the circumstances of his wins through a decent team and ultimately the incompetence of the other teams.

TBF the pro-Tebow's (zz and dkgo) aren't just typing HE JUST WINSSS and WIMMMM like ******s. They are attempting to make a case and I wouldn't even engage them if they were being complete idiots like most Tebow supporters.

honestly, other than what has been CLEAR hyperbole, nobody actually thinks tebow is the GOAT QB, much less a top 10 qb in the current league. What the 11 games have shown us is that he is not nearly as bad as his raw stats indicate. (lets all be honest, other than the W-L column he has to be one of the worst stat lines in history thus far).

im not saying that what we've witnessed so far has shown that tebow is going to be a world beater; merely that he has what it takes to hang with the big boys. the reasons for how he has been able to do that are still unclear/unqantifiable... but its seriously absurd to say at this point that he doesnt belong in the NFL, even though if you blurred out his name and merely looked at his individual stats it would be absurd to say he did.

That's not a valid reason to respond by overstating the case the other way.

gus i just want to be clear, even though i come in this thread and IRL every week saying TEBOW GOOOOOOOOOOAT i dont actually think he is a hall of fame QB (yet) much less a top 10 current QB. i think most pro-tebow ppl share my sentiments. It is just more fun to say HOLY COW ARE WE REALLY WITNESSING GREATNESS!?!?!?!?!

ty ty I have been trying to make this case since 2008 or whenever clarknasty started the Tebow Potentially GOAT? thread in SE. Even UF students recognize his shortcomings in the statistics column as well as an ugly throw. TBH I think he wouldve made more progress had he never even bothered trying to "fix" his throwing motion senior year but I will defer to the coaching staff on that one. All im sayin is philly riv turned out fine.

So by 2020, with Roger Goodell the commissioner of the National Football League, will the league be no contact and runner is down when his flag is pulled? This league is becoming a joke.