NFL.com ranking of backup QBs: Mallett #11, Tebow #17

[Concerned_Citizen]

Well, if you would rather not look at how good a defense is based on turnovers and making big plays and big stops...then I would say the fact the 2011 Steelers got their #1 ranking thanks in no small part to playing an unprecedented weak offensive slate of opponents is more than sufficient to take all the shine off of said #1 ranking.

This is why simply looking at stat sheets and taking them at face value is just stupid. Far too many variables contributing to where no stat number is created equal.

Are you more impressed with a QB who threw a 1 yard out and the receiver carried it 60 yards weaving in and out of traffic? Or are you more impressed with the QB who only got 45 yards on a bomb threaded through a tight window? By their logic, QB in scenario #1 was the better QB on that play because he got more yards on his stat sheet on that play.

They just don't tell the story on how good an individual player is. Same for a defense. There isn't anything in there that accounts for strength of opponents, injuries, or anything else. Anyone that doesn't subscribe to the stats are the be-all-end-all are accused of making excuses.

Not all stats are creted equal. Not surprising Tebots don't like that, since that is 100% of their basis for thinking he is worth a salt. Also amazing how even though some take stat sheets as gospel, every single bad stat someone fires back with doesn't really mean a thing.

 

[Demosthenes]

Well, if you would rather not look at how good a defense is based on turnovers and making big plays and big stops...then I would say the fact the 2011 Steelers got their #1 ranking thanks in no small part to playing an unprecedented weak offensive slate of opponents is more than sufficient to take all the shine off of said #1 ranking.

In general, I look at defenses in terms of points allowed. You can dig deeper in and consider strength of schedule to fine tune things.


If you want, we can look at Pitt's entire 2011 schedule and see how the defense did against each team in holding them below their season scoring average.

I'm not saying that the Pitt defense was one of the best ever, but they were among the league's best in 2011.

But here, we can do it this way. It seems that you are of the opinion that Tebow isn't really a QB, or at least that he can't pass. In 2011, he put up more passing yards against Pitt in a single game than ANY other QB that Pitt faced.

That's more yards than Brady. More yards that Flacco had in either of their 2 games. More yards than Kevin Kolb. More yards than Matt Schaub. More yards than Matt Hasselback. More yards than Andy Dalton. More yards than Alex Smith.

I'm not one to put very much emphasis on yards passing as a stat, but since you all argue that Tebow can't throw the ball, and want to claim that Pitt's defense was so weak, it's amazing that a QB who supposedly can't pass put up more yards against that D than starting caliber QBs such as Hasselback, Dalton, Schaub, Smith, Kolb, Flacco and yes, even Tom Brady.

 

[Demosthenes]

Learning how to pass would have gone a long way.

He had his opportunities and support. He would have gotten a lot more game time to show YOU the goods had he been able to actually beat some of the scrubs ahead of him in camp rather than chucking balls into the dirt.

Ah yes, kind of the same way Bledsoe beat Brady in camp, right ? I mean, coaches NEVER pass over a guy who does better in TC camp than another. It's unheard of.

 

[sb1]

This is why simply looking at stat sheets and taking them at face value is just stupid. Far too many variables contributing to where no stat number is created equal.

Couldn't agree more. Numbers are not always what they seem. Sure they got the #1 ranking but if you dig a little further it's not hard to see why. And it's a lot harder to be impressed.

Are you more impressed with a QB who threw a 1 yard out and the receiver carried it 60 yards weaving in and out of traffic? Or are you more impressed with the QB who only got 45 yards on a bomb threaded through a tight window? By their logic, QB in scenario #1 was the better QB on that play because he got more yards on his stat sheet on that play.

^
Yup. I mean obviously the first QB MUST be better because he got 60 yards passing and the second guy only got 45. Totally makes sense!11!1!1!1!

They just don't tell the story on how good an individual player is. Same for a defense. There isn't anything in there that accounts for strength of opponents, injuries, or anything else. Anyone that doesn't subscribe to the stats are the be-all-end-all are accused of making excuses.

Totally agree.

I mean there's a reason why baseball has sabermetrics and such a focus on numbers and football doesn't.

I know you can only play who is on your schedule but to me the fact that you got the so called #1 defense playing a very weak slate of offenses... and you STILL are among the worst in the league at forcing turnovers, making stops and making big plays - staples of any good D - tells me that you are not nearly as good a defense as you'd like to think and whatever some other QB does against said defense should be suffixed with a "yeah, but..."

 

[sb1]

In general, I look at defenses in terms of points allowed. You can dig deeper in and consider strength of schedule to fine tune things.

And I already explained why "points allowed" isn't what it seems at all. #1 against a slate of offensive opponents that weak? Sorry, not impressed.

If you want, we can look at Pitt's entire 2011 schedule and see how the defense did against each team in holding them below their season scoring average.

Playing half their schedule against bottom 10 passing teams. Not impressed.

I'm not saying that the Pitt defense was one of the best ever, but they were among the league's best in 2011.

They were paper tigers. They were statistically "great" against a very weak slate of offensive opponents.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Perfectly understandable you want to talk them up like they were a great D that Tebow shredded, but that does not make it true.

In 2011, he put up more passing yards against Pitt in a single game than ANY other QB that Pitt faced.

Yeah and I can cherry pick one game too...the perennial pro bowler Dan Orlovsky had a career day against the 2011 Patriots... as did many fourth-tier QB's in the league...the same historically bad defensive team that incinerated Tebow... let that bolded part sink in... it really does make the Steeler game moot... if you're going to cherry pick and talk up the Steeler game then why not talk about the following week...

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

Ah yes, kind of the same way Bledsoe beat Brady in camp, right ? I mean, coaches NEVER pass over a guy who does better in TC camp than another. It's unheard of.

Brady was actually good though and showed it when he got his start. Pats fans, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Pats carried FOUR QBs that year and did so in part because Belichik saw something in Brady early on before he started, and made sure he stayed on the roster. He didn't win a bunch of games with 3-10 offensive points and some lucky break of having a timely pick six from his defense, or running backs run out of bounds while he went on and posted the absolute worst passing performance in the league. DEAD LAST in every major category passing the ball.

It was clear to anyone watching that Brady was the real deal. Only ones who thought that about Tebow were wasted on the Kool-aid a long time ago.

DEAD LAST in every major category = not very good. So what if he didn't turn over the ball quite as much. Means little if you punt the ball away 10 times per game and accomplish almost NOTHING offensively.

SEVERAL of those games, he had 0 to 3 offensive points heading into the 4th quarter. you'd be lucky to win a bowl of snot with that unless the defense is carrying you through he first 3 quarters being almost equally as stingy against the other team.

 

[manxman2601]

And I already explained why "points allowed" isn't what it seems at all. #1 against a slate of offensive opponents that weak? Sorry, not impressed.



Playing half their schedule against bottom 10 passing teams. Not impressed.



They were paper tigers. They were statistically "great" against a very weak slate of offensive opponents.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Perfectly understandable you want to talk them up like they were a great D that Tebow shredded, but that does not make it true.



Yeah and I can cherry pick one game too...the perennial pro bowler Dan Orlovsky had a career day against the 2011 Patriots... as did many fourth-tier QB's in the league...the same historically bad defensive team that incinerated Tebow... let that bolded part sink in... it really does make the Steeler game moot... if you're going to cherry pick and talk up the Steeler game then why not talk about the following week...

Tebow got his in a playoff game. Orlovsky got most of his in the 4th quarter of a game that was pretty much dead and buried. Not sure of the relevance.

 

[sb1]

Tebow got his in a playoff game. Orlovsky got most of his in the 4th quarter of a game that was pretty much dead and buried. Not sure of the relevance.

Really? Pretty sure the Colts almost completed the comeback and they still had a chance to win late if they got the onside kick.

Just showing what I can do with cherry picking.

 

[sb1]

Brady was actually good though and showed it when he got his start. Pats fans, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Pats carried FOUR QBs that year and did so in part because Belichik saw something in Brady early on before he started, and made sure he stayed on the roster. .

Yup, if he went on the practice roster he would have been exposed to other teams. Bill didn't want to let that happen.

 

[Termigator]

Doubtful.

The defense also got better around the time Orton was replaced, and that was WITH the offense going three and out almost twice as often as the Orton era.

I've seen you repeat this wishful thinking time and time again. Now I've attached a spreadsheet showing the 2011- 2012 Denver Bronco season broken down into the Orton starts and the Tebow starts, showing both offensive rankings and performance as well as defensive rankings and performance. Please show me on a whole where the defense got better and the offense got worse after Tebow started.

http://i78.servimg.com/u/f78/18/28/57/56/2011br11.jpg

I guess that the defense being ranked 26th with 386 yards given up per game under Orton was a lot better than being ranked 30th with 412 yards given up per game under Tebow. Oh here's an improvement if you can call it that. Being ranked 31st under Orton while giving up 28 points per game to improving to being ranked under Tebow all the way up to 27th with only, "Wait for it" giving up 28.4 points per game. So much for your "Defense also got better" Theory.

The offensive stats don't help your cause either.

SF

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

They were paper tigers. They were statistically "great" against a very weak slate of offensive opponents.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Perfectly understandable you want to talk them up like they were a great D that Tebow shredded, but that does not make it true.

Even if they were paper tigers, what Pittsburgh chose to do that day had more to do with them getting beaten the way they did. Word was out that Tebow couldn't throw and all teams had to do was stack the box and keep Thomas and Decker covered. They over committed to that idea and left D.Thomas open to the point where even Tebow could hit them. Hell, you or I could have on some of those.

They seriously underestimated D.Thomas. That, and the substitute at safety was out of position for more than just that last play. Had Ryan Clark not been sitting out the game due to sickle cell (which damn near killed him last time they played in Denver) I don't think Thomas would have had near the career day he had. it was like they didn't think they needed to cover him as much, and he burned them.

That last play was 90% Thomas. Props to Tebow for FINALLY getting one in FRONT of the WR, but it is what it is. The blind squirrel found a nut that day. The stat geeks saw an 80 yard pass play and praised Tebow for it.

 

[Termigator]

That last play was 90% Thomas. Props to Tebow for FINALLY getting one in FRONT of the WR, but it is what it is. The blind squirrel found a nut that day. The stat geeks saw an 80 yard pass play and praised Tebow for it.

So the other 236 yards passing by the "Blind Squirrel" don't count in your world?

 

[belichick010405]

So the other 236 yards passing by the "Blind Squirrel" don't count in your world?

Not in comparison to his stats over the course of the entire year.

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

I've seen you repeat this wishful thinking time and time again. Now I've attached a spreadsheet showing the 2011- 2012 Denver Bronco season broken down into the Orton starts and the Tebow starts, showing both offensive rankings and performance as well as defensive rankings and performance. Please show me on a whole where the defense got better and the offense got worse after Tebow started.


I guess that the defense being ranked 26th with 386 yards given up per game under Orton was a lot better than being ranked 30th with 412 yards given up per game under Tebow. Oh here's an improvement if you can call it that. Being ranked 31st under Orton while giving up 28 points per game to improving to being ranked under Tebow all the way up to 27th with only, "Wait for it" giving up 28.4 points per game. So much for your "Defense also got better" Theory.

The offensive stats don't help your cause either.

SF

Here is yet another example of why simply looking at a stat sheet with no context or thought process behind it other than to spin an argument is a losing battle for you.

True, the defense was ranked quite low overall.

But during the Orton era, how many games did the defense allow 15 points or less? (2 Scores.) Answer: NONE.

How many during the Tebow era? Answer: SIX. Five of "Tebow's 7 wins" were accounted for here. He'd lost the other in a game where the final score was 7 to 3 against.... Kyle Orton of all people.

The average score allowed by the Broncos was also skewed a bit thanks to Green Bay, New England, Detroit*, Buffalo*, Minnesota, and one of the Raider games. (But I already admitted the defense wasn't great. It was against the bad teams, but couldn't hang with the top teams that actually had an offense.)

Made it look like their season didn't have more than a third of its games where the defense allowed 2 scores or less. (and it STILL took Tebow an OT in three of those games to finally score enough points against the 0-5 Dolphins, the Caleb Hanie led Bears, and the injury depleted Chargers.) It took a timely pick six at the end to get them back into the game against the Jets with Tebow's whopping 3 offensive points against THAT team. Another one against Minnesota. So the defense actually HAD to help put points up to go anywhere ASIDE from having to stop enough teams to string together enough wins for a post season appearance

*NOTE: Both the Buffalo game and Detroit game saw scores go into the 40s, but Tim Tebow threw a pick six in each of them as well as a FUMBLE for six in each of those games. So Tebow was standing on the field for FOURTEEN points scored by the opposition in TWO of the games.

So your stat sheet doesn't show that they kept Tebow in FIVE of his seven regular season wins until some lucky break bailed him out. First three quarters, he brought the offense to a whole new level of suckage. Tebow fans turned a blind eye because they saw a couple of hilights.

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

So the other 236 yards passing by the "Blind Squirrel" don't count in your world?

Sure it counts. But those kind of performances were too few and far in between to make me think it was more than a once in a while fluke.

...and, Thomas had a lot more to do with the 236 too. Tebow only completed 10 passes that day. SOMEONE had to get him those numbers, and that took a lot of suckage on the part of the defense to rack up those numbers on so few plays.

What? You really think that record was set because Tebow was that damn good?

 

[Demosthenes]

Brady was actually good though and showed it when he got his start. Pats fans, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Pats carried FOUR QBs that year and did so in part because Belichik saw something in Brady early on before he started, and made sure he stayed on the roster. He didn't win a bunch of games with 3-10 offensive points and some lucky break of having a timely pick six from his defense, or running backs run out of bounds while he went on and posted the absolute worst passing performance in the league. DEAD LAST in every major category passing the ball.

It was clear to anyone watching that Brady was the real deal. Only ones who thought that about Tebow were wasted on the Kool-aid a long time ago.

DEAD LAST in every major category = not very good. So what if he didn't turn over the ball quite as much. Means little if you punt the ball away 10 times per game and accomplish almost NOTHING offensively.

SEVERAL of those games, he had 0 to 3 offensive points heading into the 4th quarter. you'd be lucky to win a bowl of snot with that unless the defense is carrying you through he first 3 quarters being almost equally as stingy against the other team.

You lost the plot and missed the bus. You claimed that Tebow might have had more support had he beaten out anyone in camp.

Brady, based on most reports, beat out Bledsoe in camp. Belichick decided to stick with Bledsoe anyways.

From "The Brady 6":

By the end of training camp, Tom beat out Damon, and really had a better pre-season than Drew did,” said Belichick. “What held us back from making that decision was just Tom’s experience.”

So Brady had the better camp/preseason, yet Bledsoe was named the starter.

That's one point that deflates your argument.

The next point is that some guys are camp warriors when they are throwing in shorts. Yet, put them in the game and they keep doing things that costs the team. We all know this, yet you want to ignore it.

 

[Demosthenes]

Here is yet another example of why simply looking at a stat sheet with no context or thought process behind it other than to spin an argument is a losing battle for you.

True, the defense was ranked quite low overall.

But during the Orton era, how many games did the defense allow 15 points or less? (2 Scores.) Answer: NONE.

How many during the Tebow era? Answer: SIX. Five of "Tebow's 7 wins" were accounted for here. He'd lost the other in a game where the final score was 7 to 3 against.... Kyle Orton of all people.

The average score allowed by the Broncos was also skewed a bit thanks to Green Bay, New England, Detroit*, Buffalo*, Minnesota, and one of the Raider games. (But I already admitted the defense wasn't great. It was against the bad teams, but couldn't hang with the top teams that actually had an offense.)

Made it look like their season didn't have more than a third of its games where the defense allowed 2 scores or less. (and it STILL took Tebow an OT in three of those games to finally score enough points against the 0-5 Dolphins, the Caleb Hanie led Bears, and the injury depleted Chargers.) It took a timely pick six at the end to get them back into the game against the Jets with Tebow's whopping 3 offensive points against THAT team. Another one against Minnesota. So the defense actually HAD to help put points up to go anywhere ASIDE from having to stop enough teams to string together enough wins for a post season appearance

*NOTE: Both the Buffalo game and Detroit game saw scores go into the 40s, but Tim Tebow threw a pick six in each of them as well as a FUMBLE for six in each of those games. So Tebow was standing on the field for FOURTEEN points scored by the opposition in TWO of the games.

So your stat sheet doesn't show that they kept Tebow in FIVE of his seven regular season wins until some lucky break bailed him out. First three quarters, he brought the offense to a whole new level of suckage. Tebow fans turned a blind eye because they saw a couple of hilights.

Careful now, as you are getting close to arguing that Tebow was a great leader and the team actually BELIEVED in his ability to win.

Future HoF'er Champ Bailey said himself that he played harder for Tebow. That's not to say that he didn't give 100% every time he stepped on the field. But it would seem that when Tebow was the QB, he gave even more. Replicate that throughout a defense and an entire team and it will probably lead to a vast improvement.

 

[Demosthenes]

Sure it counts. But those kind of performances were too few and far in between to make me think it was more than a once in a while fluke.

...and, Thomas had a lot more to do with the 236 too. Tebow only completed 10 passes that day. SOMEONE had to get him those numbers, and that took a lot of suckage on the part of the defense to rack up those numbers on so few plays.

What? You really think that record was set because Tebow was that damn good?

Why does it seem that only with Tebow is the QB not given much credit for finding and hitting his #1 WR and scoring pts ?

Hell, Matt Stafford just signed a freaking huge contract extension and he's something like 1-22 against winning teams. He's also considered to be one of the better QBs in the league. What does he do in most games (aside from turn the ball over)? He throws the ball up to Megatron, the best #1 WR in the NFL.

I guess you are going to say that the 300+ that he put up against the Texans in 2010 was a fluke as well, and that it shouldn't count because he hit his #1 WR, Lloyd for 111 of those yards ?

Again, another joke of a post.

 

[belichick010405]

Why does it seem that only with Tebow is the QB not given much credit for finding and hitting his #1 WR and scoring pts ?

Hell, Matt Stafford just signed a freaking huge contract extension and he's something like 1-22 against winning teams. He's also considered to be one of the better QBs in the league. What does he do in most games (aside from turn the ball over)? He throws the ball up to Megatron, the best #1 WR in the NFL.

I guess you are going to say that the 300+ that he put up against the Texans in 2010 was a fluke as well, and that it shouldn't count because he hit his #1 WR, Lloyd for 111 of those yards ?

Again, another joke of a post.

No offense - but if you had watched any of the Lions games then you would know why they have had issues against winning clubs. It is called their defensive secondary.

Stafford, despite a lingering arm issue, is so far beyond Tebow as a quarterback that for you to even try to compare him to Tebow is just hilarious.

I would love to see what kind of stats Tebow would have if he had to throw it 1,390 times over the course of a two-year period.

 

[Demosthenes]

No offense - but if you had watched any of the Lions games then you would know why they have had issues against winning clubs. It is called their defensive secondary.

Stafford, despite a lingering arm issue, is so far beyond Tebow as a quarterback that for you to even try to compare him to Tebow is just hilarious.

I would love to see what kind of stats Tebow would have if he had to throw it 1,390 times over the course of a two-year period.

You don't have to tell me about Stafford, I've watched him since he was back at UGA (my 2nd favorite college team behind UK)

My point was, when looking at most other QBs including Stafford, you don't penalize them for throwing to their #1 WR. CC wants to do just that. Denver's other primary receiver was Eric Decker, and he got injured fairly early in the game. When you team has 2 primary receivers and one of them gets injured, it's completely logical that the QB would end up throwing the ball to the one that remains.

But no, CC tries to make the case that much of Tebow's accomplishments in that game apparently don't count, because they were throws to DThomas.


EDIT: Believe it or not, I'd also love to see what kind of stats Tebow would have throwing that often mainly from the Shotgun.