Tebow, Blount, Edelman

[Demosthenes]

You do if you think you have a good one that still needs grooming. It would be true if Tebow established himself as a starting caliber player and a true leader in the NFL. However, he had not. Despite what you think, most don't accept him as being that type of player yet, so it would have been fine if Denver had demoted him for awhile while just about everyone was willing to accept at the time that he still needed a lot of work to be an effective passer in this league. Few could look at him at the time and say he was already there in that department. Absolutely the Broncos could have and probably would have kept him if they thought he would be what you seem to think he would be. Hell, they might not have pursued Manning at all if they believed they had their guy of the future cemented for the next decade plus.

but they didn't, and nobody else took him on thinking he was pretty good and just ended up in the wrong situation with Manning. There's a lot more to teams avoiding Tebow and you know it.

Actually, a lot of guys would/do say that he established himself as a starting caliber player and that he definitely is a true leader. That isn't to say that they thought he was top10/15, or even top20, but that still leaves 12 other ranking slots open.

Like I said, it would have been different had Tebow only come in for a couple games or had he not taken over at all. Elway still might have traded him away to bring in a pocket passer as he's not overly fond of dual threat/running QBs. Or, he might have done what he talked about doing, which is to have worked with Tebow personally (as much as the CBA would allow.)

You might think it crazy, not that your opinion matters much, but I believe that if Peyton had turned the Broncos down, Tebow would have been the starter in 2012, and yes, Elway would have worked with him.

But they had the chance to bring in Peyton Freaking Manning. You have to go all the way back to Montana leaving San Fran and going to KC as an example of something of this magnitude occurring.

If you stretch it, sure. But It is still a theory that those stats would mainain over the course of 16 games. It doesn't work that way in sports and you know it. Anyone can cherry pick a small sample and stretch it out to make someone look good. I can take that ONE game where he got 316 yards passing, and say he would be on pace to finish at 5056 yards passing in a 16 game season and then say it is fact. What sort of idiot is going to believe Tebow is capable of passing for 5000 yards? Maybe I could take the game where he went 2 for 8 on passing in that first Kansas City game and say it is a "fact" that projected over 16 games, he'd complete 32 passes all year out of 128 attempts

Yeah, I didn't think you'd accept that projection at face value either.

Have to ask, do you have even an elementary understanding of statistics ? I mean, I'm no rocket scientist or graduate level student when it comes to stats, but I at least have a basic fundamental understanding of them.

The only thing "factual" is whatever stats he managed to post that day... but of course, there is the matter of "context" that goes with them. Projection is just that, projection based on some theory that it would maintain, just to make Tebow look better than he actually is.

Whatever you say sunshine.

I didn't SAY that was the ONLY change. So whatever conclusion you drew off THAT premise is flawed. But it does make sense to me that getting a real QB was the BIGGEST contribution to the improvment. You seem to think that was only a small part and getting Tamme and the WRs one more year made the biggest difference. Could not disagree with that one more.

I think that if they didn't bring in Tamme and Stokely, and if they had left the running of the offense to McCoy, then no, that offense wouldn't have been close to as good as it was last year.

If you want to get even further into it, if you magically put Manning on the 2011 Denver Broncos in place of Tebow, with Mike McCoy designing the offense and calling the plays, it's hard to say how much better their record would have been. The Pats definitely would have beaten them both times. Hell, the Steelers probably would have beaten them. Would have to go back and see who else they played. In regular season, they would have been better than 7-4, but I don't think they would have gone 11-0 just by adding Manning.

Thank you for admitting Manning had more to do with the improvment of the Broncos offense than anything else. Like I said, it started with the upgrade at QB. 75% at least, you and I finally agree on something

Again, DUH. Are you at all familiar with PFM and his record as a QB ? Of course he was an upgrade at QB. Isn't that kind of indicated by my statements earlier that "of course, they brought in PFM" ?

You just sat there trying to argue that the difference had more to do with adding players than it did Manning.

We were discussing that offense being one of the very best in the NFL. Peyton alone did not do that.

What admission? That isn't what I was saying and you know it.

It's not what you meant to say, but that is clearly what you said.

All I said was the OFFENSE would have been better than it was with better players on it. Even if you had the 100th best QB in the league, (counting second stringers and third stringers) better players is better production but the suckwad at QB is still a suckwad. I mean, really, there are several backups in the league who also could have had the Broncos at 25th in the league...and gotten the Broncos the 13 -16 points needed to win several of those games.... so no, NONE of that means he was the 25th best QB in the league. FACTUALLY, it would have made him the QB of the OFFENSE that ranked #25. But since I think any starter around the league and at least half the backups could have matched his production, then you know what I think of your cherry picking the stats again trying to make Tebow look good.

Just for grins and giggles, go ahead and tell us all which other backup QBs would have gone 7-4 or better with the Broncos in 2011, then would have beaten the Steelers in the playoffs.

Heck, while you are at it, go and tell us if you think Orton would have gone 7-4 or better if he had been left as the starter.

You're taking total offensive stats and saying it means that is how good Tebow is. That's not what I said at all, but of course you knew that.

Whatever you say sunshine.

He'd be 4-12 AT BEST and don't forget it. That defense is the ONLY reason you get to post his win/loss record and say he's proven himself. if not for the defense keeping teams like the Jets, Chiefs, Chargers, Bears, Dolphins, Houston (his rookie year) and Kansas City (twice but still losing one of them) to 15 points or less, he'd have every bit the lousy record Kyle Orton had with Denver. That leaves TWO wins that he got where he needed more points and got them. (Raiders game, 1 score came from punt return, and another came on a single play drive that was a handoff that went for more than 60 yards.)

Good lord, what a joke. Tebow posted 23, 24 and 28 pts in his first 3 starts his rookie year. Looks like your numbers are off a bit sunshine.

 

[sb1]

Never claimed that the stat was perfect. If I find one that is, I'll be sure to let you know about it right after I retire with the millions I'll make betting in Vegas

What I know is this. When you look up at the scoreboard, the only thing that determines who won and who lost is the points on the board. If your defense stops the other team from scoring a lot of points every game, that's good. If they don't, that's bad.

Even when looking at total pts allowed, the numbers are skewed for the Pats as opponents have usually have more opportunities to score, given the pace of the Pats offense and their scoring frequency.

Let me put it this way. If your defense gives up a lot of yards, there's an excellent chance they won't be able to limit the other team from scoring very often. And certainly not limit them from scoring when it matters most (see Patriots, 2011)

There is no "perfect" metric to measure how good a D is... and I agree that yards allowed aren't the panacea either. It's a combination of things IMO. It's hard to dig too deep into these things because everything is so connected in football. Baseball is different, it's a series of 1 vs 1 match ups, that's why something like sabermetrics exists for baseball and not football.

 

[Remarker]

So much for reading this thread. Concerned Citizen is in here trying to save the world from Tebow. I read all his drivel on Gang Green's board.

Hahaha, he so predictable...from going to all the different message boards of the teams Tim is on to saying the same ole stuff over and over again. Can anyone spell stalker?

Oh well.

@Kontradiction
It's right nice 'round here. We are elevation 130ish feet and get good breezes.

 

[Demosthenes]

Let me put it this way. If your defense gives up a lot of yards, there's an excellent chance they won't be able to limit the other team from scoring very often. And certainly not limit them from scoring when it matters most (see Patriots, 2011)

There is no "perfect" metric to measure how good a D is... and I agree that yards allowed aren't the panacea either. It's a combination of things IMO. It's hard to dig too deep into these things because everything is so connected in football. Baseball is different, it's a series of 1 vs 1 match ups, that's why something like sabermetrics exists for baseball and not football.

Agree with your first point somewhat, but not completely. Brady and this offense doesn't seem to be the type that goes 3 and out from their 5 yard line very often. Therefore, other teams will usually be working with a long field. If you limit the number of big plays, then said teams will have to mount sustained drives. That's problematic for many NFL teams. It's one thing to score in 6 plays, quite another to mount a 15 play drive and march all the way down the field. The more plays an offense runs, the more chances a defense has on capitalizing on an offensive miscue or forcing a turnover via fumble or interception.

Then you get to the whole "red zone theory" so to speak, where there's less room for teams to operate and the pressure increases. Less room is obvious as there is less ground for the defense to have to defend.

Funny thing is that most people recognize QBs or offenses who are great between the 20s, but fall apart in the red zone. They can rack up impressive stats, except for the TD column.

As for stopping teams from scoring when it matters most, that's gets to the question of how to evaluate a defense. Great defenses give up very few yards, very few points, and can shut opposing teams down when it really matters. Terrible defenses give up lots of yards, lots of points and can't shut down anything.

In between, there are something like 7 other possibilities on a sliding scale (trying to remember combinations and permutations ). Question then is how to rank all of that.

 

[Brady6]

I would love to see the breakdown of the posts in this thread. Of the 724 how do you think it would breakdown posts per player?

Tebow =
Edelman =
Blount =

 

[Oswlek]

Let me put it this way. If your defense gives up a lot of yards, there's an excellent chance they won't be able to limit the other team from scoring very often. And certainly not limit them from scoring when it matters most (see Patriots, 2011)

There is no "perfect" metric to measure how good a D is... and I agree that yards allowed aren't the panacea either. It's a combination of things IMO. It's hard to dig too deep into these things because everything is so connected in football. Baseball is different, it's a series of 1 vs 1 match ups, that's why something like sabermetrics exists for baseball and not football.

The funny thing is, NE's great defenses did no better "when it mattered most" than the 2011 unit did (or even 2007, for that matter). They just left a little bit more time on the clock for the offense at the end.

 

[Ironman44]

I would love to see the breakdown of the posts in this thread. Of the 724 how do you think it would breakdown posts per player?

Tebow
Edelman
Blount

Tebow =712
Edelman =6
Blount =6

 

[ivanvamp]

The funny thing is, NE's great defenses did no better "when it mattered most" than the 2011 unit did (or even 2007, for that matter). They just left a little bit more time on the clock for the offense at the end.

Yep.

2001 - St. Louis scored two TDs in the last 9:33, including the tying score with just 1:30 left in the game. Fortunately, that was enough time left for Brady to get in Vinatieri's range for the game-winner.

2003 - Carolina scored 19 fourth-quarter points, including two TDs in the last 6:53 (and including one with just 1:08 left). Fortunately, that was enough time left for Brady to get in Vinatieri's range for the game-winner.

2004 - Bad clock management by Philly doomed them, but they still scored a TD with 1:48 left to pull them within three points.

2007 - New York scored 14 points in the 4th quarter, including the game-winning TD with just 35 seconds left on the clock. That wasn't enough time for Brady to move NE into position to tie or win the game (though they came really close, as a NY Giant defender tipped a pass away at the last second that would have been a TD pass to Moss).

2011 - New York scored the last 12 points of the game, including the winning TD with just 57 seconds left in the game. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough time for Brady to move NE to a winning score (though they came really close, as the Hail Mary to Gronk fell incomplete by one little yard).

 

[Demosthenes]

I would love to see the breakdown of the posts in this thread. Of the 724 how do you think it would breakdown posts per player?

Tebow =
Edelman =
Blount =

Don't know about the post count breakdown by player, BUT, given a certain person's earlier comment (not your's ) , I did find this to be pretty funny (and ironic):

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 728
User Name Posts

belicheck010405 90
Brady6 78
Demosthenes 69
......

 

[Brady6]

Don't know about the post count breakdown by player, BUT, given a certain person's earlier comment, I did find this to be pretty funny (and ironic):

Oh I didn't say I wasn't part of it. But some of my posts were also about other players.

I'm new to this place, and addicted. I need patsfans rehab.

 

[Christiancat]

I'll tell you what I DO know... two teams had him and decided they were better off with him playing somewhere else. That doesn't strike me as them thinking the world of Tebow.

Everyone on the planet knew Manning's career in Denver was going to be short term. Why get rid of a "great leader" when all they need from him is to sit and learn a couple years? Maybe three.

It doesn't make sense unless you are willing to at least consider that they weren't all that impressed with him, and didn't think he'd get where they thought he'd need to be any time soon.




How is a projection of a few games stretched over a 16 game season "factual." Shouldn't those games actually be played to be "factual?" It is a "theory" at best. That would be like me taking his last 5 games, going 1-4, and projecting that over 16.... sure looks a lot less favorable than the 9-7 he somehow got as a starter, right? What would that be? Something like 4-12 at best?

Makes more sense that they got THIS much better when they had a competent QB throwing to them. Even when he was overcoming the nerve damage issues that he had trouble adjusting to for the first 6 games or so.



I didn't say adding those guys wasn't an improvment. I just don't think it improved the team nearly as much as improving the ability to get those guys the ball in the form of upgrading QB did. I'd say 75% if the offensve improvment was simply at the QB position alone. Adding a couple of those other guys helped, but the offense still probably would have stunk with Tebow throwing it to them. MAYBE they would have improved to 20th, but I don't know because the second half of his time at starter was a lot less productive that the first half once teams got some more game tape on him.



Improved, but still garbage. Tebow might not have finished DEAD LAST in most major passing categories like he did in 2011, but I don't believe it would have gotten him anywhere near even the middle of the pack either.

Honestly, where do you think the Broncos offense would have ranked in 2012 if you swapped Manning for Tebow? A handful of slots back? 10 slots? Don't kid yourself, Tebow was just as detrimental to offensive production as he was good in late 4th quarters after the defense THANKFULLY was able to keep him in the game until then.

Why do you have an agenda against Tim Tebow? You don't think he's a good football player and that's fine. But why go on and on about how bad Tebow is? Tim's not a flawless football player, but he's much better than you give him credit for.

 

[Demosthenes]

Oh I didn't say I wasn't part of it. But some of my posts were also about other players.

I'm new to this place, and addicted. I need patsfans rehab.

My apologies for not being clearer in my post. The dig wasn't directed at you.

I completely get being addicted to this place, it's hit me too. Man I can't wait for things to ratchet up.

 

[PatsDog]

My apologies for not being clearer in my post. The dig wasn't directed at you.

I completely get being addicted to this place, it's hit me too. Man I can't wait for things to ratchet up.

Ron Burgundy - That Escalated Quickly - YouTube

 

[situational_awareness]

Two updates from Home - Footballguys

NE - Two RBs could get bigger roles
Source: ESPNBoston.com - Field Yates
New England Patriots RBs Brandon Bolden and Shane Vereen could receive bigger roles in the offense this season.
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ FOOTBALLGUYS VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
Bolden has to beat out LeGarrette Blount first. The Patriots traded for power back Blount earlier this offseason and he could win the primary backup job over Bolden. Vereen will get more playing time in many different roles. The team could split him out wide as a receiver in addition to giving him carries and passes out of the backfield.

NE - QB Tim Tebow expected to work at QB only
Source: ESPNBoston.com - Field Yates
New England Patriots QB Tim Tebow is expected to work only as a quarterback during training camp and likely will not see any time at tight end.
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ FOOTBALLGUYS VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
Many assume the Patriots are reeling at the TE position since they released Aaron Hernandez. That's simply not the case. They have a few guys at the position behind Rob Gronkowski that will compete for playing time. Daniel Fells, Jake Ballard, Michael Hoomanawanui, and Zach Sudfeld will all try to make an impression in training camp.

 

[situational_awareness]

Lets put it this way - if you and some of the new guys were not over here lamenting about Tebow and his career, then the select few that have been on this thread would also not be talking about him ad nauseum.

Yet - the wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round and the Tebow discussion continues like one big ***********.

 

[situational_awareness]

Two updates from Home - Footballguys

NE - Two RBs could get bigger roles
Source: ESPNBoston.com - Field Yates
New England Patriots RBs Brandon Bolden and Shane Vereen could receive bigger roles in the offense this season.
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ FOOTBALLGUYS VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
Bolden has to beat out LeGarrette Blount first. The Patriots traded for power back Blount earlier this offseason and he could win the primary backup job over Bolden. Vereen will get more playing time in many different roles. The team could split him out wide as a receiver in addition to giving him carries and passes out of the backfield.

NE - QB Tim Tebow expected to work at QB only
Source: ESPNBoston.com - Field Yates
New England Patriots QB Tim Tebow is expected to work only as a quarterback during training camp and likely will not see any time at tight end.
[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ FOOTBALLGUYS VIEW ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]
Many assume the Patriots are reeling at the TE position since they released Aaron Hernandez. That's simply not the case. They have a few guys at the position behind Rob Gronkowski that will compete for playing time. Daniel Fells, Jake Ballard, Michael Hoomanawanui, and Zach Sudfeld will all try to make an impression in training camp.

Hehe. I see that nobody wants to talk about the other players.

 

[sb1]

Agree with your first point somewhat, but not completely. Brady and this offense doesn't seem to be the type that goes 3 and out from their 5 yard line very often. Therefore, other teams will usually be working with a long field. If you limit the number of big plays, then said teams will have to mount sustained drives. That's problematic for many NFL teams. It's one thing to score in 6 plays, quite another to mount a 15 play drive and march all the way down the field. The more plays an offense runs, the more chances a defense has on capitalizing on an offensive miscue or forcing a turnover via fumble or interception.

On the flip side of that, 3rd down conversions are one of the most underrated offensive stats out there. (and same with 3rd down conversions allowed for defense). If you are good at 3rd down conversions you are taking time off the clock, keeping the other offense off the field and imposing your will on the D.

The 2011 Pats D, by the way... 5th worst in the NFL in 3rd down conversions allowed. The 2010 Pats D....statistically the worst in the NFL in that category and it wasn't close.

For this team especially, allowing other teams to convert a lot of 3rd downs is a very bad trait to have because that means Tom Brady is not on the field for extended periods of time. In a way you could say this might have been "costing" the Patriots points.

Rankings like that on 3rd down are not traits of any good defense.

Then you get to the whole "red zone theory" so to speak, where there's less room for teams to operate and the pressure increases. Less room is obvious as there is less ground for the defense to have to defend.

Funny thing is that most people recognize QBs or offenses who are great between the 20s, but fall apart in the red zone. They can rack up impressive stats, except for the TD column.

And this conversation is also true for an offense. Yards aren't everything either.

As for stopping teams from scoring when it matters most, that's gets to the question of how to evaluate a defense. Great defenses give up very few yards, very few points, and can shut opposing teams down when it really matters. Terrible defenses give up lots of yards, lots of points and can't shut down anything.

Yup.

And where the Pats excelled when they were winning titles: they usually made the big play or the big stop when they needed to, and in big games. For example the 2004 Pats held a record breaking Colts offense and a record breaking Peyton Manning to a field goal in a playoff game. Should have been a shutout because an INT got dropped in the end zone. If this Patriots defense was like that, the Pats would have at least another ring.

That's why even though the 2011 Steelers on paper had the #1 defense in yardage I just can't respect that ranking very much. They didn't play very many good offenses that year, they also ranked in the bottom half of the league in sacks, and they were 25th in the league in INTs, and dead last in the NFL in forced fumbles. That tells me that team was old, slow, could not make the clutch stop, could not make the big play and thus very overrated by people who call them good because they only looked at the yards stat.


In between, there are something like 7 other possibilities on a sliding scale (trying to remember combinations and permutations ). Question then is how to rank all of that.

Exactly. Like I said there is no "perfect" metric so it's basically opinion anyway. For me its what I said above.

..........

 

[sb1]

Yep.

2001 - St. Louis scored two TDs in the last 9:33, including the tying score with just 1:30 left in the game. Fortunately, that was enough time left for Brady to get in Vinatieri's range for the game-winner.

They did but it doesn't take away what they were doing to the high powered Rams all game.


2003 - Carolina scored 19 fourth-quarter points, including two TDs in the last 6:53 (and including one with just 1:08 left). Fortunately, that was enough time left for Brady to get in Vinatieri's range for the game-winner.

Well, to be fair, the secondary saw some catastrophic injuries in that game, Rodney Harrison broke his arm and Eugene wilson had a hip injury chasing Muhammad on his long TD and had to leave the game too...that was major impact on what happened in that 4th quarter. I'm glad that game didn't go to OT, I don't think it would have ended well for us if we had to kick to the Panthers.

2004 - Bad clock management by Philly doomed them, but they still scored a TD with 1:48 left to pull them within three points.


2007 - New York scored 14 points in the 4th quarter, including the game-winning TD with just 35 seconds left on the clock. That wasn't enough time for Brady to move NE into position to tie or win the game (though they came really close, as a NY Giant defender tipped a pass away at the last second that would have been a TD pass to Moss).

It's hard for me to judge how good that 07 defense really was, since the offense was carrying them the entire year.

And I still believe Moss could have caught that if he made an effort.



2011 - New York scored the last 12 points of the game, including the winning TD with just 57 seconds left in the game. Unfortunately, that wasn't enough time for Brady to move NE to a winning score (though they came really close, as the Hail Mary to Gronk fell incomplete by one little yard).

The Giants scoring the last 12 points of the game wasn't exactly all the defense's fault. I thought the D played all right, they took away the vertical threat and conceded the run. I thought Brady could have played better, and I didn't get some of the playcalling on offense, like why they didn't attack a weak Giants run D more than they did.

..........

 

[Demosthenes]

..........

Just as an aside, when you put your answers inline (inside) the quoted text, it makes it difficult to respond.

On the flip side of that, 3rd down conversions are one of the most underrated offensive stats out there. (and same with 3rd down conversions allowed for defense). If you are good at 3rd down conversions you are taking time off the clock, keeping the other offense off the field and imposing your will on the D.

The 2011 Pats D, by the way... 5th worst in the NFL in 3rd down conversions allowed. The 2010 Pats D....statistically the worst in the NFL in that category and it wasn't close.

For this team especially, allowing other teams to convert a lot of 3rd downs is a very bad trait to have because that means Tom Brady is not on the field for extended periods of time.

Rankings like that on 3rd down are not traits of any good defense.

Strange as it may seem, 3rd down conversion (offense or defense) has a fairly low correlation with winning. Think it's around .54 or something like that.

That's why even though the 2011 Steelers on paper had the #1 defense in yardage I just can't respect that ranking very much. They didn't play very many good offenses that year, they also ranked in the bottom half of the league in sacks, and they were 25th in the league in INTs, and dead last in the NFL in forced fumbles. That tells me that team was old, slow, could not make the clutch stop, could not make the big play and thus very overrated by people who call them good because they only looked at the yards stat.

Pitt was #1 in yardage, but more importantly (imo), they were #1 in pts allowed @ 14.2 pts per game. Haven't looked at it to see what the stats show as to how they did it, but it's safe to say that it wasn't by forcing TO's, as you pointed out

 

[sb1]

Just as an aside, when you put your answers inline (inside) the quoted text, it makes it difficult to respond.





Strange as it may seem, 3rd down conversion (offense or defense) has a fairly low correlation with winning. Think it's around .54 or something like that.




Pitt was #1 in yardage, but more importantly (imo), they were #1 in pts allowed @ 14.2 pts per game. Haven't looked at it to see what the stats show as to how they did it, but it's safe to say that it wasn't by forcing TO's, as you pointed out

Yeah sorry, I just thought it's easier to respond that way going point by point

I suppose for some teams a high 3rd down conversion allowed might not matter as much since their offense isn't all that but for this team it's a really bad thing. Our best player (Brady) needs to be on the field as much as possible and if the other team is able to sustain long clock killing drives that is not possible.

If your defense can stop the other team on 3rd down that says a lot about your D and all of it good. You can get the clutch stop, you can make the big play or just simply that your D puts the other offense in a lot of 3rd and longs. You can beat superior offenses that way.

Case in point: one of the biggest reasons why the Pats limited the high powered 2003-04 Colts offenses is a very strong running game and their ability to convert on 3rd down keeping Peyton Manning off the field and kill clock. And that's a good thing.

As for Pitt, 1 in points allowed is great but again they only played one top offense all season. They also played 8 of the BOTTOM-10 pass offenses that year. Combine those tidbits with the fact they couldn't make plays or get turnovers and that takes a lot of the shine off that "#1 ranking" for me. JMO.