TEBOW!!! is a Jet! (finally)

[Acantha]

Ok....now you are just bring completely obtuse. Statistics are the numerical product of performance.....i can understand english, apparently you don't understand what statistics actually mean.....statistics are the byproduct of performance. If a car goes 0-60 in 5 seconds, the result is a numerical product of the car's performance. And stop being so frickin' condescending. If you are so frustrated, stop posting.

College stats can be incredibly misleading. The game is just so different. If that wasn't the case, Colt Brennan would be winning Super Bowls right now. Even in a division like the SEC, teams play a bunch of cupcakes every year that pad stats. And even against the best competition, the odd offenses and different defensive games make comparisons impossible. Watching performance can give you the answer to why Luck will succeed in the NFL and Brennan most likely wouldn't (didn't).

 

Funny thing is, I'm not even anti-Tebow and you're all ranting and raving like I kicked your sister. Or Justin Beiber.

In a thread filled with non-sense, this takes the cake. Your history on the subject speaks volumes against that statement.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Faustus

[Kelly the Dog]

Ok....now you are just bring completely obtuse. Statistics are the numerical product of performance.....i can understand english, apparently you don't understand what statistics actually mean.....statistics are the byproduct of performance. If a car goes 0-60 in 5 seconds, the result is a numerical product of the car's performance. And stop being so frickin' condescending. If you are so frustrated, stop posting.

Okay, fine, I admit it. Statistics = performance and statistics for QBs in the SEC are the best indicator of a player's performance in the NFL. You have convinced me with cold hard facts. You happy?

 

Passing yards

 

2000-2009

 

1. David Greene, Georgia 11,528

 

2. Chris Leak, Florida 11,213

 

3. Jared Lorenzen, Kentucky 10,354

 

4. Eli Manning, Ole Miss 10,119

 

5. Casey Clausen, Tennessee 9,707

 

6. Andre Woodson, Kentucky 9,360

 

7. Tim Tebow, Florida 9,285

 

8. Rex Grossman, Florida 9,164

 

9. Erik Ainge, Tennessee 8,700

 

10. Jay Cutler, Vanderbilt 8,697

 

11. John Parker Wilson, Alabama 7,924

 

12. Matt Stafford, Georgia 7.731

 

13. Jason Campbell, Auburn 7,299

 

14. Brandon Cox, Auburn 6,959

 

15. JaMarcus Russell, LSU 6,625

 

16. Brodie Croyle, Alabama 6,382

 

17. Blake Mitchell, South Carolina 5,992

 

18. Matt Jones, Arkansas 5,857

 

19. Casey Dick, Arkansas 5,856

 

20. Kevin Fant, Mississippi State 5,631

 

Every SEC team has a quarterback on the list from a decade that featured five of the top 10 single-season passing totals in league history.

 

The top 11 passers on the decade list rank in the top 20 in conference history in career passing yards. Greene holds the record, with Leak in second. Lorenzen is sixth, Manning seventh, Clausen eighth, Woodson ninth, Tebow 11th, Grossman 12th, Ainge 14th, Cutler 15th and Wilson 20th.

 

Passing yards per game

 

Minimum 22 games

 

2000-2009

 

1. Rex Grossman, Florida 261.83

 

2. Eli Manning, Ole Miss 235.33

 

3. David Greene, Georgia 226.04

 

4. Greg Zolman, Vanderbilt 225.14

 

5. Jared Lorenzen, Kentucky 225.09

 

6. Chris Leak, Florida 219.86

 

7. Casey Clausen, Tennessee 215.71

 

8. Andre Woodson, Kentucky 208.00

 

9. Jevan Snead, Ole Miss 207.46

 

10. Erik Ainge, Tennessee 202.33

 

11. Matt Stafford, Georgia 198.23

 

12. Jay Cutler, Vanderbilt 193.27

 

13. JaMarcus Russell, LSU 184.03

 

14. Blake Mitchell, South Carolina 181.58

 

15. Rohan Davey, LSU 178.36

 

16. John Parker Wilson, Alabama 176.09

 

17. Phil Petty, South Carolina 173.14

 

18. Tim Tebow, Florida 168.82

 

19. Brodie Croyle, Alabama 159.55

 

20. Brandon Cox, Auburn 158.16

 

Two of the 10 quarterbacks who threw for at least 200 yards per game during the decade aren't on the decade's list of the top 20 in passing yards. Zolman played the first two seasons of the decade for Vanderbilt, and Snead the last two for Ole Miss.

 

Curiously, the SEC does not list a record in its annual media guide for passing yards per game, as it does for rushing and receiving yards. However, the SEC 's best is a holdover from the 1990s -- 290.9 yards per game by Kentucky's Tim Couch.

 

Passing-efficiency rating

 

Minimum 300 completions

 

2000-2009

 

1. Tim Tebow, Florida 170.79

 

2. Jason Campbell, Auburn 148.20

 

3. JaMarcus Russell, LSU 147.94

 

4. Rex Grossman, Florida 146.75

 

5. Chris Leak, Florida 140.14

 

6. Andre Woodson, Kentucky 139.90

 

7. Casey Clausen, Tennessee 139.83

 

8. David Greene, Georgia 138.26

 

9. Eli Manning, Ole Miss 137.66

 

10. Kevin Mauck, LSU 135.71

 

11. Matt Jones, Arkansas 135.61

 

12. Erik Ainge, Tennessee 134.83

 

13. Jevan Snead, Ole Miss 134.79

 

14. Matt Stafford, Georgia 133.30

 

15. Blake Mitchell, South Carolina 132.33

 

16. Brandon Cox, Auburn 130.44

 

17. Brodie Croyle, Alabama 128.35

 

18. Jared Lorenzen, Kentucky 126.24

 

19. Jay Cutler, Vanderbilt 125.87

 

20. Casey Dick, Arkansas 123.77

 

Tebow's rating is the second-best in NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision history, behind Oklahoma's Sam Bradford.

 

The passing-efficiency rating is based on completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown percentage and interception percentage with a formula originally designed to return a 100 rating for an average performance. And in the first season that the NCAA used the passing-efficiency rating to measure quarterbacks, the rating for all of major-college football was 104.79. In 2008, that rating had risen to 127.89.

 

One quarterback who did not show up in either yardage list made the top 20 in passing-efficiency rating -- LSU's Kevin Mauck at No. 10. Mauck barely qualified with 310 completions.

 

Six more quarterbacks from the decade met the minimum requirement of 300 completions, but did not rank in the top 20. They were Tennessee's Jonathan Crompton at 123.13, Alabama's John Parker Wilson at 121.23, South Carolina's Phil Petty at 119.21, South Carolina's Stephen Garcia at 118.09, Vanderbilt's Greg Zolman at 116.88 and Mississippi State's Kevin Fant at 110.50.

 

Touchdown passes

 

2000-2009

 

1. Chris Leak, Florida 88

 

1. Tim Tebow, Florida 88

 

3. Eli Manning, Ole Miss 81

 

4. Andre Woodson, Kentucky 79

 

5. Jared Lorenzen, Kentucky 78

 

6. Rex Grossman, Florida 77

 

7. Casey Clausen, Tennessee 75

 

8. Erik Ainge, Tennessee 72

 

8. David Greene, Georgia 72

 

10. Jay Cutler, Vanderbilt 59

 

11. Matt Jones, Arkansas 53

 

12. JaMarcus Russell, LSU 52

 

13. Matt Stafford, Georgia 51

 

14. Casey Dick, Arkansas 47

 

14. John Parker Wilson, Alabama 47

 

16. Jevan Snead, Ole Miss 46

 

17. Jason Campbell, Auburn 45

 

18. Brandon Cox, Auburn 42

 

19. Brodie Croyle, Alabama 41

 

20. Blake Mitchell, South Carolina 38

 

Edited October 13, 2011 by Kelly the Dog

[Haplo848]

See, my problem with all the Tebow hype after the Chargers game is that he was only 4-10 for 79 yards (granted with a TD) when he comes in off the bench after the Chargers game planned for Orton. Now that teams know that it's going to be Tebow, they will game plan and play much differently then if Orton were in. I'm not saying he will be great or horrible once they start game planning against him, I'm saying wait and see.

[Garranimal]

You also believe stats are all you need to look at when evaluating a player. We've already determined you're a black hole of intelligence, but you're fun. So I like keeping you around.

 

Funny thing is, I'm not even anti-Tebow and you're all ranting and raving like I kicked your sister. Or Justin Beiber.

Ok, I have had enough of your insults and garbage. Ever read the book Moneyball? Can you actually read? Ask your mom to read it to you? Stats aren't all you need, but they are so friggin crucial that you have no idea how important they really are. You strike me as idiot and an internet tough guy.

[Garranimal]

so every list but one has 6 NFL starters on it (the other list has 5). Are you saying that supports your argument or mine? That's 30% of the list....I can't believe you wouldn't see that as incredibly accurate....not to mention that Jamarcus Russell was a number 1 overall pick with a wealth of talent but a mental age of about 13 and a work ethic equal to Mike Williams. 6 current starters out of the 20 on the list??? Without looking it up, there are approximately 120 Div 1A teams (and how many other college teams, like say, Coe College) which churn out players to play on 32 teams. 6 of those teams have starting quarterbacks who were in the top 20 statistically in the SEC in a ten year span (plus Peyton Manning)....is that right?

[CosmicBills]

Ok, I have had enough of your insults and garbage. Ever read the book Moneyball? Can you actually read? Ask your mom to read it to you? Stats aren't all you need, but they are so friggin crucial that you have no idea how important they really are. You strike me as idiot and an internet tough guy.

First, thank you.

 

Second, you're making a jump in logic within your own argument. Moneyball examined stats from within MLB. The numbers translate because they're statistics from the same game. The SEC and the NFL are NOT the same league and not even the same GAME. Everything about the college game is different -- from the talent level to the very RULES of the game.

 

Yet you're still contending that these stats from the SEC (which has different rules and talent levels than the NFL) translate to the NFL. How can statistics from one game that has different rules ever be considered a way to accurately predict someone's success in an entirely different game? You'd be better off paying a psychic 10 bucks to guess.

 

Now go back to wearing your tinfoil hat and screaming at the grass for growing too loudly.

 

In a thread filled with non-sense, this takes the cake. Your history on the subject speaks volumes against that statement.

I'm really not though. I have nothing against the guy. I didn't want him on the Bills because I don't think he's going to be a good NFL QB. But that's just my opinion. Now that he's not on the Bills roster I really don't care if he proves me wrong or proves me right.

 

I haven't even taken a stance in this thread other than saying college statistics are meaningless when trying to determine a player's future in the NFL. Because really, at this point, it doesn't matter. The dude plays for Denver, he's just been named starting QB. What will happen will happen. He'll either flame out or deliver.

 

I just find the passionate support of a guy who has yet to prove anything in the NFL -- other than being unable to take a snap from center or get a starting job without a grass roots fan campaign forcing a new coach's hand -- amusing.

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

Okay, fine, I admit it. Statistics = performance and statistics for QBs in the SEC are the best indicator of a player's performance in the NFL. You have convinced me with cold hard facts. You happy?

 

 

You do realize that many NFL quarterbacks also played in the SEC don't you? And that none of them can even polish Tebow's boots in terms of passing accomplishments while there...including Peyton Manning.

 

This is not indisputable evidence that Tebow will be great by any means. By I think it certainly supports the argument that he will be a good NFL QB FAR MORE than that he will not be a good NFL QB....how can you possibly refute this logic?

 

First, thank you.

 

Second, you're making a jump in logic within your own argument. Moneyball examined stats from within MLB. The numbers translate because they're statistics from the same game. The SEC and the NFL are NOT the same league and not even the same GAME. Everything about the college game is different -- from the talent level to the very RULES of the game.

 

Yet you're still contending that these stats from the SEC (which has different rules and talent levels than the NFL) translate to the NFL. How can statistics from one game that has different rules ever be considered a way to accurately predict someone's success in an entirely different game? You'd be better off paying a psychic 10 bucks to guess.

 

Now go back to wearing your tinfoil hat and screaming at the grass for growing too loudly.

 

 

I'm really not though. I have nothing against the guy. I didn't want him on the Bills because I don't think he's going to be a good NFL QB. But that's just my opinion. Now that he's not on the Bills roster I really don't care if he proves me wrong or proves me right.

 

I haven't even taken a stance in this thread other than saying college statistics are meaningless when trying to determine a player's future in the NFL. Because really, at this point, it doesn't matter. The dude plays for Denver, he's just been named starting QB. What will happen will happen. He'll either flame out or deliver.

 

I just find the passionate support of a guy who has yet to prove anything in the NFL -- other than being unable to take a snap from center or get a starting job without a grass roots fan campaign forcing a new coach's hand -- amusing.

 

And yet, every NFL player also played in college somewhere. And yet, none of them come anywhere near Tebow's college accomplishments. How does this support your argument better than it supports our argument?

 

so every list but one has 6 NFL starters on it (the other list has 5). Are you saying that supports your argument or mine? That's 30% of the list....I can't believe you wouldn't see that as incredibly accurate....not to mention that Jamarcus Russell was a number 1 overall pick with a wealth of talent but a mental age of about 13 and a work ethic equal to Mike Williams. 6 current starters out of the 20 on the list??? Without looking it up, there are approximately 120 Div 1A teams (and how many other college teams, like say, Coe College) which churn out players to play on 32 teams. 6 of those teams have starting quarterbacks who were in the top 20 statistically in the SEC in a ten year span (plus Peyton Manning)....is that right?

 

 

Garranimal, logic and empirical evidence is lost on them dude. They *actually* believe that the argument "his mechanics are flawed" is stronger than "he was the greatest college QB of all time, statistically speaking". They *actually* believe that. All I can say is I'm glad they are posting here instead of discussing military games and theory at West Point...

Edited October 13, 2011 by SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

You do realize that many NFL quarterbacks also played in the SEC don't you? And that none of them can even polish Tebow's boots in terms of passing accomplishments while there...including Peyton Manning.

 

This is not indisputable evidence that Tebow will be great by any means. By I think it certainly supports the argument that he will be a good NFL QB FAR MORE than that he will not be a good NFL QB....how can you possibly refute this logic?

 

 

 

And yet, every NFL player also played in college somewhere. And yet, none of them come anywhere near Tebow's college accomplishments. How does this support your argument better than it supports our argument?

Friend, NO ONE is saying Tebow's strong college stats support the notion that he won't be successful. They're saying that it doesn't matter. Surely you can grasp this.

 

Kelly earlier made an intriguing argument that had nothing to do with statistics.

 

Being 100% on the fence on this issue, I'd love to hear an equally-as-compelling argument from the pro-Tebow camp that doesn't make extended use of college accolades. What is it exactly that makes you so sure his game will translate?

Edited October 13, 2011 by Big Bad Boone

[CosmicBills]

 

And yet, every NFL player also played in college somewhere. And yet, none of them come anywhere near Tebow's college accomplishments. How does this support your argument better than it supports our argument?

 

And ... what's your point? Just because everyone in the NFL played football somewhere before has nothing to do with it. Think about it, everyone who played in the NFL also learned to use a toilet. Some probably faster than others. That doesn't mean that there's some relevance to their performance in the NFL. It's just something they all did.

 

The college game is a different game. It has different rules, different players, different coaches. There are 18 year olds in college who haven't grown into their bodies. What you're suggesting would be like someone telling you that a dental surgeon who is the top of his field by every measurable imaginable would automatically become a top heart surgeon. It's apples and oranges. You can't compare the two no matter how hard you try.

 

If it were that simple, Tebow would have gone number 1 in the draft and there would be no need for teams to spend literally millions of dollars a year on scouting players. Instead they'd spend 50 cents and buy a paper each week and look at the box scores. But it doesn't work that way. It never has and never will.

 

Absolutely no one is arguing that Tebow was not a great college QB. If they are, they're insane. He was perfect for what the Gators needed. He had the most innovative coach in the game as well as the benefit of playing for a sheer powerhouse in terms of the talent that surrounded him. But it was Tebow who made that team work.

 

I would argue that if you put Tebow on any other team in the country, his numbers aren't nearly what they were in Florida. Urban made Tebow what he was. And he designed his offense and tailored it to his strengths as a good coach should do. On another team, Tebow would be good -- or he would have been converted into a FB/TE/WR Hybrid.

 

But again, "greatest QB of all time STATISTICALLY speaking" means absolutely nothing in terms of whether he will be a good NFL QB. Why? Because it's impossible to compare the college game to the pro game. It's that simple.

 

The real proof will be over the rest of the season. I'm glad Denver is starting him. They should find out what he can do. I know I'll watch to see how it all unfolds. If he does great, good for him. He deserves it. If he fails, tough luck. Happens to a lot of college greats.

 

I just choose not to validate my existence by the success of a QB for a team I'm not even a fan of. Some people do though, and that's what makes life interesting. Or at least hilarious.

Edited October 13, 2011 by tgreg99

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

No...its comparing green apples to red apples. It's football and football. Not football and basketball. Let me go ahead and dissect this beautiful post for you.

 

And ... what's your point? Just because everyone in the NFL played football somewhere before has nothing to do with it. Think about it, everyone who played in the NFL also learned to use a toilet. Some probably faster than others. That doesn't mean that there's some relevance to their performance in the NFL. It's just something they all did.

 

===

 

So you are suggesting that projecting a player's potential performance in the NFL based on their ability to play college football is no more valid than projecting a player's NFL potential based on his ability to defecate? Wow. Good bye credibility. Hello absurdity.

 

===

 

The college game is a different game. It has different rules, different players, different coaches. There are 18 year olds in college who haven't grown into their bodies. What you're suggesting would be like someone telling you that a dental surgeon who is the top of his field by every measurable imaginable would automatically become a top heart surgeon. It's apples and oranges. You can't compare the two no matter how hard you try.

 

===

 

Um, actually what I'm suggesting is that you could project the talent level of a dental surgeon based on his performance in dental school versus that of other dental surgeons' performance when they were in dental school. Absurdity and lack of logical comprehension.

 

===

 

If it were that simple, Tebow would have gone number 1 in the draft and there would be no need for teams to spend literally millions of dollars a year on scouting players. Instead they'd spend 50 cents and buy a paper each week and look at the box scores. But it doesn't work that way. It never has and never will.

 

===

 

He did go in the first round - despite the fact that a myriad of analysts were emphatically proclaiming he would never be an NFL quarterback...In my opinion, your argument is working dead against you here.

 

===

 

Absolutely no one is arguing that Tebow was not a great college QB. If they are, they're insane. He was perfect for what the Gators needed. He had the most innovative coach in the game as well as the benefit of playing for a sheer powerhouse in terms of the talent that surrounded him. But it was Tebow who made that team work.

 

===

 

Well let's see...what has Florida done since Tebow left? Well, their coach resigned, and they finished 8-5 last year and are sitting at 4-2 this year against the same competition they played en route to two national championships while Tebow was there. So apparently as soon as Tebow left, the talent level at Florida dropped off significantly enough that their head coach jumped overboard like a rat on a sinking ship...

 

===

 

I would argue that if you put Tebow on any other team in the country, his numbers aren't nearly what they were in Florida. Urban made Tebow what he was. And he designed his offense and tailored it to his strengths as a good coach should do. On another team, Tebow would be good -- or he would have been converted into a FB/TE/WR Hybrid.

 

===

 

And yet he didn't stick around to make the next quarterback into a Heisman winning, record breaking, leader of multiple national championship teams...I guess Urban is just looking for a greater challenge, eh? Perhaps he's looking for a paraplegic QB prospect that he can turn into a Heisman winner...

 

===

 

But again, "greatest QB of all time STATISTICALLY speaking" means absolutely nothing in terms of whether he will be a good NFL QB. Why? Because it's impossible to compare the college game to the pro game. It's that simple.

 

===

 

It is? Don't tell that to Andrew luck or Peyton Manning. In fact, why not just draft players off the street? And what exactly are they basing their draft picks on? Good looks?

 

===

 

The real proof will be over the rest of the season. I'm glad Denver is starting him. They should find out what he can do. I know I'll watch to see how it all unfolds. If he does great, good for him. He deserves it. If he fails, tough luck. Happens to a lot of college greats.

 

===

 

You mean if he does great, you'll jump ship on your argument like Urban Meyer on a sinking Gators squad...

 

===

 

I just choose not to validate my existence by the success of a QB for a team I'm not even a fan of. Some people do though, and that's what makes life interesting. Or at least hilarious.

 

===

 

I validate my existence by exposing obvious logical fallacies for people who have no capacity to do so for themselves. And I couldn't care less what validates your existence. I do know that you waste your time posting on a meaningless message board however, which makes your statement a tad hypocritical.

 

 

Other than that, you raise some good points. Well, I'm sure at some point in your life you've made at least one good point about something.

Edited October 13, 2011 by SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

Friend, NO ONE is saying Tebow's strong college stats support the notion that he won't be successful. They're saying that it doesn't matter. Surely you can grasp this.

 

Kelly earlier made an intriguing argument that had nothing to do with statistics.

 

Being 100% on the fence on this issue, I'd love to hear an equally-as-compelling argument from the pro-Tebow camp that doesn't make extended use of college accolades. What is it exactly that makes you so sure his game will translate?

 

 

First of all, I'm not your friend.

 

Lastly, I would suggest that you are the one having trouble grasping the point. I am arguing that the relevancy and validity of Tebow's or any other player's college statistics far exceeds the relevancy and validity of speculation regarding "ideal throwing motion." For example, who establishes "ideal throwing motion"? And once we know who establishes the standard for such an argument, then we must inquire as to their credentials to establish such a standard. You see, statistics are much more objective than "ideal throwing motion".

 

Now just consider this: if you were on trial for your life, would you prefer a lawyer who was making subjective, speculative arguments, or one who was making empirical, objective arguments?

 

Have a nice day.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

The Tebow lovers are just getting warmed up. Wait till Denver squeaks by a pathetic Miami team, then we'll really hear it.

 

And by the way -- how pathetic is the Dolphin franchise? They are actually honoring Tebow before the game. Wow.

Wow the fins are sad.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

Great job tooting your own horn regarding your test results, way to be humble. I don't remember claiming to be smarter than anyone. I said "surely you can grasp this" because you haven't yet shown that you do, so I'll keep it simple.

 

It has already been disproven that college accolades alone, even from the SEC, indicate professional success. The arguments from the skeptics on the other hand are based upon very logical concerns gleaned from observation. If you think all Kelly talked about was some elusive "ideal throwing motion," please, read the post. There were multiple legitimate concerns brought up.

 

Your college-accolade-based argument has been rendered useless by a long list of names that included Erik Ainge. If you can't make an argument that doesn't use college accolades as a crutch, you have no data, empirical or otherwise. You have nothing suggesting Tebow isn't another Erik Ainge or Danny Wuerfel, a college hero doomed for professional failure.

 

There is a reason Andrew Luck is considered perhaps the best quarterback prospect in a decade or two, and it is not statistics. Other quarterbacks have produced better stats. It's because he has been OBSERVED to have the combination of physical tools and mental acumen to succeed at the higher level.

 

You need to show not that Tebow (a less accurate passer than Luck) was great in college, which everyone accepts, but why it will translate to the next level. Otherwise you're failing to seperate him from past NFL busts.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Big Bad Boone

[Chandler#81]

IMO, Tebow's less than ideal throwing motion is more about how the ball leaves his fingertips and less about arm/shoulder motion. The vast majority of his throws wobble like a bad punt. He's accurate enough, but with wobble, the ball takes longer to get to the intended spot. NFL DB's are the best & fastest DB's in any league and close with extreme speed. Brees, Rodgers, Brady throw perfect missle spirals vitually every time, yet their throws are just as contested by DB's -always a hand somewhere near the chest or hands of the receiver. So if the physics of a wobbly throw indicate it taking longer to get to the intended spot than a perfect spiral, the likelyhood of it be contested at that spot is greater. Thus -again, IMO, he's very challenged to be successful at this level.

 

What I don't understand is why this continues to be an issue with him (wobbly passes) My 5 year old Grandboy can throw a pretty decent spiral..

 

I love the guy (Gator fan) and hope he makes it. I just don't think he will until he learns to throw better.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Chandler#81
added final comment

[Garranimal]

Great job tooting your own horn regarding your test results, way to be humble. I don't remember claiming to be smarter than anyone. I said "surely you can grasp this" because you haven't yet shown that you do, so I'll keep it simple.

 

It has already been disproven that college accolades alone, even from the SEC, indicate professional success. The arguments from the skeptics on the other hand are based upon very logical concerns gleaned from observation. If you think all Kelly talked about was some elusive "ideal throwing motion," please, read the post. There were multiple legitimate concerns brought up.

 

Your college-accolade-based argument has been rendered useless by a long list of names that included Erik Ainge. If you can't make an argument that doesn't use college accolades as a crutch, you have no data, empirical or otherwise. You have nothing suggesting Tebow isn't another Erik Ainge or Danny Wuerfel, a college hero doomed for professional failure.

 

There is a reason Andrew Luck is considered perhaps the best quarterback prospect in a decade or two, and it is not statistics. Other quarterbacks have produced better stats. It's because he has been OBSERVED to have the combination of physical tools and mental acumen to succeed at the higher level.

 

You need to show not that Tebow (a less accurate passer than Luck) was great in college, which everyone accepts, but why it will translate to the next level. Otherwise you're failing to seperate him from past NFL busts.

Ugh, first of all, not one thing has been "disproven"....secondly, I have never stated that the are the sole indicator....i have stated repeatedly (ad nauseum) that they are AN INDICATOR that is relevant whether anyone cares to admit it or not....toilet training stories aside (WTF?). And while you can throw examples of good college QBs who never made it in the NFL, I can do the exact same thing citing examples of college QBs who were both excellent in college and in the pros. But to sit there and try to make a convincing argument that college performance (and stats) have nothing to do with how a player is evaluated is asinine. And Moneyball is completely relevant because it is about how baseball people who looked at how Football players were so heavily tracked with statistics and decided to bring that type of evaluation process to baseball. Please go talk to any NFL scout and ask them how many college (and even high school) stats they pour over.

 

Oh and by the way, college baseball uses aluminum bats....which is fundamentally a huge difference between college and pro....but yeah, whatever argument works.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Garranimal

[26CornerBlitz]

Ugh, first of all, not one thing has been "disproven"....secondly, I have never stated that the are the sole indicator....i have stated repeatedly (ad nauseum) that they are AN INDICATOR that is relevant whether anyone cares to admit it or not....toilet training stories aside (WTF?). And while you can throw examples of good college QBs who never made it in the NFL, I can do the exact same thing citing examples of college QBs who were both excellent in college and in the pros. But to sit there and try to make a convincing argument that college performance (and stats) have nothing to do with how a player is evaluated is asinine. And Moneyball is completely relevant because it is about how baseball people who looked at how Football players were so heavily tracked with statistics and decided to bring that type of evaluation process to baseball. Please go talk to any NFL scout and ask them how many college (and even high school) stats they pour over.

 

An NFL scout will value College Film or Tape over College Stats on any day. College Stats are a far less valuable indicator vs the Video that they study to determine how a College player's game will translate to the NFL.

 

Gaudy college stats just do not mean that much in the overall evaluation process.

[Dorkington]

Ok, I have had enough of your insults and garbage. Ever read the book Moneyball? Can you actually read? Ask your mom to read it to you? Stats aren't all you need, but they are so friggin crucial that you have no idea how important they really are. You strike me as idiot and an internet tough guy.

Relevant statistics are important.

 

Key word, relevant.

[thebug]

I'm guessing Tim Tebow Fathead sales must be through the roof. Do you guys have them on your wall or ceiling?

[Chandler#81]

I'm guessing Tim Tebow Fathead sales must be through the roof. Do you guys have them on your wall or ceiling?

 

 

..wall.. Gator uni..

[DrDawkinstein]

An NFL scout will value College Film or Tape over College Stats on any day. College Stats are a far less valuable indicator vs the Video that they study to determine how a College player's game will translate to the NFL.

 

Gaudy college stats just do not mean that much in the overall evaluation process.

 

And I'd suggest that most of his detractors HAVENT watched much film on the guy. They see his "awkward" motion, they hear all the experts talk about it, and their mind is made up.

 

If anyone DOES watch his college career, there is no way they come to the conclusion that he won't succeed in the NFL. Week in and week out, against the best defenses in the country, all the kid did was win, win championships, and set records. PASSING records, for that matter.