TEBOW SUCKS!!!

[L.Freamon]

I really have no issue with people who are making an honest observation that he doesn't measure up. He very well may not.

I have been a fan of Jeff Innes on WIP, but I really think what he is doing in mocking Tebow is unconcionable. What Tebow is attempting is a real life Rocky Balboa sort of comeback. If successful, it would be a Vince Papale sort of story.

At the end of the day, in the court of public opinion, it shouldn't really matter if the guy is successful or not. What he is attempting is admirable and reflects well on his character win or lose. To mock him IMO is just wrong. I like to think that most people would admire the effort win or lose. To root against his effort reflects poorly on the human condition.

I dont root against him. I just don't think he's very good. I don't understand folks that root for an underperformer though, and advocate for that being a part of the team.

Josh Innes could be a decent radio host if he dropped the Howard Stern immitation. Till then, he can kick rocks.

 

[deerpathdave]

I dont root against him. I just don't think he's very good. I don't understand folks that root for an underperformer though, and advocate for that being a part of the team.

Josh Innes could be a decent radio host if he dropped the Howard Stern immitation. Till then, he can kick rocks.

Statistically at least, Tebow has outperformed Barkley in the preseason games. He has a better QBR and has put up excellent rushing numbers as well.

 

[Wings]

Statistically at least, Tebow has outperformed Barkley in the preseason games. He has a better QBR and has put up excellent rushing numbers as well.

You get dumber by the day.

 

[deerpathdave]

You get dumber by the day.

I provide good verifiable information and you respond this way?? And you are a moderator??

 

[DutchBird]

Statistically at least, Tebow has outperformed Barkley in the preseason games. He has a better QBR and has put up excellent rushing numbers as well.

But when looking at the eye test, Tebow has not done so well (see tuck-and-run-while-TD-to-be-had). It is similar to whatever Rookie WR Carolina had last year - everybody raved about him because of the numbers he put up; completely ignored was the fact that much of that (if not the vast majority) was put up in garbage time - for instance against the Eagles, where his final numbers looked good, but he was completely shut down until he was facing the back ups, and the game was completely over.

 

[deerpathdave]

But when looking at the eye test, Tebow has not done so well (see tuck-and-run-while-TD-to-be-had). It is similar to whatever Rookie WR Carolina had last year - everybody raved about him because of the numbers he put up; completely ignored was the fact that much of that (if not the vast majority) was put up in garbage time - for instance against the Eagles, where his final numbers looked good, but he was completely shut down until he was facing the back ups, and the game was completely over.

Note that I didn't say Tebow has played well, just that he has at least statistically outplayed Barkley. I have said all along, that this is more about Barkley than Tebow. Barkley has had three years in this system and should be fully prepared to run this system. Yet here he is with a 66.6 QBR and facing a tough competition from a guy who is just learning this system and hasn't played in two years.

As Wing's said only a couple of months ago, Barkley is shot. (Yet after Tebow shows up, he suddenly starts liking Barkley???). I think the least likely scenario here is the Eagles keeping Barkley. They may cut them both and go with only 2 QBs. At least with Tebow, you can (if you choose) point to some of his performance as being rust and/or learning a new system. Barkley has no excuses.

 

[PhillyGreen]

Statistically at least, Tebow has outperformed Barkley in the preseason games. He has a better QBR and has put up excellent rushing numbers as well.

Your stats are subjective and ignore the entire picture. Tebow's QBR is only .6 points higher. There are so close in that area it is a moot point.

1. Neither Barkley or Tebow has thrown a TD pass. Tebow does have one rush TD though. He should also have a TD pass if he knew how to see open receivers.

2. Tebow has no interceptions. Barkley has one. That one interception was no this fault. It should have been a catch. It was a good throw that the received let go threw his hands.

3. Their completion percentage is so close that it is a moot point.

4. Barkley has three times the pass yards of Tebow. Barkley has more than twice the pass attempts and that is very important. It shows Barkley can make the right read and run the offense. Tebow further cements that he is a one read and run QB.

5. Tebow has decent rushing yards because he does not throw the ball. He is incapable of finding open receivers and going through progressions. His stats show this and it is obvious to anyone that watches him play.

Is my post skewed against Tebow? Yes it is and it has nothing to do with some personal feelings or hidden agenda against him. I think Tebow is an amazing athlete and could have a very good NFL career but not as a QB.

 

[DutchBird]

Note that I didn't say Tebow has played well, just that he has at least statistically outplayed Barkley. I have said all along, that this is more about Barkley than Tebow. Barkley has had three years in this system and should be fully prepared to run this system. Yet here he is with a 66.6 QBR and facing a tough competition from a guy who is just learning this system and hasn't played in two years.

As Wing's said only a couple of months ago, Barkley is shot. (Yet after Tebow shows up, he suddenly starts liking Barkley???). I think the least likely scenario here is the Eagles keeping Barkley. They may cut them both and go with only 2 QBs. At least with Tebow, you can (if you choose) point to some of his performance as being rust and/or learning a new system. Barkley has no excuses.

I think you are somewhat overestimating Wings love for Bradley.

In comparison to Tebow, Bradly has been the much better player - though the difference should have been much greater. As far as Tebow goes, I frankly do not see how he could be any valuable addition to the team. Even if things are rust, other than occasionally tuck and run he has shown himself to be quite limited. I see Tebow at this point as little more than a Ronnie Brown.

Frankly, I think the Eagles should go with two - and maybe look at someone who is let go elsewhere.

 

[Susky]

If successful, it would be a Vince Papale sort of story.

If Papale had a huge collegiate career, won the Heisman, and spent time of several other NFL rosters, only to be spurned by those teams, then yes...it would be very similar.

 

[old duke]

Who's Bradley? The former Sixer bust?

 

[PhillyGreen]

Who's Bradley? The former Sixer bust?

Threw me off at first too....I think he meant Barkley.

 

[old duke]

I know. I couldn't resist the bust.

 

[deerpathdave]

Your stats are subjective and ignore the entire picture. Tebow's QBR is only .6 points higher. There are so close in that area it is a moot point.

Stats by definition are not subjective. They are objective measures of performance. And I do agree you need to look beyond stats. No question that Barkley has gotten more opportunities this preseason, and that he has played with better players. Still at the end of the day, both QBs have performed poorly as passers.

 

[DutchBird]

I know. I couldn't resist the bust.

And rightfully so - though I would have thought of a former Eagles MLB first.

 

[DutchBird]

Stats by definition are not subjective. They are objective measures of performance. And I do agree you need to look beyond stats. No question that Barkley has gotten more opportunities this preseason, and that he has played with better players. Still at the end of the day, both QBs have performed poorly as passers.

States They are by definition subjective, and not objective. There is a reason why there is the saying that you have 'truths, lies and statistics.'

To give one fine example, actually involving QBR, QBR has been 'invented' because the previous 'objective' stat used to determine how good a QB actually is was clearly completely useless in actually determining what it was allegedly 'objetively' measuring. And it was from the very start.



The subjectivity comes in at a number of points:

- The decision what to measure to compile the stats. This is already a very subjective choice.

- The decision how to define the stats (e.g. when is it a drop by a WR or a mistake by the QB when grading incmopletions). Again, highly subjective.

- The decision how to measure the stats, again extremely subjective.

- The design of the formula, again a highly subjective business, especially when multipliers (assignments of value) are involved.

- The use of the stats compiled, often a whole lot of rather subjective interpretation involved there. Especially since the vast majority of the time the context is completely missing.


The suggestion that stats are objective is one of the biggest pieces of peddled BS out there.

 

[deerpathdave]

States They are by definition subjective, and not objective. There is a reason why there is the saying that you have 'truths, lies and statistics.'

To give one fine example, actually involving QBR, QBR has been 'invented' because the previous 'objective' stat used to determine how good a QB actually is was clearly completely useless in actually determining what it was allegedly 'objetively' measuring. And it was from the very start.



The subjectivity comes in at a number of points:

- The decision what to measure to compile the stats. This is already a very subjective choice.

- The decision how to define the stats (e.g. when is it a drop by a WR or a mistake by the QB when grading incmopletions). Again, highly subjective.

- The decision how to measure the stats, again extremely subjective.

- The design of the formula, again a highly subjective business, especially when multipliers (assignments of value) are involved.

- The use of the stats compiled, often a whole lot of rather subjective interpretation involved there. Especially since the vast majority of the time the context is completely missing.


The suggestion that stats are objective is one of the biggest pieces of peddled BS out there.

Wow. Interesting, and like how statistics are applied (rather than measured), somewhat subjective.

Let's start with the Subjective/Objective part...

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Per this source, "Subjective is the personal beliefs of the scientist", while beliefs that are shared are considered knowledge.

In this case, QB Rating has been around since the 1970s...

History Release » NFL's Passer Rating

It wasn't invented by me or anyone on this message board or anyone in the last 40 years. Its a widely used metric that has stood the test of time and that by definition would make it knowledge and NOT "subjective". I did not decide what to measure, how to define define the stats, or how to measure the stats, or the design of the formula.

It also seems to be important to note that QB rating does not attempt to determine whether an incompletion was the WRs or the QBs fault as you suggest here. It either is or is not. If you want a more subjective measure of drops go to ProFootball Focus.

So bottom line is QB rating is an objective statistic. It measures passing ability only, as opposed to overall play. So if 2 QBs are about equal in passing, but one also contributes significantly as a runner, one can (and I do) argue that the running QB may have shown the better performance.

Do your own subjective analysis. Its really the right thing to do. Statistics don't tell the whole story. But also recognize that in terms of objective measures, Tim Tebow has had the better preseason.

 

[DutchBird]

Wow. Interesting, and like how statistics are applied (rather than measured), somewhat subjective.

Let's start with the Subjective/Objective part...

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Per this source, "Subjective is the personal beliefs of the scientist", while beliefs that are shared are considered knowledge.

In this case, QB Rating has been around since the 1970s...

History Release » NFL's Passer Rating

It wasn't invented by me or anyone on this message board or anyone in the last 40 years. Its a widely used metric that has stood the test of time and that by definition would make it knowledge and NOT "subjective". I did not decide what to measure, how to define define the stats, or how to measure the stats, or the design of the formula.

It also seems to be important to note that QB rating does not attempt to determine whether an incompletion was the WRs or the QBs fault as you suggest here. It either is or is not. If you want a more subjective measure of drops go to ProFootball Focus.

So bottom line is QB rating is an objective statistic. It measures passing ability only, as opposed to overall play. So if 2 QBs are about equal in passing, but one also contributes significantly as a runner, one can (and I do) argue that the running QB may have shown the better performance.

Do your own subjective analysis. Its really the right thing to do. Statistics don't tell the whole story. But also recognize that in terms of objective measures, Tim Tebow has had the better preseason.

I know that QB rating was not intended to measure drops - it was intended to measure the quality/effectiveness of QB play.

Except that statistics are not objective at all. At best they are valueless.

To give you one example where the old 'objective' QB rating is a dismal failure is that QB is blamed for whatever happens at the other end of the play:

- WR drops the ball, QB is made to look worse.
- WR tips ball, bounces into hand of defender, QB is made to look worse.
- RB receives dump off, and McCoy style slaloms the defense for a long TD, QB is made to look much better.

The thing is, the moment you design a statistic by that virtue alone subjectivity is introduced, simply by choices to what counts, what does not, multipliers and so on. Something which implicitly the author of that article actually accepts.

Of course you can try and limit subjectivity in the design of your statistic, but for anything other than then most simplistic, subjectivity can simply not be eliminated in statistics or statistical models.

And to what extent that statistic has actually stood the test of time - and even the definition of what is 'standing the test of time' is rather subjective in itself - is irrelevant, and does not make it knowledge by definition. By all accounts many people could simply not be bothered to actually verify its validity or bother and try to come up with a better one. Hell, there has been much that was considered 'knowledge' for much longer, which turned out to be far from it, and mostly hogwash.

 

[deerpathdave]

And to what extent that statistic has actually stood the test of time - and even the definition of what is 'standing the test of time' is rather subjective in itself - is irrelevant, and does not make it knowledge by definition. By all accounts many people could simply not be bothered to actually verify its validity or bother and try to come up with a better one. Hell, there has been much that was considered 'knowledge' for much longer, which turned out to be far from it, and mostly hogwash.

So the original creators of the formula back in the 70s probably at the time had some of their own subjective opinions built into the formula. It's really the wide adoption over 40 years though that by the definition of the terms make it now an objective measure. You would be hard pressed to find many compilation of passing statistics anywhere that do not include (and usually conclude) with this measure. Dismiss it if you will, but I think your inaccurate or wrong. QB rating is the most widely recognized measurement of passing efficiency in football and has been that way for over two generations. Really, choosing to ignore it and apply your own measures is a subjective exercise. If you can get your new formula to be widely adoptive, it would then be considered objective.

Note though that just because something is objective does not make it right or true....just free of the personal biases that we all have. Anyone doing an analysis should always compare against the standard, and the part of the test of their analysis is they should be able to explain (hopefully free of personal biases) why their analysis is better than the widely held standard. Its more than possible to do that, and if you do that would be satisfactory in supporting an opinion.

Funny though in the case of Tebow, people who don't like his game, seem to end up just saying that he doesn't pass the eye test. He doesn't play the game to their preconceived notion of what is better or best. Sorry, but I am looking for a little more out of the analysis than that.

 

[DutchBird]

So the original creators of the formula back in the 70s probably at the time had some of their own subjective opinions built into the formula. It's really the wide adoption over 40 years though that by the definition of the terms make it now an objective measure. You would be hard pressed to find many compilation of passing statistics anywhere that do not include (and usually conclude) with this measure. Dismiss it if you will, but I think your inaccurate or wrong. QB rating is the most widely recognized measurement of passing efficiency in football and has been that way for over two generations. Really, choosing to ignore it and apply your own measures is a subjective exercise. If you can get your new formula to be widely adoptive, it would then be considered objective.

Note though that just because something is objective does not make it right or true....just free of the personal biases that we all have. Anyone doing an analysis should always compare against the standard, and the part of the test of their analysis is they should be able to explain (hopefully free of personal biases) why their analysis is better than the widely held standard. Its more than possible to do that, and if you do that would be satisfactory in supporting an opinion.

Funny though in the case of Tebow, people who don't like his game, seem to end up just saying that he doesn't pass the eye test. He doesn't play the game to their preconceived notion of what is better or best. Sorry, but I am looking for a little more out of the analysis than that.

The fact that many people use a subjective statistic does not suddenly make it objective. If a society widely and over a long period adopts racist attitudes about one ethnicity's inferiority it does not make it objective at any later point, no matter how many years go past. Because that is the logic you are applying here.

Objectivity means bias free - not bias accepted by large groups over a long period of time.

Of course eye-test is not everything, but - and IIRC this was a point brought up in IIRC an ESPN feature about the use of statistics in baseball - neither are statistics (a mistaken belief many seem to hold). The prime example they used was that based on the extremely advanced statistic measurements certain players would be superb at playing a given position (say for instance 1st base or right outfield), but in reality they completely stunk at that position consistently. Clearly the 'objective' statistics were completely wrong here.

 

[deerpathdave]

The fact that many people use a subjective statistic does not suddenly make it objective. If a society widely and over a long period adopts racist attitudes about one ethnicity's inferiority it does not make it objective at any later point, no matter how many years go past. Because that is the logic you are applying here.

Objectivity means bias free - not bias accepted by large groups over a long period of time.

Of course eye-test is not everything, but - and IIRC this was a point brought up in IIRC an ESPN feature about the use of statistics in baseball - neither are statistics (a mistaken belief many seem to hold). The prime example they used was that based on the extremely advanced statistic measurements certain players would be superb at playing a given position (say for instance 1st base or right outfield), but in reality they completely stunk at that position consistently. Clearly the 'objective' statistics were completely wrong here.

Bias and personal bias are somewhat different concepts. Objective simply means free of personal bias. Not free of bias. By using a widely held formula, you are objective, but may still have bias in your answers. Just not personal bias, but rather one developed by someone else.

In your race example, the answer is clearly wrong, but the holders of the opinion were arguable not subjective in that they simply held a common belief. They were objectively wrong, rather than subjectively wrong.

An interesting paradox here is that it seems the widespread belief is that Tebow is a poor quarterback, which if you arrived at that opinion by simply following the crowd is arguably an objectively held belief. However, the objective statistics suggest the crowd has overstated his poorness for his career, and the short term objective statistics suggest that Tebow is better than Barkley. So you can arrive at your objective opinion that Tebow is bad by listening to the radio, or you can arrive at your objective opinion that Tebow is a great third string QB for the Eagles by looking at the objective numbers. Either the crowd is wrong or the numbers are. In either case, it is then fair to go with your gut (or your subjective opinion) on this one.