tebow sucks

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

What's Tebow's 3rd down conversion percentage?

Run Run Pass leads to ugly 3rd downs.

Besides, what was Elway's his first season? Or were 3rd downs less important in 1983?

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Run Run Pass leads to ugly 3rd downs.

Besides, what was Elway's his first season? Or were 3rd downs less important in 1983?

Deflect, Deflect! Now we are comparing Elway? Why don't you just admit Tebow is what he is instead of making excuses. I mean he has to be the first QB I've seen go from a playoff win to ST's.

[Missouribronc]

Originally Posted by baja

Tebow will continue to be a force in the NFL If you don't see that you haven't been paying attention. Elway and the Broncos decided to go in a more traditional direction but that doesn't mean that Tebow has become chopped liver. Tebow is a rare individual who will succeed.

Name the players you know who have been a "force" on special teams coverage, outside of returnmen.

[Jekyll15Hyde]

Originally Posted by baja

Tebow will continue to be a force in the NFL If you don't see that you haven't been paying attention. Elway and the Broncos decided to go in a more traditional direction but that doesn't mean that Tebow has become chopped liver. Tebow is a rare individual who will succeed.

not as a QB. And it isnt even close.

If he decides to play other positions, then there is a chance for him to be in the league 5 years from now

[errand]

Originally Posted by baja

Tebow will continue to be a force in the NFL If you don't see that you haven't been paying attention. Elway and the Broncos decided to go in a more traditional direction but that doesn't mean that Tebow has become chopped liver. Tebow is a rare individual who will succeed.

Never said he wouldn't succeed....I just doubt very seriously it'll be as a QB.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

People who worship at the altar of completion percentage think going 3 for 3 for 9 yards is better than going 1 for 3 for 12. But that makes no sense in relation to the game.

Ummmm, what? There are actually several scenarios where going 3-3 for 9 yards could benefit the team more than going 1-3 for 12.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

People who worship at the altar of completion percentage think going 3 for 3 for 9 yards is better than going 1 for 3 for 12. But that makes no sense in relation to the game.

Do what? You just displayed your abject ignorance for all to see. There are numerous scenarios where 3-3 for 9 yards would be a superior outcome to 1-3 for 12 yards. For instance, if those three completions all converted first downs, and the one completion for 12 yards came on 3rd and 17, obviously the former would be better.

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Do what? You just displayed your abject ignorance for all to see. There are numerous scenarios where 3-3 for 9 yards would be a superior outcome to 1-3 for 12 yards. For instance, if those three completions all converted first downs, and the one completion for 12 yards came on 3rd and 17, obviously the former would be better.

That's some funny logic.

"But a 12 yard completion doesn't do you no good on 3rd and 17!"

Great. Now how much better is a 3 yard completion in that instance? I think you're missing the point of what an average is.

But it's a perfect analogy for how the haters measured Tebow's performance. They were always putting Tebow in 3rd and 17 in their minds. Orton was only judged on 3rd and 2.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

That's some funny logic.

"But a 12 yard completion doesn't do you no good on 3rd and 17!"

Great. Now how much better is a 3 yard completion in that instance? I think you're missing the point of what an average is.

But it's a perfect analogy for how the haters measured Tebow's performance. They were always putting Tebow in 3rd and 17 in their minds. Orton was only judged on 3rd and 2.

Where did I even mention Tebow or Orton? I was addressing your comment impling that 1-3 for 12 yards is always a better outcome than 3-3 for 9 yards. It's not. And where did I say that 12 yards does no good on 3rd down? I merely suggested that it's a less desirable outcome than a 3 yard pass that converts a 1st down. And it is. If you want to go back to your original statement and stick in some qualifiers, be my guest. But your original statement was painfully ignorant.

[Beantown Bronco]

Beavis, you need serious help.

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

Where did I even mention Tebow or Orton? I was addressing your comment impling that 1-3 for 12 yards is always a better outcome than 3-3 for 9 yards. It's not. And where did I say that 12 yards does no good on 3rd down? I merely suggested that it's a less desirable outcome than a 3 yard pass that converts a 1st down. And it is. If you want to go back to your original statement and stick in some qualifiers, be my guest. But your original statement was painfully ignorant.

So what you're saying is a running back who averages 4 yards per carry is probably better than one who averages 5. Because sometimes you only need 4.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

So what you're saying is a running back who averages 4 yards per carry is probably better than one who averages 5. Because sometimes you only need 4.

Depending on how large the sample size is, yes, 4 CAN be better than 5. It's all in how you get there.

Clinton Portis was the master of the 100 yard game and often had a nice 5 ypc with us. The problem was, 80 of those yards would come on 3 or 4 carries. The other 15+ carries he'd only get 30 or so yards. That CAN hurt a team more than a guy who spreads his 4 yards per carry out fairly evenly over the course of a full game. A Mike Anderson type. When you need a guy to extend drives and rest the defense, a consistent 4 yard per carry guy can help out a lot more than an all or nothing "home run hitter" can.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

So what you're saying is a running back who averages 4 yards per carry is probably better than one who averages 5. Because sometimes you only need 4.

I'm saying that given YOUR parameters of 3 pass attempts, there are numerous scenarios where 3 completions for 9 yards would be a more desirable outcome than 1 complation for 12 yards.

In any case, a running back who averages 4 yards per carry could very well be superior to a RB who averages 5. If some scat back runs for 500 yards on 100 carries, would you say he was "better" than a workhorse back who got 1400 yards on 350 carries?

You aren't very good at this.

[bowtown]

Beavis is not good at the maths.

Originally Posted by Beantown Bronco

Depending on how large the sample size is, yes, 4 CAN be better than 5. It's all in how you get there.

Clinton Portis was the master of the 100 yard game and often had a nice 5 ypc with us. The problem was, 80 of those yards would come on 3 or 4 carries. The other 15+ carries he'd only get 30 or so yards. That CAN hurt a team more than a guy who spreads his 4 yards per carry out fairly evenly over the course of a full game. A Mike Anderson type. When you need a guy to extend drives and rest the defense, a consistent 4 yard per carry guy can help out a lot more than an all or nothing "home run hitter" can.

That's nice and all, so long as you can assume that the player is given equal opportunity in different types of scenarios. But even to the casual observer that wasn't the case. If it was close on 3rd down, they ran. Here's a fun situational stat:

Tim Tebow, 2011 3rd down passing attempts:

Less than 3 yards to gain: 2
More than 8 yards to gain: 43

And then morons b**** about his 3rd down conversion percentage.

And just for your reference, Kyle Orton was allowed to throw 8 times on 3rd and less than 3, just in his 4.5 games last year.

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I'm saying that given YOUR parameters of 3 pass attempts, there are numerous scenarios where 3 completions for 9 yards would be a more desirable outcome than 1 complation for 12 yards.

In any case, a running back who averages 4 yards per carry could very well be superior to a RB who averages 5. If some scat back runs for 500 yards on 100 carries, would you say he was "better" than a workhorse back who got 1400 yards on 350 carries?

You aren't very good at this.

Start where the game starts. 3 plays. 10 yards to gain. What's better? Three 3 yarders or 1 12 yarder? If you only relied on your QB (taking running game out for pure QB comparison) which QB will get a 1st. Which will earn a punt?

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Start where the game starts. 3 plays. 10 yards to gain. What's better? Three 3 yarders or 1 12 yarder? If you only relied on your QB (taking running game out for pure QB comparison) which QB will get a 1st. Which will earn a punt?

That's great. You came up with one scenario where the 12 yarder would be better. That wasn't the issue. We never said that there were no scenarios where that would be the case. We acknowledge that it could be better to get that one completion.

You, however, said that there were ZERO scenarios where our option was better. All we're asking you to do is acknowledge that there are also scenarios where it wouldn't be better to have just that one completion. Why is it so hard for you to just admit you were wrong?

Originally Posted by Beantown Bronco

That's great. You came up with one scenario where the 12 yarder would be better. That wasn't the issue. We never said that there were no scenarios where that would be the case. We acknowledge that it could be better to get that one completion.

You, however, said that there were ZERO scenarios where our option was better. All we're asking you to do is acknowledge that there are also scenarios where it wouldn't be better to have just that one completion. Why is it so hard for you to just admit you were wrong?

Because you're the one cherry picking single downs. Setting up unrealistic scenarios in which McCoy basically never would've even called a pass play, and saying "but what about this passing scenario?" You just made McCoy chuckle.

When all you have to ask is whether you'd rather have 3 plays for 9 yards or 3 plays for 12 (or 10)

Hata challenge of the day. Find any other NFL QB in 2011 who was called on to pass on 3rd and >8 20+ times more than on 3rd and <3.

GO!

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Because you're the one cherry picking single downs. Setting up unrealistic scenarios in which McCoy basically never would've even called a pass play, and saying "but what about this passing scenario?" You just made McCoy chuckle.

When all you have to ask is whether you'd rather have 3 plays for 9 yards or 3 plays for 12 (or 10)

It's ok jhns. I'll move on. It's become obvious what you're doing here.

Originally Posted by Beantown Bronco

It's ok jhns. I'll move on. It's become obvious what you're doing here.

Aw, you're gonna quit just before the challenge gets started?

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Aw, you're gonna quit just before the challenge gets started?

I've presented one simple challenge to you several times now. You've ignored it.

Typical jhns.

[Beantown Bronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Hata challenge of the day. Find any other NFL QB in 2011 who was called on to pass on 3rd and >8 20+ times more than on 3rd and <3.

GO!

Drew Brees (59 attempts at 8+ yds to go vs 16 at less than 3 yds to go)

OWNED

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits...580/drew-brees

[Beantown Bronco]

and a guy named Tom Brady (56 attempts at 8+ yds to go vs 22 at less than 3 yds to go)

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits...2330/tom-brady

[Beantown Bronco]

Aaron Rodgers (48 attempts at 8+ vs 16 at less than 3)

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/splits.../aaron-rodgers

Should I go on?