will tim tebow have a good nfl career?

all fair points. i don't watch enough college football to really know. it just seemed to me that SEC defenses are mostly composed of players that end up in the NFL.

not mostly

certainly a higher incidence of players that go onto the pros, but still most of them dont get there

yeah, you're right, i now see that.

why is tebow's arm so weak - he's a big guy right? how come vick can outthrow him?

and #1 QB picks have, on average, been pretty successful, no?

it also can not be overstated how much simpler the college game is, they have limited time to practice, the coaches arent as good, and most of the players arent smart enough to deal w/the complexity of the pro game

why is tebow's arm so weak - he's a big guy right? how come vick can outthrow him?

― tracy mcgr8080 (dayo), Saturday, November 19, 2011 2:13 PM (1 minute ago)

ime with sports there's not nearly a direct correlation between like, size and 'power' (whatever power means to a particular sport) - it has much more to do with mechanics

tebows delivery is hella ugly

it's so lol, love that a starting QB has that throw, hes trolling the NFL so hard

i mean other than brute strength like blocking in football or something, i'm talking about like, throwing a ball far, hitting a tennis ball hard, etc

shooting deep jumpshots

why is tebow's arm so weak - he's a big guy right? how come vick can outthrow him?

― tracy mcgr8080 (dayo), Saturday, November 19, 2011 2:13 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

i cant really claim to understand it tbh, but its clearly not about having big biceps or anything like that. some guys actually do improve their arm strength when they get into the nfl, so, i dunno

i mean other than brute strength like blocking in football or something, i'm talking about like, throwing a ball far, hitting a tennis ball hard, etc

― mon/ seeya/ chi 2.0 (k3vin k.), Saturday, November 19, 2011 2:20 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

what about rafa's One Huge Arm

thats not for uh tennis

there was a malcolm gladwell article on why predicting nfl success for college qbs is particularly hard and it mostly comes down to time and the quality of the defense:

It had always been hard to predict how a college quarterback would fare in the pros. The professional game was, simply, faster and more complicated. With the advent of the spread, though, the correspondence between the two levels of play had broken down almost entirely. N.F.L. teams don’t run the spread. They can’t. The defenders in the pros are so much faster than their college counterparts that they would shoot through those big gaps in the offensive line and flatten the quarterback. In the N.F.L., the offensive line is bunched closely together. Daniel wouldn’t have five receivers. Most of the time, he’d have just three or four. He wouldn’t have the luxury of standing seven yards behind the center, planting his feet, and knowing instantly where to throw. He’d have to crouch right behind the center, take the snap directly, and run backward before planting his feet to throw. The onrushing defenders wouldn’t be seven yards away. They would be all around him, from the start. The defense would no longer have to show its hand, because the field would not be so spread out. It could now disguise its intentions.

there was another article - michael lewis, I think? - or at least lewis-esque about the fact that there really just aren't that many opportunities to prove yourself as a pro qb. a handful of new people a year get the chance to even start, and far far fewer get alex smith-like opportunities.

ive always found that gladwell article to be specious when it came to the football stuff

agreed, like this

The defenders in the pros are so much faster than their college counterparts that they would shoot through those big gaps in the offensive line and flatten the quarterback.

idgi do players get faster when they get to the pros, like can you not play spread vs future pros in college

malcolm gladwell is amusing until he writes abt something you know anything abt

think in college every team has like a few fast people but in the NFL all the teams have all the fast people

well, line splits are definitely a lot smaller in the pros. you would have to be insane to use mike leach style splits in the nfl

the problem is that to tie it to the teaching thing, he has to forward an argument thats blatantly false:

But there’s a hitch: no one knows what a person with the potential to be a great teacher looks like. The school system has a quarterback problem.

The problem with picking quarterbacks is that Chase Daniel’s performance can’t be predicted. The job he’s being groomed for is so particular and specialized that there is no way to know who will succeed at it and who won’t.

that last line in particular is just, c'mon, no

we actually talked about this on here a few years ago btw:

Search and Destroy: FOOTBALL WRITING

it also can not be overstated how much simpler the college game is, they have limited time to practice, the coaches arent as good, and most of the players arent smart enough to deal w/the complexity of the pro game

you have definitely convinced me that the college game stinks.

except for the old UMiami teams. they could beat most NFL teams, i'm pretty sure. otherwise, shut down the NCAA.

btw, no joek, this college/pro discussion on this thread is excellent.

does nobody remember the michael lewis article? I feel like it was about matt cassel? or whoever else was brady's backup at the time

college is still generally more entertaining to watch because less-polished players lead to more interesting things happening xp

ive always found that gladwell article to be specious when it came to the football stuff

yeah im a p casual football fan (and dgaf abt college ball at all) but i think the broad strokes of his argument are p much true, and that college success isnt a great predictor of nfl success, although the way he ties it into the teaching things is p hamfisted and sorta distort the picture

college is still generally more entertaining to watch because less-polished players lead to more interesting things happening xp

― iatee, Saturday, November 19, 2011 4:15 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

the wider variety of weird shit that happens in the college game is like the one thing it has going for it, other than that it p much blows imho

does nobody remember the michael lewis article? I feel like it was about matt cassel? or whoever else was brady's backup at the time

― iatee, Saturday, November 19, 2011 4:14 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

it sounds vaguely familiar, but i cant find it

college games also all 'matter' in a way that most regular season pro games don't, that adds something to it. losing any game fucks your whole season, whereas if the packers lose a few games this season, all that changes is the tv banter.

that is one of the horrible things abt the college game, get a playoffs u fucks

well yeah it comes w/ a price of having the stupidest postseason in all of sports

its also encourages teams to pack their schedules w/nobodies

college games also all 'matter' in a way that most regular season pro games don't, that adds something to it. losing any game fucks your whole season, whereas if the packers lose a few games this season, all that changes is the tv banter.

― iatee, Saturday, November 19, 2011 4:30 PM (34 minutes ago)

only for like 10 teams tho

i wonder if john elway is kicking himself for allowing tebow and his shakey popgun arm to start. now -- through "smoke and mirrors" that won't yield long-term success -- tebow's helped denver win itself out of contention for a top-tier quarterback.

ugh malcolm gladwell :(((((

i do agree though that the scouts generally look at the wrong things, they love guys with "big arms" who can throw 50 yards downfield which is a throw they almost never have to make anyway. what's really important is reading defenses, knowing coverages, being able to adjust plays, and accuracy above all else, which is why guys like Rodgers, Manning, and Brady succeed where the "better athletes" will fail. the problem is that you never really know who's going to be able to adjust, IIRC nobody thought Cam Newton would have any success but it seems he'll be fine

there was an interesting column by a miami sportswriter, after a stanford loss, arguing that maybe andrew luck is overrated. i think the writer said luck looked like chad pennington with a stronger arm. that's . . . okay. not saying the writer is correct, just an interesting observation.

(this is based on the "scouts look at the wrong things" line).

almost all casual fans in this town, and 2/3rds of more serious fans, are on a first name basis with tim now.

i did learn on the radio today that to properly read his stats line, you have to throw out all of his runs, and treat them as "completed passes to himself." then his passing stats look more acceptable.

i just talked to tim today.

he tried to convert me.

lol xp

ive always found that gladwell article to be specious

i do agree though that the scouts generally look at the wrong things, they love guys with "big arms" who can throw 50 yards downfield which is a throw they almost never have to make anyway. what's really important is reading defenses, knowing coverages, being able to adjust plays, and accuracy above all else, which is why guys like Rodgers, Manning, and Brady succeed where the "better athletes" will fail. the problem is that you never really know who's going to be able to adjust, IIRC nobody thought Cam Newton would have any success but it seems he'll be fine

― frogbs, Sunday, November 20, 2011 12:53 AM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

eh a big arm is just one thing scouts love. Plenty of scouts hated Jamarcus, who had the biggest arm ever. also "big arm" can mean chunking it down field jeff george style but it can also mean zipping passes out to the flat.

big enough arm is all you need, which is to say a p big arm

there was an interesting column by a miami sportswriter, after a stanford loss, arguing that maybe andrew luck is overrated. i think the writer said luck looked like chad pennington with a stronger arm. that's . . . okay. not saying the writer is correct, just an interesting observation.

― Daniel, Esq., Saturday, November 19, 2011 7:56 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

(young) pennington w/a (much) stronger arm would be really good!

well if you can't stomach Tebow now, don't expect the hoohah to die down anytime soon as long as he approaches at least some level of mediocrity and his team keeps winning (regardless of whether he has anything to do with it).

Hell, the media and half the fans were STILL on Michael Vick's jock pre-dogfighting, and would explain away all of his faults. Granted that 1,000 yard season as a QB was pretty neato but he still had horrible accuracy issues and all you'd hear was still things like "YOU HAVE TO GAMEPLAN FOR VICK" or "YOU CAN'T MEASURE HIM WITH TODAY'S STATISTICS!"

he wasn't magical though

or miraculous

well don't worry guys i will spend all week if i have to summoning the spirit of Ty Detmer to enter Tebow's body by gametime

eh a big arm is just one thing scouts love. Plenty of scouts hated Jamarcus, who had the biggest arm ever. also "big arm" can mean chunking it down field jeff george style but it can also mean zipping passes out to the flat.

― Matt Armstrong, Saturday, November 19, 2011 8:09 PM (9 minutes ago) Bookmark

otm

i do agree though that the scouts generally look at the wrong things, they love guys with "big arms" who can throw 50 yards downfield which is a throw they almost never have to make anyway.

arm strength isnt really about the 50 yard bomb, it's about driving the ball on the deep out or the 22 yard dig, it's about fitting balls into tiny spaces (pause) - it's absolutely a necessary part of a franchise QB's toolkit. QBs who can throw with serious velocity are prized for a good reason, and QBs who struggle to drive the ball will also struggle with running multidimensional passing games that can attack every level of a defense. you can certainly make do with guys who lack arm strength if they make up for it in other areas, but it requires that you run an offense suited to his limitations, which of course makes you easier to defend