Archive

Will Tebow be named the Jets starter before week 9?

  • Fly4Fun
    I came to read what was hopefully people arguing ad nauseum about Tim Tebow... instead I am left with Fred Taylor. I must say I am severely disappointed.

    I NEED MORE TEBOW! I'll have to go to ESPN to get my quarter hourly Tebow updates.
  • O-Trap
    Speedofsand;1291906 wrote:and you ignore the facts I post showing he played nearly as much as NFL avg. injury stats show.
    Your stats show the average number of players on a team that are injured. Not the average injury time per player. Did you not realize this when you posted it?

    Also, again, these stats include scrubs who aren't needed if they get injured, just like your 2.7-year career stat. First round draft picks do not only last 2.7 years. Neither do Pro-Bowlers. Hell, by your stats, kicking and punting must be tough, as Kickers and Punters last less than five years. Must be injuries, right?

    The reality is that you're being silly. You're including those whose talent doesn't let them have a long career in the NFL ... which would be the majority. It skews the results, and it ignores that Taylor was a first-round draft pick Pro Bowl selected RB, and as I just showed in my last post, players who get voted into a Pro Bowl at least once average 11.7 years in the NFL.
    Speedofsand;1291906 wrote:You're acting like every other RB in the NFL plays 100%.
    Of course not. There is room between 100% and where Taylor was at ... a lot.
    Speedofsand;1291906 wrote:He played 140 games in 11 years in Jacksonville. That's 79.545% including only 2 games in 2001. Counting N.E., and letting you say all the games missed were specifically from injury(do you really know?), its still 73.55% , so less than your WIKI 28%.
    http://www.nfl.com/player/fredtaylor/2503256/profile
    I only was counting games where it specifically said he missed as a result of injury. I wasn't just counting games he didn't play. It's in the text of the page.

    As for the percentage, fair enough. I'm not going to quibble about 1.65%. I'll concede that he missed 26.5% of his games instead of 28.1% (about 3 games difference over 13 seasons).

    Other starting RBs who fit his profile with enough longevity of a career to get a decent measure:

    LaDainian Tomlinson: 170 games played in 11 years (176 games)
    Tiki Barber (second round draft, but Pro Bowl): 154 games played in 10 seasons (160 games)
    Shaun Alexander: 123 games in 9 years (144 games)
    Marshall Faulk: 176 games in 12 seasons (192 games)
    Eddie George: 141 games in 9 years (144 games)
    Jamal Lewis: 131 games in 9 years (144 games)
    Garrison Hearst: 126 games in 10 years (160 games) *-Saw little playing time his first two years
    Curtis Martin: 168 games in 11 years (176 games)
    Ricky Watters: 144 games in 10 years (160 games)

    Now we have:
    Fred Taylor: 153 games in 13 years (208 games)


    Now, some of these here and there are not the result of injury, but given the caliber of play that these guys showed when healthy that would have been mostly a week 16 kind of thing if they were getting ready for the playoffs. In the top category, only two players missed more than 10% of their games. Shaun Alexander (who also had a reputation for being somewhat fragile) missed 15%. Garrison Hearst missed 21.25%, but a lot of which was the result of him being down on the depth chart his first two years.

    So, please cite a few players of Taylor's pedigree who missed at least 26% of their games.

    Speedofsand;1291906 wrote: Look again at the chart, teams lose 8.75 out of 46 players by the end of every year. 19% of guys on the field get injured.
    Again, this is insufficient, because you aren't taking into account how many games they are injured, AND you're still including scrubs in that list.
    Speedofsand;1291906 wrote:You know I was right about your first post because you're spinning my 5 line reply into 6 different quotes ...
    My last post quoted you once. When I quote you more ... hi! My name is O-Trap. I tend to do that a lot. Has nothing to do with me needing to spin anything. Has everything to do with being able to break down your statement at six different points.

    As for spinning, I don't have to spin anything. The facts I've stated through this whole thread validate what I said at the beginning. Dude got injured a lot ... well more than the average running back of his caliber.
    Speedofsand;1291906 wrote:... and arguing like hell replying to yourself over and over for something you say you don't care about. LMAO. You're STILL trying too hard. :)
    Where did I reply to myself? LOL! I care about how dense you're being. It's annoying when people's fanhood biases make them incapable about talking sports in a rational manner. That's annoying, and I do care about what annoys me.
  • Speedofsand
    Again, this is insufficient, because you aren't taking into account how many games they are injured, AND you're still including scrubs in that list.
    it does show how many games. week by week. are you that fucking stupid?
    so now I can't include guys who got injured because you say they are 'scrubs'?
    WTH difference does that make?
    It does not matter when he got drafted.
    If a player on the field gets injured, it counts as an injury.
    I never said Taylor never ever got hurt, you said he was another Beanie Wells.
    I disagree.
    Some would say it takes toughness to return from multiple injuries, instead of just retiring in 3 years.
    Fred "Glass Legs" Taylor was a whole new level of injury-proneness. The only current player I can think of who belongs in his camp right now is Beanie "Swells" Wells. That dude is a walking "Doubtful" tag even when healthy.
    Oh I see now. Couldn't tell you meant only 1st round draft picks who made a pro bowl & retired as a top 25 all-time RB.
  • O-Trap
    Speedofsand;1292019 wrote:it does show how many games. week by week. are you that fucking stupid?
    Dear lord ... and my jimmies are rustled? LOL!

    It shows how many players on a team are injured in a given week. Not how many games a particular player is injured. Theoretically, you start with four injured players in Week 1 and end up with 8 players injured in Week 16. That's a steady slope of 4/15ths. Using that, there are a total of 104 games missed by one of all the players on the team. Figure that out on a per-week basis, and you have approximately 6.5 players out of 53 injured in a given game. 6.5 out of 53 is about 12.26%, leaving the average week with about 87.74% of the team is listed as active each week.

    However, even if you want to just go with Week 16 against the 53-man roster, you're looking at 8 of the 53 ... 15.1% of the players, which is the worst ratio your graph shows. Assume that we apply that evenly to all players (which is obviously not accurate) across the entire year. That still means they only miss just under 2 games a year. Compare that to our 26.45% from Taylor.

    How are you not getting this? And I'm stupid? No matter what stats you try to manipulate, they don't support your claim that an average player spends 20% of his career on the DL.
    Speedofsand;1292019 wrote:so now I can't include guys who got injured because you say they are 'scrubs'?
    WTH difference does that make?
    If a player is injured and not needed in the game, they are more likely to be left on the injured list. That's how it skews the percentage of the season they spend injured.

    If a player is injured and not deemed valuable enough, they'll be released and not picked up, even if they might be healthy to play the very next year. That's how it skews average career length. Use your head, here. This isn't biochemical engineering.
    Speedofsand;1292019 wrote:It does not matter when he got drafted.
    The statistics would indicate otherwise. If the average career in the NFL is 3.4 years, and the average career of a first round draft pick in the NFL is 9.3 years, I'd say the numbers suggest it matters very much when he got drafted. Given that draft order is typically a gauge of perceived talent and value as a player, it would indicate that talent plays a larger role in the shortening of a career than injury propensity.
    Speedofsand;1292019 wrote:If a player on the field gets injured, it counts as an injury.
    Hell, if a player gets injured OFF the field, it counts as an injury. The length of the injury, in games, can largely be influenced by a player's perceived value to the team, though. It's not whether they get injured. It's how long they stay injured but employed as a RB.
    Speedofsand;1292019 wrote: I never said Taylor never ever got hurt, you said he was another Beanie Wells.
    I disagree.
    Technically, prior to this year (which, admittedly, doesn't leave much data), Beanie had only missed five games in three years (3 in 2010, 2 in 2011). That puts him closer to those other backs I mentioned, but it does seem like he's always banged up.
    Speedofsand;1292019 wrote:Some would say it takes toughness to return from multiple injuries, instead of just retiring in 3 years.
    To some degree, it does. It also take a team willing to pay you to be on their roster. THAT is the distinction. Doesn't matter how tough you are if nobody is willing to pay you to be in their team anymore.

    Look, I'm not even saying he's not a "hang tough" guy in light of his injuries. On the contrary, I think he most likely was. I'm just saying he got injured more than most, which is why he acquired the nickname.
    Speedofsand;1292019 wrote:Oh I see now. Couldn't tell you meant only 1st round draft picks who made a pro bowl & retired as a top 25 all-time RB.
    Not all of those retired as a top-25 all-time running back. Hell, only three of them finished ahead of Taylor in career yardage (a testament to his value when healthy). Exaggeration isn't going to help.

    I was just pulling players that came to mind in recent memory. I can pull crappier starters, too, if you'd like:

    Edge James (played in 84.1% of the games during his 11 seasons)
    Cedric Benson (played in 81.3% of the games during his 7 seasons prior to this year)
    Brandon Jacobs (played in 89.3% of the games during his 7 seasons prior to this year)
    Ricky Williams (played in 83.5% of the games during his 11)
    Ronnie Brown (played in 82.1% of the games during his 7 seasons prior to this year)


    As for those other metrics, I used those to point out that he wasn't your average scrub that was going to get dropped at the first high ankle sprain. He was too good a player for that. Other players of a similar pedigree are guaranteed to be able to play as long as they are physically capable. It removes talent from being a factor in the length of one's career. That, plus the fact that the article I cited stated it as well, is the only reason I used those metrics specifically. Either way, you're dealing with more than one variable when you compare Taylor to some undrafted free agent 4th string RB.

    If the former gets a high ankle sprain, the team will wait it out until he is healthy again. If the latter gets the exact same injury with the exact same recuperation time frame, he gets dropped. Same injury ends one person's career while just putting the other's on hold, and it has everything to do with the value of the player ... not his propensity to injury.

    I can tell you like the guy, and I don't blame you. He was a good running back ... a very good running back. You don't finish in the top 25 all-time in yards without being a good running back.

    But the dude was fragile. There's no way around it.
  • GOONx19
  • like_that
    GOONx19;1292127 wrote:
    This is what I will post for now on whenever jordo posts.
  • O-Trap
    like_that;1292173 wrote:This is what I will post for now on whenever jordo posts.
    He may QQ.

    I will lol.
  • Speedofsand
    even if you want to just go with Week 16 against the 53-man roster, you're looking at 8 of the 53 ... 15.1%
    Now you're counting the whole 53 man roster and not the 46 who dress out to help your arguement. LOL yes you are that dense.

    That's how it skews the percentage of the season they spend injured.
    So you admit the last 2 years in N.E. should not count.
    The statistics would indicate otherwise.
    Injuries have NOTHING to do with when a player got drafted. 1st rounders wear the same equipment as undrafted free agents.
    Not all of those retired as a top-25 all-time running back.
    That was in reply to your first post, talking about Taylor. All the others you've been reaching with are just you trying too hard, LOL. Dense, I tell ya.
    All the rest of Otrap's post...
    tl;dr
  • GoChiefs
    I hear Tebow isn't starting this week.
  • O-Trap
    Speedofsand;1292207 wrote:Now you're counting the whole 53 man roster and not the 46 who dress out to help your arguement. LOL yes you are that dense.
    Fine. 6.5 out of 46. 14.13% season average. 17.39% (8 out of 46) in the last game. I don't care which number you use. It still suggests he gets hurt far more often than average.
    Speedofsand;1292207 wrote:So you admit the last 2 years in N.E. should not count.
    If he wasn't a significant contributor prior to the injury (indicating that it wouldn't leave them on the injury list), sure. If he was a significant contributor prior, then it wouldn't make sense to discard those years.
    Speedofsand;1292207 wrote:Injuries have NOTHING to do with when a player got drafted. 1st rounders wear the same equipment as undrafted free agents.
    It has EVERYTHING to do with the length of a career, though. If you want to use average career length to discuss durability, you have to weed out the examples where career length has virtually nothing to do with durability (ie, a non-impact player that isn't worth a roster spot injured).

    It's the same as looking at the number of games Garrison Hearst played. Are the few games he played in at the beginning of his career the result of injury? No. They were the result of the fact that he wasn't high enough on the depth chart to see much time.

    Is the length of an average football career solely the result of durability? No. Talent and value to a team play a huge role. Thus, those examples in which talent and value were likely the deciding factor for the premature retirement have to be excluded. That can be done by looking at the players who were good enough to always carry a perceived value ... something that almost all first round draft picks have in common.
    Speedofsand;1292207 wrote:That was in reply to your first post, talking about Taylor. All the others you've been reaching with are just you trying too hard, LOL. Dense, I tell ya.
    I suppose I'm not surprised that you think I'm the dense one. With those team-loyalty glasses on, it's hard to take you seriously in discussing anything objective. Rest assured, I'm not worried about which of us people know to be more logical in this discussion.

    It's okay. I've been called worse by equally as biased fans for saying something they don't like about an athlete they follow. I don't hold it against you any more than I'd hold it against them. You're just being a fan. A biased one, but one, nonetheless. In some ways, I'd like to live in your world for just five minutes or so, just to see what color the sky is, but alas, I'm stuck here in reality.
    Speedofsand;1292207 wrote:tl;dr
    Ah well. Can't say I didn't try to be clear.

    To avoid further cluttering this thread with this asinine discussion (which shouldn't even be a discussion), I'll stop here. Feel free to grab the last word if you like. I don't mind. I know what the rest of America knows, and you getting the last word in isn't going to change that.
  • Laley23
    GoChiefs;1292217 wrote:I hear Tebow isn't starting this week.
    We already have Tebow and Taylor in this topic. Lets bring some JOY to SoS's life...Haden is back this week!
  • Iliketurtles
    Laley23;1292228 wrote:We already have Tebow and Taylor in this topic. Lets bring some JOY to SoS's life...Haden is back this week!
    I expected you this to be about Sanchez stats regarding the number 6 when I saw you posted....
  • Laley23
    Iliketurtles;1292235 wrote:I expected you this to be about Sanchez stats regarding the number 6 when I saw you posted....
    lol. I actually stole it from BR. If I knew him, hed have the citation on my newsfeed.
  • SportsAndLady
  • Tiernan
    The owner of the Jets (is it Scrooge McDuck?) confirmed on Yardbarker this morning that Tebow is still a virgin.
  • hasbeen
    Tiernan;1292543 wrote:The owner of the Jets (is it Scrooge McDuck?) confirmed on Yardbarker this morning that Tebow is still a virgin.
    Solid.
  • Fly4Fun
    Tiernan;1292543 wrote:The owner of the Jets (is it Scrooge McDuck?) confirmed on Yardbarker this morning that Tebow is still a virgin.
    I had to go check out the link as I can't believe any respectable media member would really ask that. But he neither confirmed or denied. He just said he doesn't get into that, which is the only correct answer.

    And man, I've never been to yardbarker before, but it has a ton of terrible news stories. It makes ESPN look classy, balanced and respectable.

    E.g. That site has 2 different news stories about Tebow and sex/virginity on the front page.
  • Iliketurtles
    Laley23;1292244 wrote:lol. I actually stole it from BR. If I knew him, hed have the citation on my newsfeed.
    Haha yeah I noticed last night after I posted that BR said it on the random chatter thread two hours before your facebook post :P. Also when are you going to change your signature? Maybe something about Chuck is in order...
  • Laley23
    Iliketurtles;1292727 wrote:Haha yeah I noticed last night after I posted that BR said it on the random chatter thread two hours before your facebook post :P. Also when are you going to change your signature? Maybe something about Chuck is in order...
    When I am on here, with time, and think about it again. It will likely be about Indiana Basketball though.
  • justincredible
    SportsAndLady;1292321 wrote:
    I don't know what this means but it's hilarious.

    I think RDI is getting nervous.
  • Raw Dawgin' it
    Yeah - even though he sucked ass in the blowout, i don't see them benching him unless he has a terrible day against a terrible pats secondary.
  • Automatik
    Tebow, an unwanted man?

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--jets--backup-tim-tebow-looks-like-an-unwanted-man.html
  • justincredible
    I'm pretty sure Woody Johnson is the only person that wanted him. Woody Johnson is a total dipshit, I wish he'd sell the team.
  • justincredible
    Got my spoils today. Now, here's hoping Sanchez is benched soon.

  • robj55
    justincredible;1309295 wrote:Got my spoils today. Now, here's hoping Sanchez is benched soon.

    You actually want Tebow to play?