RB NFL Fantasy Football

[Kuro]

I guess there's a consolation ladder?

I'm 0kay with this.

[Kuro]

Also, that Gronkowski trade just keeps looking worse and worse with Davis suspended now.

[Cyneheard]

Also, that Gronkowski trade just keeps looking worse and worse with Davis suspended now.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Twinkletoes89]

What would you give me to release him onto the Free Agency for you lol?

[sunrise089]

What would you give me to release him onto the Free Agency for you lol?

I know this is just in good fun, but considering my sanity, lets please not have any "oops, I just happened to not make the playoffs and also randomly decided to cut Aaron Rogers" shenanigans

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Which means that Rodgers is better, because he drives his team to big leads so they don't need the cardiac comebacks.

- T-hawk, decidedly not a Tebowist

Granted.

Of course, we're comparing an established, elite quarterback to a 2nd year QB that didn't have 3 years learning as Favre's backup. And beyond that, the Packers are a better team overall than the Broncos, and have been for Rodgers' entire time as a starting QB. So - yes, Rodgers has fewer opportunities to lead comeback victories. Of course Rodgers is better.

I agree, comparing Tebow to Rodgers is decidedly not a good idea. So why not compare him to his peers, QBs drafted in 2010?

Tim Tebow: 9-10
Sam Bradford: 7-19
Colt McCoy: 6-16
John Skelton: 5-4
Joe Webb: 3-9
Jimmy Clausen: 1-12
Mike Kafka: 0-2
Rusty Smith: 0-2
Levi Brown: 0-1
Tony Pike: 0-1
Dan LeFevour: 0-0
Jonathan Crompton: 0-0
Sean Canfield: 0-0
Zac Robinson: 0-0

Outside of fantasy sports, there is only one stat that matters, and Tebow is doing pretty well there. I didn't look at each team's W/L with and without their 2010 QB choice, but I can tell you off the top of my head that without Tebow the Broncos are 2-7, and a bad 2-7 at that. With him they are an exciting 9-10.

But for me, I am a Tebowist because after a lot of disappointment with my team (and in the first half of 2011 the NFL in general) I have something to be excited about.

... In other news, thank goodness for a bye week. Time for the Chiefs to settle their QB issues so that I can sit or start Bowe in peace next week.

[sunrise089]

@Mr. Nice Guy - Tebow hasn't started 19 games, has he?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

@Mr. Nice Guy - Tebow hasn't started 19 games, has he?

No, he's played in 19 games, started 10. In those 10, he's been 7-3. That's clearly far better than any of the 2011 QB class, on a team that's overall not been that much better than his counterparts'. For what it's worth, Rodgers was 5-5 in his first 10 starts.

Before I drop the Tebow conversation (temporarily)... one last comment. If the logic we are going to use is having to lead 4th quarter comebacks or gamewinning drives equates to poor play in general, how do we reconcile that with the players that have the most 4th quarter comebacks? These are players like Peyton Manning, Dan Marino, John Elway, Vinny Testaverde, Fran Tarkenton, and Brett Favre.

*But Mr Nice Guy, tell us how you really feel?!?!?!

[sunrise089]

@Mr. Nice Guy - A few factors. One is simple outcome bias. The best QBs get to play a lot of games, so they get lots of number based stats. We usually care about rate based stats, but nonetheless any counting stat (touchdowns, interceptions, come-from-behind wins, etc will strongly correlate to games started.

Second, all a come-from-behind victory means is the game was close. That suggests either a bad defense or a bad offense, and the sort of QBs that hang around and get lots of counting stats usually play in good offenses. I'd suggest then that a poor defense is the most likely explanatory variable past games played.

The strongest factor in any given game though will be luck. Lets pretend the average team scores 6 points per quarter and a good team scores 7. That's a 64 point differential if your opponents are league average, which is a perennial playoff team. I've not made up a hypothetical standard deviation for my scenario, but just pretend the score was ALWAYS 21-18 going into the fourth quarter. If the worse team scored first in the fourth, there's your game winning comeback. That's going to happen something like 40% of the time in this example.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

The strongest factor in any given game though will be luck. Lets pretend the average team scores 6 points per quarter and a good team scores 7. That's a 64 point differential if your opponents are league average, which is a perennial playoff team. I've not made up a hypothetical standard deviation for my scenario, but just pretend the score was ALWAYS 21-18 going into the fourth quarter. If the worse team scored first in the fourth, there's your game winning comeback. That's going to happen something like 40% of the time in this example.

Fair point. All of the QBs I listed previously won about 12-15% of their total GS in the 4th quarter, so somewhere in the market of a quarter of their wins were from 4th quarter comebacks. As compared to Rodgers (5% of his starts, 7% of his wins) and Tebow (50% of his starts, 71% of his wins)

Is luck the most important factor when considering come from behind wins? How much do skill and will to succeed matter in addition to luck?

A great QB shouldn't have to win too many games late - he should be able to set up a clear victory early and often. But the type of quarterback I want to root for can set up a clear victory, and/or can overcome a deficit, small or large, no matter how much time remains on the game clock. He is a quarterback that keeps the game interesting and fun to watch and analyze. What would you define as the threshold for winning too many games by 4th quarter comebacks? By contrast, how would you define not winning enough games by 4th quarter comeback?