Concerned_Citizen
Practice Squad Player
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2013
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 0
Elway still might have traded him away to bring in a pocket passer as he's not overly fond of dual threat/running QBs
Don't agree there. I think Elway would be perfectly fine if he had a "dual threat" QB. If he thought he had one. But I can't think of anything more worthless on an offense than a QB who really struggles with the passing game.
Have to ask, do you have even an elementary understanding of statistics ? I mean, I'm no rocket scientist or graduate level student when it comes to stats, but I at least have a basic fundamental understanding of them.
Absolutely. But there are variables that have to be considered and context has to be given. Comparing the numbers straight up when there are 21 other guys on the field at any given time and saying the cherry picked stats you only want looked at proves a given QB is a good player comparible to others is simply assenine. It might be a good gauge on who "might" be good coming out of college, but even that is no indicator of who will succeed.
I just don't take numbers at face value when I sat there and watched every game Tebow played in the NFL as a starter, and he simply didn't pass the eye test. It isn't just because he is different from the norm either. There was a lot I saw out there that he really struggled with, and in my opinion he REALLY hurt the offensive production. He had his moments, but in the end, he was not really any better overall than some lucky 2nd or third stringer that got some lucky breaks.
The reason you want to take stats at face value like a one on one tennis stat comparison is because you think it makes your case that Tebow is as good as any of them. Doesn't work for me in a TEAM sport with 22 guys on the field. They just don't paint an accurate picture as to who the better player is. Tom Brady could be on a team of first graders and Justin Bieber can play with the Patriots offense of 2007.. If the stats came out to about even, am I supposed to believe the QBs are equal? Of course not. I apply that same train of thought to some stat sheet posted while some propagandist tries to spin it and tell me that it means he is good while the bad stats don't mean a thing. You've ALWAYS cracked me up with that.
Whatever you say sunshine.
You use that word a lot.... are you British?
I think that if they didn't bring in Tamme and Stokely, and if they had left the running of the offense to McCoy, then no, that offense wouldn't have been close to as good as it was last year.
I think it would have been a lot closer to what it was in 2012 than it was in 2011. I truly think the gap between the performance of the WRs between the two seasons is no doubt the QB. They probably aren't as good as the overall ranking suggested in 2012 and probably not as bad as they ranked in 2011 when near the bottom. they were somewhere in between. an average QB would get more out of them than Tebow, but nowhere near as much as a Manning type that has made a career out of performing surgery on defenses. I don't think Tamme and Stokley made THAT BIG a difference between dead last in almost all major passing categories to, what was it, 4th overall?
f you want to get even further into it, if you magically put Manning on the 2011 Denver Broncos in place of Tebow, with Mike McCoy designing the offense and calling the plays, it's hard to say how much better their record would have been. The Pats definitely would have beaten them both times. Hell, the Steelers probably would have beaten them.
So you REALLY think Manning couldn't have beaten the depleted Steelers, but Tebow took the Broncos somewhere in that season where Manning couldn't have? Wow.....
Again, DUH. Are you at all familiar with PFM and his record as a QB ? Of course he was an upgrade at QB. Isn't that kind of indicated by my statements earlier that "of course, they brought in PFM" ?
but you seem to think the impact was closer to minimal, that Tebow wasn't that far away. Wrong wrong wrong.
Manning improved the team across the board. Not only did he score more points... a lot more... on a regular basis, but he actually stayed on the field too. That gave the defense a break, and didn't put as much pressure on them. The receivers got better because he was actually hitting them in stride on passes rather than forcing recievers to stop to catch balls thrown behind them or at their shoelaces... if the ball was even in the same zip code. Offensive line got better because the QB wasn't just as unpredictable to them as they were the defenders. Yes, the upgrade was THAT HUGE.
We were discussing that offense being one of the very best in the NFL. Peyton alone did not do that.
Pretty close. There were only a couple of guys added to that and I don't think their impact was anywhere near what a real QB could do for an offense. Sorry, but Tebow was the 11th best player on that starting offense, and we upgraded the position to someone who was the #1 guy on the offense. Now, you might THINK Tebow will be that guy someday, but he sure as hell wasn't in 2011. Wasn't in 2012 from the bench. Not likely to be anywher neare that any time soon either.
It's not what you meant to say, but that is clearly what you said.
Not the first time you misrepresented what I was saying. Won't be the last.
Just for grins and giggles, go ahead and tell us all which other backup QBs would have gone 7-4 or better with the Broncos in 2011, then would have beaten the Steelers in the playoffs.
Don't know about beating the Steelers, even though I believe much of that was a combination of dumb luck (like many of the "miracles," and Pittsburgh forming a terrible game plan. Bought just a little too much into the idea that Thomas didn't need to be covered. But just about any QB in the league and most of the starters could have gotten us the 16 points needed for most of those games. Even Orton. I mean, Yates in Houston had a pretty good run too, but nobody took the stats and said he was ranked as the 15th best QB in the league or whatever their official ranking was.
Heck, while you are at it, go and tell us if you think Orton would have gone 7-4 or better if he had been left as the starter.
Probably. The schedule got MUCH easier, and Tebow had no more luck against Detroit or New England than Orton had against Green Bay. 6 games, the Broncos held teams to 15 points or less during the Tebow era. Orton is 23-2 when that happens. So there is 7 wins right there. All Orton needs to do is beat Buffalo or Kansas City at the end to make it the 8-8 record they got into the playoffs with.
I have little doubt they would have had more than ZERO points with 5 minutes to go against Miami, and therefore wouldn't have needed the miracle against the powerhouse (yes that was sarcasm) 0-5 team. Defense was getting off the field, and I think Orton stays on longer and at least gets into field goal range, (Something tebow rarely did when the Broncos punted 8 - 9 times per game. He didn't rack up any more TDs per game either.
Whatever you say sunshine.
You use that word a lot.... are you British?
Good lord, what a joke. Tebow posted 23, 24 and 28 pts in his first 3 starts his rookie year.
He averaged 18 per game in his sophomore year. That is counting the couple where the offense somehow got 30+ points in two of the games. Plus, this is why taking stats at face value like you just did is stupid IMO. You just attributed those scores to Tebow himself. but one of those TDs in his rookie year was an interception return and another was from a kick return. Yeah, I know, I know... it was all due to the inspiration of Tebow's aura.
Looks like your numbers are off a bit sunshine.
You use that word a lot.... are you British?