NFL.com ranking of backup QBs: Mallett #11, Tebow #17

[sb1]

Fact: The 2011 Pitt defense was #1 in scores allowed, probably the most important defensive stat there is.

If you want to argue that they got burned because of a bad game plan, that would be a fun debate. But it's a non starter to try and claim that they were nothing but a paper tiger.

The fact is, the Steelers dared Denver and Tebow to throw, Tebow did, and he owned them. One can argue about whether he could ever do it again, but the one thing you can never take away is the fact that he did it on that day.

As I told you before, the Steelers played one top 10 offense in the NFL that year, they also played 8...count em...EIGHT teams ranked in the bottom 10 in passing offense...it's almost unprecedented how weak their competition was... and despite that, they were in the bottom half in the league in sacks... and very close to the bottom of the league in turnovers forced...

A D that struggles to make big plays and big stops against a very weak schedule = paper tiger.

I know denying that fact is a result of trying to make your guy look better but wishful thinking just doesn't make it so.

Edit: In fact, on another board I told Steeler fans that they would win 7 games in 2012 based on how bad their defense really was in 2011 and I was laughed at. They won 8 with the last game being meaningless. So I wasn't far off....

 

[Demosthenes]

I wasn't taking anything for granted especially not with the state of the Pats defense....... but the moment when I saw Brady casually talking to the ref after his last TD pass before the half I figured the Pats were good for the game.

Don't know why it was that moment in particular but that's what did it for me...

Game ended for me after the 2nd TD by the Pats. Broncos looked to be doing fairly well on their first drive, like they might put up a TD to answer the Pats. Then Tebow got crushed and fumbled the ball. Shortly thereafter, 14 - 0 and the route was on.

It's questionable if Denver could have come back from being 14 down, though they had done it before. But with Denver's inability to stop Brady, it was over. Tebow wasn't/isn't close to being the kind of QB who can win a shootout like that.

 

[sb1]

Game ended for me after the 2nd TD by the Pats. Broncos looked to be doing fairly well on their first drive, like they might put up a TD to answer the Pats. Then Tebow got crushed and fumbled the ball. Shortly thereafter, 14 - 0 and the route was on.

It's questionable if Denver could have come back from being 14 down, though they had done it before. But with Denver's inability to stop Brady, it was over. Tebow wasn't/isn't close to being the kind of QB who can win a shootout like that.

Agree.

If you followed the Pats at the time you would never take anything for granted with our defense. Hoping for better things this year. They'll need it.

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

Yes, they went from what they had been running, a game plan specific defense, to playing Tampa2, the base defense that they use in most games.

And no, it's not semantics to argue over "prevent" or "soft prevent" when discussing NFL football. Most people engaged in honest debate understand what is meant when you say "they went to a prevent defense". You know, dropping safeties back 30 yards or so and having DBs play 10, 15 and 20 yards off the line of scrimmage.

Sunshine, Brian Urlacher said they backed off. What would he know?

You are also ignoring the change in Denver's offensive alignment in the 4th Q's of games. When a team switches gears from being run centric, to spreading the field out every play with 3, 4 and 5 WRs and operating exclusively from the shotgun, teams are going to change the defense they employ.

Not ignoring it sunshine, I just don't buy that this is why they were successful in the 4th. If they thought Tebow could manage that the whole game, they've be doing it in the firsty quarter. But after Miami and Detroit, it was clear Tebow couldn't do that until defenses backed off in the 4th. So they did what they could and ran a run heavy offense. It even worked for awhile until teams started stacking the box with 8 men and running containment schemes rather than blitzing.

They DID run more WR sets in the beginning, and Tebow just couldn't do it. People chalked it up to youth and inexperience, but I thought the Broncos coaching staff did well under the circumstances playing with a QB who had no arm.

And John Elway won 2 playoff games 1 year then got trounced something like 55-10 by the Pats in the SB.

It was the 49ers, Sunshine. Pats are AFC. And I'm well aware of the 55-10 trouncing a couple decades back. I watched that game. But Elway was the best player on the Broncos team, and most of the football world knew it. If you are trying to draw a parallel between Elway and tebow here, you failed miserably, because most people don't see in Tebow what you obviously do. Broncos eventually brought in upgrades to help Elway since there really wasn't much out there that was going to upgrade the QB position. With tebow, it was another story. They got an upgrade alright at QB, but in truth, more than half the starting QBs in the league would have been an upgrade. This is why Elway got rid of all 4 QBs on the roster.

But oh no, Tebow lost a playoff game to the Pats (on their way to playing in the SB I might add), therefore, it's de facto proof that he's terrible.

Well, he wasn't good, Sunshine. And punting the ball to Brady all day sure didn't inspire me with a lot of confidence.

I'm betting more starts by Tebow will look a lot more like those last 5 games than he did the first half. ...unless he learned to throw this offseason.

 

[Demosthenes]

As I told you before, the Steelers played one top 10 offense in the NFL that year, they also played 8...count em...EIGHT teams ranked in the bottom 10 in passing offense...it's almost unprecedented how weak their competition was... and despite that, they were in the bottom half in the league in sacks... and very close to the bottom of the league in turnovers forced...

A D that struggles to make big plays and big stops against a very weak schedule = paper tiger.

I know denying that fact is a result of trying to make your guy look better but wishful thinking just doesn't make it so.

We are talking about the 2011 Steelers, yes ?

Let's see. Matt Schaub is usually considered a pretty good passer, he and the Texans put up a whopping 138 yds passing on the Steelers.

I believe that Tom Brady is a decent enough QB (heavy sarcasm ). He passed for 198 yards against the Steelers with a net of 170 yds.

Andy Dalton is thought of as a pretty decent passer, he and the Bengals put up 170 yards passing.

You can claim all you want that they were "paper tigers", it's not the case. In the 16 game regular season, opponents scored more than 20 pts a grand total of 2 times.


That defense was a heck of a lot better than you are giving them credit for.

 

[patsfan-1982]

Brad Johnson has a SB ring.

In Denver, Orton was more productive, scored more points, and had longer drives out there. When Tebow took over, ALL production went south except for the running game, which came nowhere near making up for all the lowering of scores, yardage, third down conversions, and punting the ball away after three plays all the time.

Yet Orton got the blame for the losses and Tebow mopped up the credit for the wins. So how is it that more games were won with less production? it's the defense. I don't know why that is so hard a concept for a lot of these people to understand. 22 guys on the field, and they want to give credit to the 11th best player on the Broncos offense that year. This isn't to say I think Orton was any good either. I don't. But Tebow's record would be equal or worse than Orton's if he played the prior 2 years when the Broncos defense allowed an average of almost 30 points per game. How is it then that Orton went 23-2 when the defense gave up 15 points or less? (Most of that in Chicago.)

Logical conclusion, BOTH sucked when the game demanded offensive production to win the game. Keep the game down to 2 scores for a whole 60 minutes, I don't see why people have a problem admitting the defense did the heavy lifting that season waiting for the boy wonder to finally show up after teams dropped back into soft prevents with 5 minutes left.

I don't think Tebow is a great QB and it dose not take much to go 8-8 in the AFC west but that 2011 Denver defense is way over rated they give up 50 more points then the pats and the packers did that year dose two defenses are the two worst in NFL history the teams they did hold under 20 points KC jets the fish the bears all ranked 22th or worst in offense that year,

a good defense can hold there own vs a good offense they give up over 40 to the lions packers and pats that year hell even the bills put 40 on them that was not a good defense they were ranked 20th in yards and 24th in points

 

[belichick010405]

Yes, they went from what they had been running, a game plan specific defense, to playing Tampa2, the base defense that they use in most games.

And no, it's not semantics to argue over "prevent" or "soft prevent" when discussing NFL football. Most people engaged in honest debate understand what is meant when you say "they went to a prevent defense". You know, dropping safeties back 30 yards or so and having DBs play 10, 15 and 20 yards off the line of scrimmage.

You are also ignoring the change in Denver's offensive alignment in the 4th Q's of games. When a team switches gears from being run centric, to spreading the field out every play with 3, 4 and 5 WRs and operating exclusively from the shotgun, teams are going to change the defense they employ.

Everyone knows that if you wanted to stop the Broncos running game, you put 8 men in the box and seal the edges. How are you going to do that when Denver puts 5 WRs out ? IF you cover the 5 WRs with straight man coverage, you only have 6 defenders left. That means you can't have 8 men in the box against a 5 WR set. Ergo, the defense was FORCED to change.





And John Elway won 2 playoff games 1 year then got trounced something like 55-10 by the Pats in the SB.

But oh no, Tebow lost a playoff game to the Pats (on their way to playing in the SB I might add), therefore, it's de facto proof that he's terrible.

Yet another asinine position.






And you seem to have forgotten that when he played the first of the "last 5 games", he had only had something like 8 NFL starts under his belt.

Wow, hold the phones. Young and inexperienced QB had trouble with what NFL defenses were throwing at him ? You don't say. That has to be the first time anything like this has ever happened in the entire history of the NFL.

The only thing "asinine" is someone holding a position that he is capable of being a year-in and year-out starting quarterback. Oh btw - a quarterback that finishes a regular season with a completion rate below 50%, on a consistent basis, is terrible, and yea I am including Michael Vick's rookie year.

Your non sequitur arguments are losing.

 

[manxman2601]

The only thing "asinine" is someone holding a position that he is capable of being a year-in and year-out starting quarterback. Oh btw - a quarterback that finishes a regular season with a completion rate below 50%, on a consistent basis, is terrible, and yea I am including Michael Vick's rookie year.

Your non sequitur arguments are losing.

How is one season "a consistent basis"?

 

[belichick010405]

Since the 2002 season, there have been three other "starting" quarterbacks not named Tim Tebow who completed the season with a completion rate under 50%.

Who are they and what have they done since having a season like that?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/5547/jp-losman

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/10446/jamarcus-russell

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/445/mark-brunell

 

[Demosthenes]

Sunshine, Brian Urlacher said they backed off. What would he know?



Not ignoring it sunshine, I just don't buy that this is why they were successful in the 4th. If they thought Tebow could manage that the whole game, they've be doing it in the firsty quarter. But after Miami and Detroit, it was clear Tebow couldn't do that until defenses backed off in the 4th. So they did what they could and ran a run heavy offense. It even worked for awhile until teams started stacking the box with 8 men and running containment schemes rather than blitzing.

They DID run more WR sets in the beginning, and Tebow just couldn't do it. People chalked it up to youth and inexperience, but I thought the Broncos coaching staff did well under the circumstances playing with a QB who had no arm.

Urlacher commented that they changed their defense. Yeah, no duh, that happens when the offensive alignment changes.

We can make this real simple. Brady and the Pats come out in the I formation and proceed to run the ball and do play action passes from tight formations. Defenses will play that certain ways.

Defense looks up and sees a WR group coming in and the RBs going out. Guess what ? The defense is going to change. Brady comes out in the shotgun with 4 WRs and a RB to his side. The defense that he faces will be different than what lined up against an I formation set.

The sad thing is, you apparently don't understand how a change in offensive alignment FORCES defenses to change.

It was the 49ers, Sunshine. Pats are AFC. And I'm well aware of the 55-10 trouncing a couple decades back. I watched that game. But Elway was the best player on the Broncos team, and most of the football world knew it. If you are trying to draw a parallel between Elway and tebow here, you failed miserably, because most people don't see in Tebow what you obviously do. Broncos eventually brought in upgrades to help Elway since there really wasn't much out there that was going to upgrade the QB position. With tebow, it was another story. They got an upgrade alright at QB, but in truth, more than half the starting QBs in the league would have been an upgrade. This is why Elway got rid of all 4 QBs on the roster.

Thanks for the correction. Yeah, it was the 9'ers. What the point illustrates is that getting blown out in the playoffs doesn't prove that a QB is terrible. Elway's comp % in that game was 38% and he had a QB Rating of 19.4. Seem to recall that he was a pretty good QB wasn't he ? BTW, that game came in Elway's 7th or 8th year in the league or something close to that ??

I'm betting more starts by Tebow will look a lot more like those last 5 games than he did the first half. ...unless he learned to throw this offseason.

Yeah, hopefully his mechanics have improved. That and perhaps Josh will teach him how to read defenses better.

 

[manxman2601]

Tebow had the highest deep pass percentage (attempts) in 2011 by a considerable margin. He was at 23%, the next closest was at 18%. Of course his completion percentage will be affected by nearly a quarter of his passes being 20 yards plus.

Now to be fair, his completion percentage on those passes was third worst, but if we're writing Tebow off, maybe we should do so for Ryan Fitzpatrick (arguably one of the better NFL backups) and Matt ryan who both had worst deep pass completion percentages.


Edit: One further note - and to demonstrate what a useless stat completion percentage is. If Tim Tebow had completed just six more passes per game that season, he'd be holding the NFL season record for completion percentage.

 

[Brady6]

Tebow, Tebow, Tebow!! :bricks:

Joker was RIGHT.

This place is INFESTED!!

What is craziest is the fact we’re talking about a guy who spent 2012 primarily as punt protector, best case scenario for 2013 is 3rd string QB on a team that’s starter never comes off the field. Despite that we have people who are only following the NFL for Tim Tebow this league has 32 teams and 1696 players at conclusion of final cuts. You’d have to believe that you could find something more entertaining to follow within a league that large.

 

[sb1]

We are talking about the 2011 Steelers, yes ?

Let's see. Matt Schaub is usually considered a pretty good passer, he and the Texans put up a whopping 138 yds passing on the Steelers.

I believe that Tom Brady is a decent enough QB (heavy sarcasm ). He passed for 198 yards against the Steelers with a net of 170 yds.

Andy Dalton is thought of as a pretty decent passer, he and the Bengals put up 170 yards passing.

You can claim all you want that they were "paper tigers", it's not the case. In the 16 game regular season, opponents scored more than 20 pts a grand total of 2 times.


That defense was a heck of a lot better than you are giving them credit for.

Yes, the Patriots are the team that I referred to as the only top 10 offensive team the Steelers played all year.

The Bengals were in the bottom half of the NFL in passing and scoring offense in 2011. The Texans were 11th in scoring and in the bottom half of the league in passing. So we shouldn't talk about those guys like they were powerhouses.

They were a paper tiger because they beefed up their stats against some very weak competition and they were still lousy getting turnovers and making big plays. Those two traits to me are just as telling about a D as points scored.

And the fact Tebow was terrible against a historically awful Pats defense the following week kind of makes that conversation moot anyway.

 

[Demosthenes]

The only thing "asinine" is someone holding a position that he is capable of being a year-in and year-out starting quarterback. Oh btw - a quarterback that finishes a regular season with a completion rate below 50%, on a consistent basis, is terrible, and yea I am including Michael Vick's rookie year.

Your non sequitur arguments are losing.

Let me be very clear on this so that there can be no misunderstanding.


What I saw in 2011 was a young and inexperienced QB who came off the bench and led his team to the playoffs. Yes, he was inconsistent and had problems with his mechanics. Yes, he had difficulties reading defenses. Yes, he had trouble keeping the ball out of the dirt.

But again, he also had fewer than 16 starts under his belt. We hear all the time about how players coming out of college take time to adjust to the "speed of the game". For most other QBs, it's understood that NFL defenses are more complex, and it will take both time and experience under center for them to learn to read them.

Today, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can both read NFL defenses a heck of a lot better than either could back during their first 16 starts.

I'm not arguing that Tebow was or looked like an All Pro QB in 2011. I'm not arguing that he punched his ticket to the HoF in 2011. I'm not even arguing that he was top 15 in the NFL that year.

What I am arguing is that the kid, even with all his issues, did a pretty good job for a guy coming off the bench with fewer than 16 starts under his belt. Most QBs are given much more time to see how they turn out.

Funny thing is that in the last two weeks, I happened to catch some discussions on NFLN about Christian Ponder and Blaine Gabbert. ALL the "pundits" talked about how both these guys are young QBs who have gone through growing pains, and that now, in their THIRD YEARS as starters, it's time to really see what they can do. That they've had the time to make their mistakes and learn. That they've had enough time to get used to the speed of the game. That they've had the time under center to read and understand the defenses they are facing.

Forgive me if I don't think it's an unreasonable position to think that it would have been nice to see what Tebow could have done had he had the same kind of opportunity and support.

 

[Demosthenes]

Yes, the Patriots are the team that I referred to as the only top 10 offensive team the Steelers played all year.

The Bengals were in the bottom half of the NFL in passing and scoring offense in 2011. The Texans were 11th in scoring and in the bottom half of the league in passing. So we shouldn't talk about those guys like they're powerhouses.

They were a paper tiger because they beefed up their stats against some very weak competition and they were still lousy getting turnovers and making big plays. Those two traits to me are just as telling about a D as points scored.

And the fact Tebow was terrible against a historically awful Pats defense the following week kind of makes that conversation moot anyway.

And again, I seriously question the way you rate defenses.

 

[belichick010405]

Let me be very clear on this so that there can be no misunderstanding.


What I saw in 2011 was a young and inexperienced QB who came off the bench and led his team to the playoffs. Yes, he was inconsistent and had problems with his mechanics. Yes, he had difficulties reading defenses. Yes, he had trouble keeping the ball out of the dirt.

But again, he also had fewer than 16 starts under his belt. We hear all the time about how players coming out of college take time to adjust to the "speed of the game". For most other QBs, it's understood that NFL defenses are more complex, and it will take both time and experience under center for them to learn to read them.

Today, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can both read NFL defenses a heck of a lot better than either could back during their first 16 starts.

I'm not arguing that Tebow was or looked like an All Pro QB in 2011. I'm not arguing that he punched his ticket to the HoF in 2011. I'm not even arguing that he was top 15 in the NFL that year.

What I am arguing is that the kid, even with all his issues, did a pretty good job for a guy coming off the bench with fewer than 16 starts under his belt. Most QBs are given much more time to see how they turn out.

Funny thing is that in the last two weeks, I happened to catch some discussions on NFLN about Christian Ponder and Blaine Gabbert. ALL the "pundits" talked about how both these guys are young QBs who have gone through growing pains, and that now, in their THIRD YEARS as starters, it's time to really see what they can do. That they've had the time to make their mistakes and learn. That they've had enough time to get used to the speed of the game. That they've had the time under center to read and understand the defenses they are facing.

Forgive me if I don't think it's an unreasonable position to think that it would have been nice to see what Tebow could have done had he had the same kind of opportunity and support.

It won't happen here. This is New England where the Patriots are in the playoffs and trying to win a Super Bowl. He won't have the chance at quarterback.

 

[manxman2601]

Let me be very clear on this so that there can be no misunderstanding.


What I saw in 2011 was a young and inexperienced QB who came off the bench and led his team to the playoffs. Yes, he was inconsistent and had problems with his mechanics. Yes, he had difficulties reading defenses. Yes, he had trouble keeping the ball out of the dirt.

But again, he also had fewer than 16 starts under his belt. We hear all the time about how players coming out of college take time to adjust to the "speed of the game". For most other QBs, it's understood that NFL defenses are more complex, and it will take both time and experience under center for them to learn to read them.

Today, Peyton Manning and Tom Brady can both read NFL defenses a heck of a lot better than either could back during their first 16 starts.

I'm not arguing that Tebow was or looked like an All Pro QB in 2011. I'm not arguing that he punched his ticket to the HoF in 2011. I'm not even arguing that he was top 15 in the NFL that year.

What I am arguing is that the kid, even with all his issues, did a pretty good job for a guy coming off the bench with fewer than 16 starts under his belt. Most QBs are given much more time to see how they turn out.

Funny thing is that in the last two weeks, I happened to catch some discussions on NFLN about Christian Ponder and Blaine Gabbert. ALL the "pundits" talked about how both these guys are young QBs who have gone through growing pains, and that now, in their THIRD YEARS as starters, it's time to really see what they can do. That they've had the time to make their mistakes and learn. That they've had enough time to get used to the speed of the game. That they've had the time under center to read and understand the defenses they are facing.

Forgive me if I don't think it's an unreasonable position to think that it would have been nice to see what Tebow could have done had he had the same kind of opportunity and support.

Or asinine = reasonable, sensible, intelligent, patient, curious. Great post!

 

[Brady6]

Context matters. Ryan had made a point of 'sticking by' Sanchez all year long. If he starts Tebow, a playoff winning QB, and suddenly the team comes alive he'll look even worse than if they lost a few more games because fans, analysts and league types would have been able to go back and say his decision to stand by his man was what cost the Jets their season.

I also love how the people who don't like Tebow are suddenly huge fans of the Jets ability to judge talent. Didn't know there were so many Jets admirers among us.

That's silly. A head coach scared of winning.

I never said I was not a huge fan of Tebow. I also never said I was a fan of the Jets ability to judge talent.

 

[sb1]

And again, I seriously question the way you rate defenses.

Well, if you would rather not look at how good a defense is based on turnovers and making big plays and big stops...then I would say the fact the 2011 Steelers got their #1 ranking thanks in no small part to playing an unprecedented weak offensive slate of opponents is more than sufficient to take all the shine off of said #1 ranking.

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

Forgive me if I don't think it's an unreasonable position to think that it would have been nice to see what Tebow could have done had he had the same kind of opportunity and support.

Learning how to pass would have gone a long way.

He had his opportunities and support. He would have gotten a lot more game time to show YOU the goods had he been able to actually beat some of the scrubs ahead of him in camp rather than chucking balls into the dirt.