Tebow, Blount, Edelman

[manxman2601]

Illud ut insisto a ludio ludius quisnam eram non vindicatum secundum res incidere.

In other words - followers of a player that was not claimed off of waivers because according to you, his salary is voided even though, if he was a starting caliber quarterback, would be a very reasonable salary. I don't know too many teams that wouldn't hire a starting caliber quarterback at $2 million or less.

Who said he's a starting QB? I never have.

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

Actually, the guys over at ColdHardFootball facts have explained EXACTLY why it worked and they've debunked the notion that it was due to a stellar defense.



The Case for Tim Tebow, NFL Quarterback





Just some remarks on the quoted piece above. The thing about Tebow is that he plays the QB position differently than just about anybody else and it's hard for some people to wrap their heads around. They try to measure him and judge him the same way you would Brady or others and it just doesn't work.

You guys have clinged to that article for some time now, but here is the deal. Offensive production went WAY down since he took over. Scoring too.

How someone can sit there and say his different style, when production level was near dead last in every category except rushing when he took over and say it WASN'T the defense, who had to keep trotting back on the field after Tebow punded away yet another extremely short drive, I just don't get. Even if I counted some of his rushing yards as completed passes, and also gave him credit for improving the run game for McGahee (and to an extent I do) it STILL had the offense ranked 25th out of 32. Not good. Can't really blame that on Orton either because his production was actually higher up until he laid a golden egg against Green Bay and San Diego and lost his job.

We can give Tebow credit for sacking up and getting the final score needed, but don't kid yourself. Without the defense going balls out for 60 minutes, the 5 minutes of Tebow against soft prevents means nothing at all. you guys simply give him far too much credit for the turnaround when it is OBVIOUS to anyone paying attention that the defense did the heavy lifting. The writer of that article seems to be clueless in that regard.

The other part about turnovers... well, yes, Tebow was pretty good about not turning the ball over. He was good for at least a fumble per game and was among the league leaders in that, but overall, yeah, he didn't turn the ball over much. Part of it was that more than half of his passes weren't catchable for anyone in the field, let alone defenders, but I digress. HOWEVER, if I were a defensive coordinator and I was told my defense wouldn't generate a lot of turnovers, but forced 10 punts and limited the opposing offense to 3-10 offensive points by the middle of the 4th quarter.... I'm guessing almost all of them would take it. 2 of the games last hear had announcers in the 4th quarter talking about the last time they ended a game in a shutout. Kansas City would have ended in one if not for the muffed punt leaving Denver in FG range.

So he didn't turn the ball over, but punting an excessive amount of times is almost as bad. Especially when playing against Tom Brady. 45-10 in the playoffs, and you wanna sit there and blame the whole thing on the defense?

So I simply reject that not turning the ball over makes him better than advertised when 90 percent of the time the offense spent most of the game stuck in the mud somewhere spinning its wheels and not really getting anywhere. Defense actually needs a break once in a while.

Hell, I could throw the ball in the dirt all day too, but that doesn't make me a good QB just because it isn't intercepted.

 

[situational_awareness]

]I can point to how he threw for over 200+ yards once since becoming a starter for Denver and use that to further the point that Pittsburgh had a horrific gameplan in the playoffs.

So, if I say that play calling was predictable that is an excuse, but if you say this about the Steeler's D, it's not an excuse, right?

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

Run, run, pass.

There you go. You're welcome.

Go to the game logs of all the games he played on NFL.com and click on the play by play tab. there were very few drives and three and outs where his first pass attempt came on third down. ...and many of them showed up that way because when a pass play was called, he'd give it 2 seconds and then tuck it in and try to run it. So a lot of those sequences where that DID happen were his own fault and not called to be that way.

It is true though that they were more run heavy with Tebow, but what is a coach supposed to do when they don't believe in their QB's passing ability? they saw him every day throwing dirt missiles in practice and in games. Most sane coaches would probably steer away from that, not do more of it. Couldn't go to the other guys either. Orton had already pretty much quit on the team, (and was eventially demoted to practice squad and ultimately released) and Quinn was probably even more awful.

 

[Demosthenes]

Oh come off it!! Tebow was a young guy described by most, including Elway himself as being "very raw." It would have given Tebow a couple of years to develop, and almost everyone would agree that if he could master the passing game, he might be one of the most dangerous QBs to play the game. But they saw enough of him behind the scenes to not believe in the guy. It had nothing to do with "out with the former, in with the new." Cuz he was still cheap enough and young enough to sit on the bench and learn for a couple years.

Dude, you have no idea WHAT they saw behind the scenes. As I stated, it's basic organizational dynamics 101. Now, if Orton had finished out the season and Tebow had stayed on the bench and then they had brought in Peyton Manning, who knows what would have happened. Perhaps they would have kept Tebow and tried to develop him. OR, perhaps Elway still would have traded him due to the fact that as he said, he believes that you MUST be a pocket passer in order to have sustained success.

The fact of the matter is, we just don't know. What we do know is that Tebow was the starter and that he had some success in leading Denver to a 7-4 regular season record, a playoff birth and a playoff victory. He was then replaced (demoted) in favor of Peyton Manning.

If you can't understand why a leader of a team would be dealt away after being demoted, then I doubt that anything I say can get it through your head.

There's no way one offseason made the two receivers among the worst in the league to toward the top. It starts with having a QB that can actually get them the ball. No more dirt missiles and balls thrown well behind receivers. No more scrambling for a yard when there are open receivers 15 yards downfield. Plus, it works wonders when the QB actually looks for his checkdowns rather than running at the first sign of trouble.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I posted the projected stats earlier in this thread IIRC. If you took DT's final 5 regular season games with Tebow (you remember, after he had come back from his injury and was finally in game shape) and projected them out over a full 16 games, they were right in line with his 2012 stats with Manning.

But hey, don't let something like the facts stand in the way of your argument. But specifically to your comment, yes, actually going through the 2011 season and getting game experience, coupled with another offseason and training camp could very well have done wonders for both DT and Decker.

Sure, they had Stokley, but Eddie Royal wasn't half bad. ...and yest Tamme was an upgrade, but the rest of the offense was essentially the same. The biggest difference though in the passing game starts with the guy throwing the ball. Tebow just wasn't good at it. ...and no, the odd strike now and then doesn't prove that he can do it unless he does it consistently, which he hasn't.

"the rest of the offense....." They upgraded at QB to a freaking HoF'er, they added an experience vet who had very good chemistry with said QB, and a very good TE who also had good chemistry with said QB.


Dude, if you put PFM, Stokely and Tamme on 3/4's of the teams in the NFL last year, the overall team offense would have improved greatly. Where do you want to start ? If you bring in PFM, you are instantly considered a lock for the playoffs. Add in a WR and TE that he has good chemistry with, coupled with switching over to the offense that he's run for the past 13 years ? Are you kidding ??

I'd take those three added to most offenses in the league, and even with YOU as the OC, the offense would be vastly improved.

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

Who has said anything about Tebow being a "great player"? Seriously, quote something where someone has said that.

Tebow's a very good #3 and a potential #2 QB. I've claimed nothing more for him than that. Of course teams aren't going to trip over themselves to sign that up. How this reflects badly on Tebow or the Patriots is beyond me.

You're missing the point. you said teams were already set and therefore had no interrest in Tebow.

I'm saying, if teams thought Tebow were better than some of the scrubs they had, they'd have no qualms of dumping some dime a dozen 3rd stringer and signing Tebow, a guy that has multiple uses, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Especially as cheaply as he could have been had. Hell, sign him as a 4th and see if he beats anyone out.

 

[belichick010405]

Who said he's a starting QB? I never have.

Is sermo est tardus.

Then maybe, the people on this board should find the time to talk about someone else because there are no pro-Tebow arguments that justify wasting as much time on a guy that is likely competing for the 4th tight end slot while being capable of being NO MORE than the emergency quarterback behind Brady and Mallett.

Once the Tebow apologists realize this - Patriot Nation can finally talk about things much more important.

 

[manxman2601]

You're missing the point. you said teams were already set and therefore had no interrest in Tebow.

I'm saying, if teams thought Tebow were better than some of the scrubs they had, they'd have no qualms of dumping some dime a dozen 3rd stringer and signing Tebow, a guy that has multiple uses, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Especially as cheaply as he could have been had. Hell, sign him as a 4th and see if he beats anyone out.

And I'm saying one team did exactly that. You have no idea who else Tebow and his agents may or may not have been in negotiation with. so this argument that no team signed Tebow is a silly one. One did, and no-one knows what other interest there may have been.

 

[Demosthenes]

Illud ut insisto a ludio ludius quisnam eram non vindicatum secundum res incidere.

In other words - followers of a player that was not claimed off of waivers because according to you, his salary is voided even though, if he was a starting caliber quarterback, would be a very reasonable salary. I don't know too many teams that wouldn't hire a starting caliber quarterback at $2 million or less.

I'll have to go back and try to dig up the details of his original contract, but it was full of escalators which were triggered by his play in 2011. Don't remember the exact details, but it was something like $13 mil over the next 2 years.

Found some details:

http://www.nyjetscap.com/2012_Articles/capconcerns.html

The additional $11.25 million, if earned, would be added onto the backend of Tebow's 5 year contract in 2013 and 2014. He had two avenues to earn the escalators. If he played in 55% of the snaps in two of his first three seasons (2010-2012) he would earn an additional $5 million in 2013 and $6.25 million in 2014. If he plays in 70% of the snaps in 2013 he earns the full payment in 2014.

 

[situational_awareness]

OK, so we have established that it is absurd to think that Tebow was worth a couple of million a year, well below starting quarterback salary.

Then, why did not one of the quarterback-needy teams sign Tebow after he passed through waivers. Surely, Tebow would have welcomed almost any opportunity to compete for a starting role. But then, perhaps, no team thought that he could compete for a starting role, at least for them.

Then, why did not one of the quarterback-needy teams sign Tebow as an inexpensive backup quarterback. Surely, Tebow was worth a million or so for that role. But no one did.

Tebow ending up signing with a team that will give him a chance to make the roster and PERHAPS to compete for a backup role in 2014.

I think the GM's of the quarterback-needy teams have told us the current (and perhaps the potential) value of Tebow.

Perhaps only teams with great depth can afford to consider using a roster spot for Tebow.

You're coming to a false conclusion due to an invalid conditional statement.

"If Tebow was so good, he would have been signed, therefore he is not good."

This statement is pure conjecture, as there are so many if/then statements that don't pass that test.

"If BMWs were better than Kias, everyone would drive a BMW."
"If 1st class was better than coach, everyone would fly 1st class."
"If Brady was so good, why did 32 teams pass on him for 5 draft rounds."
"If Peyton Manning was so good, the Colts would have never replaced him with Andrew Luck."

I could go on and on and on. It's a poor way to make a point.

 

[Demosthenes]

Is sermo est tardus.

Then maybe, the people on this board should find the time to talk about someone else because there are no pro-Tebow arguments that justify wasting as much time on a guy that is likely competing for the 4th tight end slot while being capable of being NO MORE than the emergency quarterback behind Brady and Mallett.

Once the Tebow apologists realize this - Patriot Nation can finally talk about things much more important.

Good lord, the irony of this statement. Hello ? I'm a fan of Tebow's and believe that he actually is an NFL QB, and might develop into being a really good one. Kind of makes sense that I would actually talk about him and defend him.

You, and others like you ? You devote almost the same amount of time for a guy that you obviously don't care that much about.

Who's the one being irrational here ?

 

[situational_awareness]

Is sermo est tardus.

Then maybe, the people on this board should find the time to talk about someone else because there are no pro-Tebow arguments that justify wasting as much time on a guy that is likely competing for the 4th tight end slot while being capable of being NO MORE than the emergency quarterback behind Brady and Mallett.

Once the Tebow apologists realize this - Patriot Nation can finally talk about things much more important.

Is there a gun to your head forcing you or anyone else to read and post in this thread?

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

Dude, you have no idea WHAT they saw behind the scenes. As I stated, it's basic organizational dynamics 101. Now, if Orton had finished out the season and Tebow had stayed on the bench and then they had brought in Peyton Manning, who knows what would have happened. Perhaps they would have kept Tebow and tried to develop him. OR, perhaps Elway still would have traded him due to the fact that as he said, he believes that you MUST be a pocket passer in order to have sustained success.

The fact of the matter is, we just don't know. What we do know is that Tebow was the starter and that he had some success in leading Denver to a 7-4 regular season record, a playoff birth and a playoff victory. He was then replaced (demoted) in favor of Peyton Manning.

If you can't understand why a leader of a team would be dealt away after being demoted, then I doubt that anything I say can get it through your head.

I'll tell you what I DO know... two teams had him and decided they were better off with him playing somewhere else. That doesn't strike me as them thinking the world of Tebow.

Everyone on the planet knew Manning's career in Denver was going to be short term. Why get rid of a "great leader" when all they need from him is to sit and learn a couple years? Maybe three.

It doesn't make sense unless you are willing to at least consider that they weren't all that impressed with him, and didn't think he'd get where they thought he'd need to be any time soon.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. I posted the projected stats earlier in this thread IIRC. If you took DT's final 5 regular season games with Tebow (you remember, after he had come back from his injury and was finally in game shape) and projected them out over a full 16 games, they were right in line with his 2012 stats with Manning.

But hey, don't let something like the facts stand in the way of your argument. But specifically to your comment, yes, actually going through the 2011 season and getting game experience, coupled with another offseason and training camp could very well have done wonders for both DT and Decker.

How is a projection of a few games stretched over a 16 game season "factual." Shouldn't those games actually be played to be "factual?" It is a "theory" at best. That would be like me taking his last 5 games, going 1-4, and projecting that over 16.... sure looks a lot less favorable than the 9-7 he somehow got as a starter, right? What would that be? Something like 4-12 at best?

Makes more sense that they got THIS much better when they had a competent QB throwing to them. Even when he was overcoming the nerve damage issues that he had trouble adjusting to for the first 6 games or so.

Dude, if you put PFM, Stokely and Tamme on 3/4's of the teams in the NFL last year, the overall team offense would have improved greatly. Where do you want to start ? If you bring in PFM, you are instantly considered a lock for the playoffs. Add in a WR and TE that he has good chemistry with, coupled with switching over to the offense that he's run for the past 13 years ? Are you kidding ??

I didn't say adding those guys wasn't an improvment. I just don't think it improved the team nearly as much as improving the ability to get those guys the ball in the form of upgrading QB did. I'd say 75% if the offensve improvment was simply at the QB position alone. Adding a couple of those other guys helped, but the offense still probably would have stunk with Tebow throwing it to them. MAYBE they would have improved to 20th, but I don't know because the second half of his time at starter was a lot less productive that the first half once teams got some more game tape on him.

I'd take those three added to most offenses in the league, and even with YOU as the OC, the offense would be vastly improved.

Improved, but still garbage. Tebow might not have finished DEAD LAST in most major passing categories like he did in 2011, but I don't believe it would have gotten him anywhere near even the middle of the pack either.

Honestly, where do you think the Broncos offense would have ranked in 2012 if you swapped Manning for Tebow? A handful of slots back? 10 slots? Don't kid yourself, Tebow was just as detrimental to offensive production as he was good in late 4th quarters after the defense THANKFULLY was able to keep him in the game until then.

 

[belichick010405]

Good lord, the irony of this statement. Hello ? I'm a fan of Tebow's and believe that he actually is an NFL QB, and might develop into being a really good one. Kind of makes sense that I would actually talk about him and defend him.

You, and others like you ? You devote almost the same amount of time for a guy that you obviously don't care that much about.

Who's the one being irrational here ?

Lets put it this way - if you and some of the new guys were not over here lamenting about Tebow and his career, then the select few that have been on this thread would also not be talking about him ad nauseum.

Yet - the wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round and the Tebow discussion continues like one big ***********.

 

[Demosthenes]

I'll tell you what I DO know... two teams had him and decided they were better off with him playing somewhere else. That doesn't strike me as them thinking the world of Tebow.

Everyone on the planet knew Manning's career in Denver was going to be short term. Why get rid of a "great leader" when all they need from him is to sit and learn a couple years? Maybe three.

It doesn't make sense unless you are willing to at least consider that they weren't all that impressed with him, and didn't think he'd get where they thought he'd need to be any time soon.

As I said, yes, it does make sense if you have even an iota of common freaking sense. You generally don't demote leaders/starters and keep them around. You clean the board off for the new guy. It's happened time and time again throughout the history of the NFL to any number of QBs.

How is a projection of a few games stretched over a 16 game season "factual." Shouldn't those games actually be played to be "factual?" It is a "theory" at best. That would be like me taking his last 5 games, going 1-4, and projecting that over 16.... sure looks a lot less favorable than the 9-7 he somehow got as a starter, right? What would that be? Something like 4-12 at best?

I'd say that statistics are indeed factual. Perhaps not 100% accurate or predictive, but factual. Wins/losses are much more difficult to project as there are so many other variables involved. Catches and yardage in a season though ? That's done all the time and is rather routine. Adrian Petersen goes for 1100 yards through his first 6 games, yeah, people would project that he would go for 2200 through 16 games.

It is indeed a FACT that if you project DT's stats from his last 5 games over the course of a 16 game season, that the numbers would be similar to the stats he posted with Peyton.

Makes more sense that they got THIS much better when they had a competent QB throwing to them. Even when he was overcoming the nerve damage issues that he had trouble adjusting to for the first 6 games or so.

No, it doesn't simply "make more sense". Rather, it fits your narrative. I mean, afterall, the ONLY change that was important was that they got rid of Tebow and brought in some other QB who wasn't Tebow.

I didn't say adding those guys wasn't an improvment. I just don't think it improved the team nearly as much as improving the ability to get those guys the ball in the form of upgrading QB did. I'd say 75% if the offensve improvment was simply at the QB position alone. Adding a couple of those other guys helped, but the offense still probably would have stunk with Tebow throwing it to them. MAYBE they would have improved to 20th, but I don't know because the second half of his time at starter was a lot less productive that the first half once teams got some more game tape on him.

And guess what ? Adding PFM to 75% of the other teams in the NFL would have drastically improved their offenses as well. And yes, PFM would acct for at least 75% of the improvement.

Seriously, you are sitting here spending a bunch of time to "prove" the point that PFM is a better QB than Tebow? And that an offense would improve by having PFM take over ? Really ?

No duh Sherlock. How long did it take you to figure that one out ?

Improved, but still garbage. Tebow might not have finished DEAD LAST in most major passing categories like he did in 2011, but I don't believe it would have gotten him anywhere near even the middle of the pack either.

THANK you for the admission. Look at what you just said. Putting some talent around him like Stokely and Tamme would have moved him up off the bottom ranks and moved him towards the middle of the pack (though not near it). Hell, that admission alone would put him at being a starting caliber NFL QB. How so ? Because there are 32 starting QBs in the NFL, so "middle of the pack" would be clustered around 16th rated. Call it 15-20th positions. So perhaps he would have been 25th. That's still better than 7 other starters out there.

Seriously dude, you make things so easy.

Honestly, where do you think the Broncos offense would have ranked in 2012 if you swapped Manning for Tebow? A handful of slots back? 10 slots? Don't kid yourself, Tebow was just as detrimental to offensive production as he was good in late 4th quarters after the defense THANKFULLY was able to keep him in the game until then.

Where would the offense have ranked swapping Tebow for Manning ? More than 10 slots back. Again, you trying to prove that HoF'er Manning is better than Tebow? And again, DUH.

As for the defense keeping him in games, yeah, the 24 they gave up to Oakland and the 32 they gave up to the Vikings surely did wonders.

Oh wait, Denver won those games.

 

[situational_awareness]

Lets put it this way - if you and some of the new guys were not over here lamenting about Tebow and his career, then the select few that have been on this thread would also not be talking about him ad nauseum.

Yet - the wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round and the Tebow discussion continues like one big ***********.

It's not a bad thing. We're just talking football.

 

[Demosthenes]

Lets put it this way - if you and some of the new guys were not over here lamenting about Tebow and his career, then the select few that have been on this thread would also not be talking about him ad nauseum.

Yet - the wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round and the Tebow discussion continues like one big ***********.

Actually belicheck, we weren't lamenting his career. Situational Awareness made the point that Tebow has more experience than Mallet, a statement that is absolutely true. Tebow has 16 1/2 games under his belt as an NFL QB(replaced Orton in 2nd half of game 5) while Mallet has a handful of snaps for experience.

It then devolved as guys like you jumped in and started making all sorts of claims. (BTW, Eli's sub 60% completion percentage his first couple of years says hello as a quick reminder in case you have forgotten.)

Is Tebow a "starting caliber" NFL QB ? That's debateable in a league where Blaine Gabbert still has a gig. Is Tebow even an "NFL QB" at all ? No question in a league where Caleb Haney and Ryan Lindley are on rosters as QBs.

Through it all, imo, manxman2601 has been the most level headed on the subject as in the end, we are talking about a guy who the Pats signed to come in as QB3 to try and earn his way onto the roster.

 

[Ring 6]

Lets put it this way - if you and some of the new guys were not over here lamenting about Tebow and his career, then the select few that have been on this thread would also not be talking about him ad nauseum.

Yet - the wheel goes round and round, round and round, round and round and the Tebow discussion continues like one big ***********.

And you are in the middle

 

[Concerned_Citizen]

As I said, yes, it does make sense if you have even an iota of common freaking sense. You generally don't demote leaders/starters and keep them around. You clean the board off for the new guy. It's happened time and time again throughout the history of the NFL to any number of QBs.

You do if you think you have a good one that still needs grooming. It would be true if Tebow established himself as a starting caliber player and a true leader in the NFL. However, he had not. Despite what you think, most don't accept him as being that type of player yet, so it would have been fine if Denver had demoted him for awhile while just about everyone was willing to accept at the time that he still needed a lot of work to be an effective passer in this league. Few could look at him at the time and say he was already there in that department. Absolutely the Broncos could have and probably would have kept him if they thought he would be what you seem to think he would be. Hell, they might not have pursued Manning at all if they believed they had their guy of the future cemented for the next decade plus.

but they didn't, and nobody else took him on thinking he was pretty good and just ended up in the wrong situation with Manning. There's a lot more to teams avoiding Tebow and you know it.

I'd say that statistics are indeed factual. Perhaps not 100% accurate or predictive, but factual. Wins/losses are much more difficult to project as there are so many other variables involved. Catches and yardage in a season though ? That's done all the time and is rather routine. Adrian Petersen goes for 1100 yards through his first 6 games, yeah, people would project that he would go for 2200 through 16 games.

It is indeed a FACT that if you project DT's stats from his last 5 games over the course of a 16 game season, that the numbers would be similar to the stats he posted with Peyton.

If you stretch it, sure. But It is still a theory that those stats would mainain over the course of 16 games. It doesn't work that way in sports and you know it. Anyone can cherry pick a small sample and stretch it out to make someone look good. I can take that ONE game where he got 316 yards passing, and say he would be on pace to finish at 5056 yards passing in a 16 game season and then say it is fact. What sort of idiot is going to believe Tebow is capable of passing for 5000 yards? Maybe I could take the game where he went 2 for 8 on passing in that first Kansas City game and say it is a "fact" that projected over 16 games, he'd complete 32 passes all year out of 128 attempts?

Yeah, I didn't think you'd accept that projection at face value either.

The only thing "factual" is whatever stats he managed to post that day... but of course, there is the matter of "context" that goes with them. Projection is just that, projection based on some theory that it would maintain, just to make Tebow look better than he actually is.

No, it doesn't simply "make more sense". Rather, it fits your narrative. I mean, afterall, the ONLY change that was important was that they got rid of Tebow and brought in some other QB who wasn't Tebow.

I didn't SAY that was the ONLY change. So whatever conclusion you drew off THAT premise is flawed. But it does make sense to me that getting a real QB was the BIGGEST contribution to the improvment. You seem to think that was only a small part and getting Tamme and the WRs one more year made the biggest difference. Could not disagree with that one more.

And guess what ? Adding PFM to 75% of the other teams in the NFL would have drastically improved their offenses as well. And yes, PFM would acct for at least 75% of the improvement.

Thank you for admitting Manning had more to do with the improvment of the Broncos offense than anything else. Like I said, it started with the upgrade at QB. 75% at least, you and I finally agree on something

Seriously, you are sitting here spending a bunch of time to "prove" the point that PFM is a better QB than Tebow? And that an offense would improve by having PFM take over ? Really ?

No duh Sherlock. How long did it take you to figure that one out ?

You just sat there trying to argue that the difference had more to do with adding players than it did Manning.

THANK you for the admission. Look at what you just said. Putting some talent around him like Stokely and Tamme would have moved him up off the bottom ranks and moved him towards the middle of the pack (though not near it). Hell, that admission alone would put him at being a starting caliber NFL QB. How so ? Because there are 32 starting QBs in the NFL, so "middle of the pack" would be clustered around 16th rated. Call it 15-20th positions. So perhaps he would have been 25th. That's still better than 7 other starters out there.

Seriously dude, you make things so easy.

What admission? That isn't what I was saying and you know it.

All I said was the OFFENSE would have been better than it was with better players on it. Even if you had the 100th best QB in the league, (counting second stringers and third stringers) better players is better production but the suckwad at QB is still a suckwad. I mean, really, there are several backups in the league who also could have had the Broncos at 25th in the league...and gotten the Broncos the 13 -16 points needed to win several of those games.... so no, NONE of that means he was the 25th best QB in the league. FACTUALLY, it would have made him the QB of the OFFENSE that ranked #25. But since I think any starter around the league and at least half the backups could have matched his production, then you know what I think of your cherry picking the stats again trying to make Tebow look good.

You're taking total offensive stats and saying it means that is how good Tebow is. That's not what I said at all, but of course you knew that.

As for the defense keeping him in games, yeah, the 24 they gave up to Oakland and the 32 they gave up to the Vikings surely did wonders.

Oh wait, Denver won those games.

He'd be 4-12 AT BEST and don't forget it. That defense is the ONLY reason you get to post his win/loss record and say he's proven himself. if not for the defense keeping teams like the Jets, Chiefs, Chargers, Bears, Dolphins, Houston (his rookie year) and Kansas City (twice but still losing one of them) to 15 points or less, he'd have every bit the lousy record Kyle Orton had with Denver. That leaves TWO wins that he got where he needed more points and got them. (Raiders game, 1 score came from punt return, and another came on a single play drive that was a handoff that went for more than 60 yards.)

 

[Demosthenes]

Posted a portion of this in a response in another thread, but have expanded upon it a bit and figured it made sense to post it here (since I've kind of adopted this one as my "Tebow" thread so to speak.)

Presumptions:
1. Mechanics can be fixed (even overhauled)
2. Reading defenses can be taught/learned.

Presuming those as a given:

Just try to picture a Tim Tebow who has good mechanics, can hit NFL windows, can still run over LBs and DBs, still has all his other intangibles, and can hit 65% of his passes.

Now, picture all of the above and throw in being developed by McDaniels and learning from Brady.

Just to be preemptive, yes, you can question whether he can fix his mechanics, if he has the aptitude to learn to read NFL defenses, if his mind is such that he can analyze what is going on and make quick decisions, yada, yada, yada.

Yes, there are a bunch of what if's to this, but the most important one to me (and arguably to the Patriots especially given the cheap price), is what IF that picture can and does become reality ?