Socnorb11 wrote:A few teams have lost to the Patriots. And even with 3 fumbles, Denver put more points on the board against New England than the Cowboys, Jets (twice), Chargers, Raiders and Eagles........ but I guess all of those teams are bad at football, too.
Oh, and he also won 2 national championships in college. But those teams probably weren't very good at football, either.
It's almost like Denver and Florida had good defenses, or something.
The guy sucks out loud.
Denver ranks 22nd in total defense (and as already pointed out, they've played some pretty bad teams).
Tebow became the first college quarterback to both rush and pass for 20 touchdowns in a single season, and held the SEC all-time record for passing efficiency and for rushing touchdowns........... because their defense was really good?
OK. Is there more evidence that he's bad at football, or do you feel like that's enough?
I don't care what Tebow did in college, because this isn't college and the gulf between ability and playing style between NCAA football and the NFL is so vast that his college days are completely irrelevant to how good he is as a quarterback. But why again does Tebow get any sort of substantial credit for Florida's first NCAA title in 2006? He was a footnote to that season at best.
And during their winning run, the Broncos allowed 10 or 13 points four times and 15 another time. I was wrong to say their defense was good on the whole, but during their winning run going back to the Dolphins game, it's been very good more often than it hasn't, which goes a long towards masking Tebow's inadequacies as an NFL quarterback. They're capable to blowing up every once in a while and allowing a crooked number, but the teams that have run up big scores on them are the #1, #3 and #4 scoring offenses in the NFL, in addition to allowing 29 to the #5 offense. Their only blow-up to a team you wouldn't expect a high score from is the Vikings, and, [expletive] happens. There's something to be said to being lucky rather than good, so maybe Denver's just been lucky that they haven't allowed many points in a large number of their games dating back to the beginning of their run of success, but whether or not they're capable of keeping it up, they've been helping Denver stay in games. Just like Tebow, while far more lucky than good in my estimation, has been keeping them in games, but I feel much more qualified to judge whether or not Tebow is capable of being a starting NFL quarterback for consistently winning teams while being such a bad passer.
You know what's a pretty strong sign that Tebow sucks as a quarterback? The 48% completion rate. That is beyond abysmal. That's substantially worse than Michael Vick back in his pre-prison days when every talking head was wondering out loud if he was sustainable as an NFL caliber starting quarterback, and since then passing has only become more and more important to NFL success. Not to mention Tebow isn't even on the same level as Vick as a runner. The guy can't throw a football. He is basically as bad at throwing a football as it is possible to be as an NFL quarterback, and has managed to luck into an 11/2 TD/INT rate because of some of some fortunate drives and the variance of interception rates (Pro Football Outsiders has argued that interception rates are essentially random, though I wonder if they were taking into account passers so bad that they can't even get it near enough to defensive backs much of the time for them to have a shot at catching it). He just can't throw. And without that fundamental ability, he's not gonna keep winning. It's a nice story and he seems like a good guy, so more power to him, but this is a passing league.
Against the Bears' Caleb Hanie, the Tebow-led Broncos won 13-10, in OT. The Bears have utterly collapsed in the last month, since their QB went down.
Against the 2-10 Vikings' Chirstian Ponder, the Tebow-led Broncos won by a field goal. The Vikings are dreadful.
Against the then-4-and-7 Chargers, who had lost their previous five games, the Tebow-led Broncos won in OT, 16-13.
Against the lousy Chiefs, where Matt Cassel was knocked out for the season, the Tebow-led Broncos beat Tyler Palko, 17-10. Tebow went 2-for-8 in the entire game.
Against the then-winless Dolphins, the Tebow-led Broncos beat Miami 18-15 in OT.
Against the Jets, the Broncos won 17-13. Because of Tebow? No. He went 9-for-20 or 104 yards, no TD and No INTs.
Against the Raiders, the Broncos won 38-24 - probably their best win of the Tebow Era. Tebow completed 10 passes for 124 yards, and the Broncos took the lead in the 4th quarter...on an 85-yard punt return. Of course, they tied the game late in the 3rd quarter...on a 6-0-yard run by McGahee.
Then, they got torched against the two best teams they've played: Detroit (45-10) and New England (41-23).
What does all this say? They are 8-2 in games decided by a TD or less. With average luck, they're 5-5, and we're not talking about Tebow.
I find it a little surprising how even the pro-tebow supporters bring up how absolutely terrible the Broncos wide receivers are. Broncos going into last week had the 3rd most drops in the league.
I'm a firm believer that his rushing ability outweighs his deficiencies as a passer. I think he's a better runner than Vick. I am also a firm believer that he will improve significantly as a passer as long as a coach is willing to invest the time.
Since Tebow became QB, Denver has went from 25th in rushing to 1st by almost 50 yards a game. Now someone please tell me that that's all due to his defense and kicker. Or even that it's not very impressive.
The Third Man wrote:I don't care what Tebow did in college, because this isn't college and the gulf between ability and playing style between NCAA football and the NFL is so vast that his college days are completely irrelevant to how good he is as a quarterback. But why again does Tebow get any sort of substantial credit for Florida's first NCAA title in 2006? He was a footnote to that season at best.
And during their winning run, the Broncos allowed 10 or 13 points four times and 15 another time. I was wrong to say their defense was good on the whole, but during their winning run going back to the Dolphins game, it's been very good more often than it hasn't, which goes a long towards masking Tebow's inadequacies as an NFL quarterback. They're capable to blowing up every once in a while and allowing a crooked number, but the teams that have run up big scores on them are the #1, #3 and #4 scoring offenses in the NFL, in addition to allowing 29 to the #5 offense. Their only blow-up to a team you wouldn't expect a high score from is the Vikings, and, [expletive] happens. There's something to be said to being lucky rather than good, so maybe Denver's just been lucky that they haven't allowed many points in a large number of their games dating back to the beginning of their run of success, but whether or not they're capable of keeping it up, they've been helping Denver stay in games. Just like Tebow, while far more lucky than good in my estimation, has been keeping them in games, but I feel much more qualified to judge whether or not Tebow is capable of being a starting NFL quarterback for consistently winning teams while being such a bad passer.
You know what's a pretty strong sign that Tebow sucks as a quarterback? The 48% completion rate. That is beyond abysmal. That's substantially worse than Michael Vick back in his pre-prison days when every talking head was wondering out loud if he was sustainable as an NFL caliber starting quarterback, and since then passing has only become more and more important to NFL success. Not to mention Tebow isn't even on the same level as Vick as a runner. The guy can't throw a football. He is basically as bad at throwing a football as it is possible to be as an NFL quarterback, and has managed to luck into an 11/2 TD/INT rate because of some of some fortunate drives and the variance of interception rates (Pro Football Outsiders has argued that interception rates are essentially random, though I wonder if they were taking into account passers so bad that they can't even get it near enough to defensive backs much of the time for them to have a shot at catching it). He just can't throw. And without that fundamental ability, he's not gonna keep winning. It's a nice story and he seems like a good guy, so more power to him, but this is a passing league.
Saying that Tebow hasn't been a real good NLF quarterback yet is one thing. To say he sucks is just wrong. He's had levels of success as a football player that nobody on this board will ever dream of. And there's really nothing to not like about the guy, personally. I don't get where the hate comes from.
Of course he's had more football success than anyone on this board has or ever will have. It's all relative. His skills, compared to NFL-caliber starting QBs, are poor. Nobody is confused over the word "sucks" in this context. Neifi Perez sucks too, that doesn't mean he wouldn't kick the hell out of us all in a company softball game.
The Third Man wrote:Of course he's had more football success than anyone on this board has or ever will have. It's all relative. His skills, compared to NFL-caliber starting QBs, are poor. Nobody is confused over the word "sucks" in this context. Neifi Perez sucks too, that doesn't mean he wouldn't kick the hell out of us all in a company softball game.
His completion percentage "sucks", by NFL standards.......... but it's actually gotten better. Sam Bradford's completion percentage is a little better than Tebow's (but has gotten worse), but he's also throwing as many interceptions as he is touchdowns. Does he "suck out loud"? (Personally, I don't think so..... I like Bradford). Is completion percentage the sole measure of a good quarterback?
Neifi Perez has never proven that he's a "great" player, relative to his peers. Tim Tebow has. He just hasn't done it at the NFL level yet.
He does right now, yeah, without getting into the superficial/non-statistical reasons people watch Bradford and expect him to be a quality passer someday but not Tebow.
