bobby bo wrote:I guess I just don't understand why so many fans are so psyched to have a quarterback that gives their team a definite ceiling. It's one thing to like the guy, he's pretty likable. It's another thing to be over the moon about a player who will single-handedly prevent your team from being a serious Super Bowl contender. It really makes Broncos fans look like some of the dumbest fans of any team anywhere.
Kyle Orton?
The Broncos are winning with Tim Tebow, so we support him. If that makes us dumb fans, I'm OK with that.
I'm fine with supporting him, and I'm not saying you're one of these people, but the people who want him to be their franchise quarterback long term are idiots who would rather root for Tim Tebow than a Superbowl contender.
Socnorb11 wrote:
TimeForGuinness wrote:
The Third Man wrote:And that’s even if you, for some bizarre reason, decide to allow, for the sake of argument, that Tebow has actually played well, which he hasn’t – he’s been mediocre at best, and a brutal passer, which is still the single most important criterion of judging a quarterback’s play – now more than ever in an era where football is more pass-heavy than it ever has been.
Which is probably why he's been having success...defenses are set up for the pass-heavy play of today's football. But defenses will adjust...they adjusted to the Wildcat, they'll adjust to Tebow.
We've been hearing this for 9 weeks. Tebow has been just as successful the last 3 weeks as he was the first 3 weeks.
Which shows that your team isn't closer to the Superbowl by having him as your QB, which is kind of the point, right? In fact, by relying on an unsustainable, gimmick heavy offense and winning a handful of games, they played themselves out of Matt Barkley/Andrew Luck territory in the draft. Having either of those guys instantly gets them closer to a Super Bowl.
My point is that you don’t get to rebut thrill’s assertion that Tebow was a poor QB prospect with the notion (however accurate) that he’s been playing well in his starts at QB in the NFL. That’s an irrelevancy at best and a dodge at worst. If I wake up next Sunday, throw 350 yards for the Rams after Sam Bradford goes down with a broken spine and lead us to a victory, you wouldn’t say “Oh yeah, well, he was a great QB prospect.” An extreme example, obviously, but illustrative of the point.
Being better than Kyle Orton is no standard of quality either, for that matter. It may very well be that Denver is better off in both the short and long term with Tebow as their QB than they would be Orton. That doesn’t in the slightest redeem much of the hullabaloo surrounding Tebow; to listen to some of these writers, pundits, and fans, the guy is the next John Elway.
The Third Man wrote:My point is that you don’t get to rebut thrill’s assertion that Tebow was a poor QB prospect with the notion (however accurate) that he’s been playing well in his starts at QB in the NFL. That’s an irrelevancy at best and a dodge at worst. If I wake up next Sunday, throw 350 yards for the Rams after Sam Bradford goes down with a broken spine and lead us to a victory, you wouldn’t say “Oh yeah, well, he was a great QB prospect.” An extreme example, obviously, but illustrative of the point.
Being better than Kyle Orton is no standard of quality either, for that matter. It may very well be that Denver is better off in both the short and long term with Tebow as their QB than they would be Orton. That doesn’t in the slightest redeem much of the hullabaloo surrounding Tebow; to listen to some of these writers, pundits, and fans, the guy is the next John Elway.
So don't listen to the writers and pundits. Visit a Broncos forum. Almost to a man, they will tell you that they are enjoying Tebow, but skeptical........ just like I have.
I'm not sure that I ever said that Tebow was a good quarterback prospect. He was a good football prospect, who is working hard to become a good NFL quarterback. The jury is still out.
stlouie_lipp wrote:What does college have to do with the NFL?
Shows potential. That's why good college players are typically drafted into the NFL, while bad ones aren't.
Huh, I thought he was already in the NFL?
College success isn't a good predictor of NFL success.
What do you think is?
Tebow was off-the-charts on the Wonderlic test, set an SEC record for passing proficiency, and had unquestionable attitude and work ethic.
He wasn't perfect coming out of college...... everyone agreed on that. But he was certainly a good NFL prospect.
I'm just saying its pretty close to a crap shoot regardless of college success. Look at the first round picks for the last ten years and I'd venture a guess that it is a 40% miss rate (i.e. out of football within three years).
Last edited by stlouie_lipp on December 20 11, 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bobby bo wrote:
Which shows that your team isn't closer to the Superbowl by having him as your QB,
Making the playoffs, which it looks like the broncos will do, gets them closer to winning the superbowl than going 3-13 or whatever. period.
No. This isn't baseball. Having a potentially elite quarterback (dare I list the names of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks for you?) gets you closer to a superbowl than 9-7/10-6 with a guy who can't beat elite teams in the playoffs without an act of extreme fortune (god, for all the Tebow disciples) occuring.
Rodgers
Roethlisberger
Brees
Manning (outlier - fluke)
Manning (the good one)
Brady
Dilfer (outlier - historic defense)
Johnson (outlier - historic defense, fortunate matchup)
Warner
Favre
Elway
etc
Counterpoint: Bradshaw had a 70 lifetime QB rating and threw only 2 more TDs than INTs. Doug Williams. Namath was a gawdawful QB. Big Ben is a tough dude who can hang in the pocket but I'm not sure how elite he is. Plunkett, Brad Johnson, Dilfer, Hostetler ...
lukethedrifter wrote:Counterpoint: Bradshaw had a 70 lifetime QB rating and threw only 2 more TDs than INTs. Doug Williams. Namath was a gawdawful QB. Big Ben is a tough dude who can hang in the pocket but I'm not sure how elite he is. Plunkett, Brad Johnson, Dilfer, Hostetler ...
Notice all of those people outside of two with historic defenses and good running games are all before the modern, passing era that we exist in now.
Socnorb11 wrote: But he was certainly a good NFL prospect.
According to most scouts that I can recall, not as a QB.
According to most scouts, he'd never start an NFL game as a quarterback, much less be a decent quarterback for a playoff team.
You just never know.
This is an amazing sequence.
Anyway, I like Tebow, but I feel bad that he has to be viewed in this microscope of half baked arguments(pro and con) because for some reason we have to have the final verdict on Tim Tebow, QB of an 8-6 team, this instant.
