yeah this is bogus, and you guys call tebow fans delusional. I love how none of you can argue it LOL. Folks can quibble with the Real QB Rating methodology. But they can’t quibble with the results unless they want to get crushed by the jack-booted thug of statistical superiority called the Cold, Hard Football Facts. The reality is that Real Quarterback Rating is probably the most important stat in football. Here’s why: Teams that won the Real QB Rating battle went 218-37 (.855) in 2012, consistent with year-after-year results. No stat in football has a higher “Correlation to Victory.” For the sake of comparison, teams that won the turnover battle – a stat ALL analysts agree is critical to success – went 162-42-1 in 2012 (.794). So winning the battle of QB efficiency is more important than winning the battle of turnovers.
I love how these people just KNOW Tebow could have saved all of these teams, GMs, and coaches. they just KNOW he would have gotten each and every one of those teams to the playoffs. I know Tebowners have an extremely inflated view of the kid, but sheesh....
Are you fucking kidding me? I didn't argue with the article because it's incredibly stupid, as I said -not because there's no argument against it. This is a waste of time, but here goes. For starters last time I checked, Tebow is one fucking guy. I could careless even if his QBR or whatever bullshit is tops in the league (it isn't). To say he would've "saved" all those teams is a joke. The statement - - " Romeo Crennel (Kansas City), Chan Gailey (Buffalo), Andy Reid (Philadelphia), Pat Shurmur (Cleveland), Lovie Smith (Chicago), Norv Turner (San Diego) and Ken Whisenhunt (Arizona) all met the coaching equivalent of The Turk on Monday. The Browns, Cardinals, Chargers, Jaguars and Jets bid adieu to their general managers. Any one of these seven coaches and five GMs might still have a job today if only they had pursued, and played, Tim Tebow. All nine teams would have had better seasons had they only pursued, and played, Tim Tebow." Is a complete joke to make that statement. It was only done so you and your Teblowers worldwide would latch onto this article. Let's ignore the situation of everyone of these teams and just make a general statement like - they were a failure, but if they had Tebow they wouldn't have. --Jax, Cleve, Buffalo, Philadelphia - All finished in the bottom half in defense. Does Tebow play defense??? --Philadelphia, NYJ, Chicago, Arizona, KC all were ravaged by injuries - Does Tebow double as the strength and conditioning coach? Can he miraculously heal players? --Arizona, Jax, Cleveland, Buffalo all finished in the top half of the league for most penalty yards. Does Tebow coach the team? Would Tebow have gotten his players across off, defense and special teams to avoid penalties??? See how fucking stupid and generalized that article is??? I could go on and on. It ignores the situation of each team just to plug Tebow. There's more. Even IF you were to agree that Tebow was going to improve these team's QB play... who's to say better QB play would've resulted in more wins for all these teams OR even just that these coaches would've kept these coaches their jobs. --New Orleans, Detroit, Oakland, Tampa Bay - all got decent QB play this season. they are all terrible football teams. Lastly, the QBR thing is flawed. Tebow's started what 16 games? Don't you think that's a pretty small sample size to make such a big generality about a QB? His QBR in only 16 starts on 1 NFL team is whatever number the article says. That somehow means that it will be the same across franchises and across years?? Are you fucking kidding me. Maybe I'm alone, but I think his terrible performances in practices over the years and his terrible performances in preseason games across another franchise, would kind of prove the opposite over a smaller sample size with a good football team... but that's just me. So there's your damn argument. It was a waste of time but it wasn't that hard
How about their actual statistical way of measuring, forget the hyperbole of Tebow helping 9 teams out or whatever. is it a good stat? Was tebow spectacular on that stat?
There were a couple of stats where Tebow actually looked pretty good. But in the big picture when looking at Tebow AS A WHOLE, he just doesn't come away with a passing grade... and that is why he spend most of the season on the bench, and that is why most teams in the league don't exactly look like they are jumping up and down with glee at the idea that they could get him fairly cheaply. His record is still 9-7... a winning record, but not an eye popping one. his QB rating is one of the worst for 3 1/2 quarters of the game... Nice ability to come back, if the rest of the team keeps it close, but I GUARANTEE you that any coach or GM in the league is looking at more than just a couple of stats where he actually looks decent. Big picture, by friend... big picture... Look at him as a whole... he sucks, actually. ...unless someone eliminates the conventional game and tailor makes the team to suit Tebow, and that simply ain't gonna happen. Kerry Byrne's Tebowner is clearly showing in that article though.
Why would I forget that hyperbole of Tebow helping out those 9 teams?? That's the whole point of the article. From beginning to end. That ONE stat is just used to support that argument. If I wrote an article about how smoking cigarettes are good for you and found ONE statistic to back that claim, would you forget that I said smoking is good for you, just because of that one statistic??? Of course not.
My god you are dumb. It's the whole argument of the article, not just the headline. Headline paragraph describing the headline, it's argument ONE statistic backing up that argument -----the only part you want to talk about paragraph summarizing the argument and why that stat backs it up (and I'm the one who can't get past one part of the article?) Holy shit. I know you love to grasp onto anything that even remotely makes Tebow look good like it's the law but fuckin A' use you brain. The whole article is a joke, just draw up because they know you and other teblowers do these things.
I dont know the correlation between the formula and winning are pretty direct and clear cut. I think the point is that it makes Tebow like an average QB and that is not good. Evry QB formula has him average except the ESPN QBR stuff. I didnt think he should be starter material, but the article was pretty informative on the variables matching the winners and playoff contenders.
All this QB rating stuff is well and good. It might be a good discussion for some of the finer points when evaluating how good the most polarizing player in the history of the game really is... However... something that keeps getting lost in this is how all those cute looking college stats, and ESPN's ranking system actually help Tebow get a job. When it comes down to it, it is all still a matter of Tebow himself having to go out there and impress the coaches enough to convince them that he is the best option to be out there at his position. That is the way it works and has since the beginning. Teblows hasn't done that. In fact, he seems to scare the coaches a bit. It isn't like he is sitting behind Tom Brady on the depth chart, either. So far by the end of his third year, his competition consisted of Kyle Orton, Brady Quinn, Tom Brandstater, Adam Weber, McElroy, Sanchez... that would be job security for most starting caliber QBs around the NFL.
His college stats don't mean jack, the problem is no one willingly to put the pieces in place. It's a simple fact of an eye test. You Look at some newer QBs like Luck and coaches love the guy. Although he threw a ton of INTs they let him throw. Until he gets with a staff that will allow him to do things or he is crap out of a job. That all doesn't matter to me, I was just stating that the numbers are pretty damn accurate to winning. Whether or not he is a starter I could care less, but the formula says someone should take a chance.
I said fine didn't I? I know what you are saying , I just wanted your opinion on the actual measurement being used (forget tebow).
But practicality says maybe someone shouldn't. Let's assume someone running a team actually believes he is able to play at a high level if a team committs to him and rebuilds over the next few years to suit his inability to pa... errr... ...his game. Not only would it mean getting the right guys around him, but it would ALSO mean getting a good backup that can run a similar game plan. Him being a lefty doesn't help. Now consider, you have just rebuilt the offense to something different from what most of the rest of the league is doing.... ...and then it doesn't work. That's the risk. In this day and age where GM careers are short lived, would YOU want your name attached to trying this if it blew up in your face? Would it have been worth the media hassles that came with it as well? Doubting there is a GM in the NFL that would take that risk. Likely wouldn't find a job again. The probability of that actually succeeding is incredibly low. Sure, we have guys like RG3 who can run something like that. But the difference between those guys and Tebow is that damn throwing issue getting in the way again. That is the knock on Tebow, and judging from the Broncos "punting" on him after too many three and outs... and a year on the bench behind Sanchez, I'm let to believe his throwing ability still leave a bit to be desired.
It's amazing all these NFL decision makers are choosing to lose and get fired rather than win with Tebow and keep their jobs. It must be a league wide conspiracy against him.
plus a million wouldn't it be nice if when Tebow is finally shipped off to Jacksonville or wherever, this entire sub segment of TGG forum threads disappeared into thin air
