His biggest problem is really footwork. He has a very strong arm but he is extending plays and does not set himself properly , throws off balance off the wrong foot etc . It's all coachable . Not having any OTAs last year hurt him badly . This will be the first off season where he will get some reps with a first team. I look forward to improvement next year but keep this in mind , even with all these negatives he had success while being thrust into a very difficult situation , his potential is very high. I've said it a dozen times , Jets got a special player for a 4th.
Thank you. Here it is quick, in Tebow's 8 wins, the defense held to team to an average of under 20 points, I think 17.5 to be exact. How is that not a solid defense. Add in they scored 2 touchdowns and they are bad? Wait I am reading that the Broncos lost because they lost the turnover battle. None of the turnovers fall on Tebow? Guess what Tebow was part of a TEAM that got hot. The team went on a slide late in the season and managed to sneak a win against Pitt in overtime. The game should have been out of reach but the Denver offense stalled settling for FG after Pitt turnovers. He was part of a .500 team last year.
BINGO. Denver lost 4 of its last 5 games. In his last 3 regular season games, all losses, Tebow threw 5 INTs and 1 TD plus he had 2 more rushing TDs. The Donkeys lost by 18 (41-23) to the Pats, by 26 to the Bills (40-14), and by 4 (7-3) to the Chiefs, with Tebow going 6/22/60/0/1. The Donkeys got lucky in the WC and played a Pitt team with Roethlisberger playing on 1 leg and a defense that kept losing key players. Then he got lucky on a long bomb in OT. Even blind squirrels find the odd nut now and again.
Well I come from patsfans.com, because I'm a Patriots fan and I guarantee you wouldn't last one day there with that kind of attitude. And neither would most of the "football logic" or analysis some fans here throw around. I hate to break it to you, but it requires both. It still requires that you score points to win the football game. But since your attitude is so aggressive, I don't mind showing you how wrong you are. It was also Tebow's 7-4 record that allowed them to even get to 8-8 and their playoffs, not just their defense. And Tebow has as much to do with their perceived improvement on defense as you believe their defense actually achieved. First of all offense and defense are not separable entities. They are completely dependent on and affected by one another as well as the opponent. I am repeating myself, but turnovers, and your offense, significantly impacts the way your defense comes out looking. Putting your defense in bad spots when you turn over the ball(which yes it can be worse than punting) can kill a team's defense. On the other hand, when you stop turning over the ball, as a side effect, you also "improve" your defense. They go hand in hand. Their mid-season quarterback and offensive change had a direct impact on their defense. When they switched quarterbacks, and they began running the ball more, and chewed time off the clock, they had shorter games. That too "improves" a defense. Second, facing weaker offenses, "improves" defenses. They faced the Raiders, Kansas City, the self destructing Jets, San Diego(long after Rivers started self imploding), Minnesota with rookie Christian Ponder and Chicago with Hanie. They didn't improve for shit. They faced teams who played like crap on offense mid-season or offenses who self destructed. So their stats look better. In fact they started losing some of their top players and got worse as the season went on. When you face bad offenses, or offenses with quarterbacks who decide to play like crap, you end up with great looking defenses in defensive stats. And vice versa. When you face great offenses, you end up with crap looking defenses. Believe it or not, the difference between one NFL defense and another is nowhere near as great as you think. The difference between one offense and another, or one quarterback and another is huge. And yes, your quarterback, as well as the quarterback you face has a direct influence on every defensive stat you stare at. Their defense got "worse" immediately when they faced us again and we blew them out. That's actually the reality of things. And in reality all the Pats did,is expose just how shitty the Broncos defense was. But we weren't the only ones. It was as shitty when we played them in the playoffs and blew them out, as they were when we blew them out in week 15, as they were when Ponder put 32 on them in week 13 because of turnovers, or the Lions in week 8 or the Packers in week 3. They got blown out every freaking time they faced a great offense and lost the turnover battle. The didn't stop ANYONE. The "improvement" you see comes from your own amateur perspective and understanding of football. But perhaps you believe it to be some miraculous change that took place on defense EXACTLY when Tebow started playing and that they tend to look good whenever there are 0 turnovers just by mere coincidence. The rest of us "idiots" KNOW and understand that relationship. But for you, an intelligent member of the community it's clear it couldn't have been the entirely new offense, offensive strategy and quarterback who stopped turning over the ball. Oh no. Must have been God! Develop some football logic and common sense before calling other idiots.
I don't think I've ever said Tim Tebow is Joe Montana. That's you making a poor attempt to twist words and be sarcastic because you have nothing better to add to this discussion.
So now you are allowed to give "excuses" to why the defense played so well in games but we can't give "excuses" to why Tebow played good in games? Kind of a huge bias there. I don't care if the Denver defense went against college teams in that stretch. If you hold teams to under 20 points, you are playing good defense. Were they inconsistent, sure. Were they bad during the wins, absolutely not. Every argument you use to put down the defense, you yell foul play when someone uses to analyze Tebow. You can't have it both ways. You can't tell me not to look at yards per game as a defensive indicator and then use it to show the Broncos defense was bad when you told me yards per game don't matter. You say I make "excuses" (reasons) why Tebow is an efficient passer and start saying that none of it matters. You then turn around and use those same "excuses" (reasons) to show why Denver's D held teams to 17.5 points during Tebow's wins. You can't be a hypocrite when you argue, that is why you everyone on your case. I'm sure a lot of poster here would make it just fine on patsfans. In fact I think some of them do post there and are fine. And when you said the offense and defense go hand in hand, you never mentioned how a defense/special teams can make an offense looks better. You only went one way and showed how an offense can make a defense look better. Some ways it goes both ways. Tebow's heroics might not have started in Miami if Denver's D didn't force a fumble so the offense could settle for a FG. Tebow's first drive in OT I believe was a 3 and out. The Broncos might have lost to Caleb Hannie if Matt Prater didn't have a magical leg that game and kick a 50+ field goal to send it into OT. The magic might have run out but the defense cause a fumble and Prater hit another 50+ fg. Magic continues. How about the Jets game where the defense scored 7 points for the Broncos. That game isn't a one possession game unless that happens. So while defense and offense go hand in hand, it isn't only the offense helping the defense. It goes both ways.
My thoughts exactly. From one HOFer to another. Montana to Young, Favre to Rodgers. Peyton to Luck next?
You're a Patriots fan and you're here on a Jets forum preaching to everyone how great their newest addition is? You have any bridges you'd like to sell me?
I'm not necessarily saying Tebow is the right guy for this. I'm not even a big fan of the trade. But it can work under the right circumstances. There will be times this season the Jets pull Sanchez around the red zone to put Tebow in for a play here or there. I'm not sure how they're going to work it totally, but a player who can make some big plays down the field, run the ball himself, and not turn the ball over has some value as a 3rd year player. Whether or not he can correct his other issues, I have no idea. But the way the Jets want to play, a run-heavy, ball-control offense, a guy like Tebow fits in theory. Whether he fits in practicality, who knows.
What are you talking about? I'm not stopping you from making any arguments you want to make. You can look at whatever you want but I'm going to give you my opinion on whatever claims it is you make. And yes if all you're looking at is one stat, yards per game, as a defensive indicator, you're gonna be completely freaking wrong. And no I didn't go into the full detail of the relationships of defense/offense because we weren't discussing that. I'll be more than happy to. Yards is a terrible measurement for both defenses and offenses. You wanna know how bad yards is? There is a different rankings list on defense in yards per game than there is in yards per drive. One defense looks great in yards per game, another looks great in yards per drive. One defense looks great in yards, but not when you take into consideration special teams defending field position. For example, the Patriots: we look bad, just like GB, in yards allowed, but it also has a lot to do with the fact that in the NFL, no defense stops anybody from scoring or moving. However, if they want to score against the Patriots...the special teams unit is usually going to make sure they travel the full field. Hence....we "give up" a lot of yards. Our efficient offense, who scores, and forces kick-offs instead of punts, also pitches in and gives our special teams D a chance to push them back. It makes their life easier. So our offense, in a way, helps our special teams D, but whenever specials teams defense actually does their job, they force your defenses to "appear bad". At first glance it appears that our defense looks bad, but in reality our efficient offense has a say in it too. But without actually looking at the FULL picture, if you just look at yards, you're not going to get it right. So yeah if all you're going to look at in football is one stat, you're going to have it wrong most of the time. Just like most people have Tebow wrong because they are stuck mainly on ONE stat. I'm not making excuses just repeating football know-how. There is a direct relationship in the NFL between turnovers and points scored. It's called points off turnovers. Most people know about this. There is a direct relationship between offensive styles(pass/run) and yardage of your "own" defense. There is a direct relationship between clock management and defense. There's a direct relationship between special teams and defenses. And yes, between 3 and outs and defenses. And a lot of other relationships that most people don't look into, and when they do, they don't take into consideration how they all fit and work together. But here's the difference. Unlike Tebow who looks bad in in only one category, completion %, but looks great in 6 others there isn't one redeeming area you can point to about Denver's defense and say...wait a minute, this doesn't tell the whole story. Not one. That's why I listed 4. Not yards nor efficiency. Not points, nor special teams defense. Not punt coverage nor kick-off coverage. They are bad across the board. Unlike the Pats for example who looked bad in yardage, but were #2 in yards per point efficiency in the league, #2 special defense teams in the league, 11th in points allowed, there is no redeeming quality to Denver's defense. Including my own eyes when watching them. In the Patriots case, it wasn't shocking at all to me when they performed well in the playoffs when called upon. Except most "mediots" didn't and still don't understand that about the Patriots defense any more than they understand what exactly it is Tebow does. All they can come up with is that the Pats defense "magically" improved in the playoffs. Not really. The game dynamics changed. So we adjusted and the stats changed. But we were just as effective on defense despite the yards when we outscored teams by 30 points as we were when we needed the defense to keep them under 21. Most "mediots" didn't bother to stop and think that teams like Green Bay and Patriots can't actually outscore anyone without having defenses, and NO NFL teams can. All they know when they see that is that it's "the offense that carries the team". A bunch of nonsene. We couldn't outscore anyone without that D. But the "perception", and it also goes for Green Bay, is that we had a bad defense. Same goes for Tebow. Tebow looks good in just about every category except completion %, and as it was pointed out to me, specifically outside the numbers, which only goes to validate my theory of drops and throwaways. But he looks great in passing TD%, Int %, Fum %, Rushing TD %, TD/TO, rushing yards average, air passing yards efficieny....EVERY freaking major quarterback and non-quarterback category EXCEPT completion %. That's it. That's the only freaking area he doesn't look good. He completes passes at 46% instead of 55% which turns out to be 2 completions a game.
But you do look at one stat without explaining it if it helps Tebow. Like you throw around this 5.4 ypc for Tebow. That doesn't explain everything. Tebow has designed running plays for him because he can run. He also takes off scrambles when a play breaks down. So while Tebow has a 5.4 ypc, it is much more valuable to include his yards of scrambles vs his yards of designed running plays. This would be more indicative of a dual threat he is. I'm also sure a defense would love to give up a Tebow 8 yard scramble on 3rd and 10. It would look real nice in the stats, but does it help or mean anything? It's an important distinction you never explain. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but if Tebow tries to scramble on a passing play, and he gets tacked behind the line, it counts as a sack for negative yards not a rush for negative yards, correct? This would also highly influence the running stats on ypc, never addressed. You also throw around rushing TD's as a big accomplishment. A lot of QB's have their FB or RB pound the ball within 10 yards. Some of Tim's TD runs are 8,9,1,2,7 yards out. Does he really get a bump in efficiency? For example some Jets RB runs: Shonn Greene 1yd, 3yd, LT 1yd, John 1yd, Greene for 1yd, 9yd. For 5/6 runs (not including a 9yarder) Sanchez probably could have taken a sneak or draw and gotten it in. Should it really hurt his efficiency that the coach dialed up a play for the RB because the RB can get in? You figure Mark only gets the 4 1 yd ones on sneaks, and suddelny he has positive TD to fumble ratio, his TD to TO goes up and so on and so forth. Everything gets a nice bump, but is he really less efficient because he has a running back that the coach trusts? That is just another example where you use just one stat and show it as a positive without really analyzing what it means. Those are some examples where you look at one stat (YPC and Rush TD) and don't really look into it. But you are willing to explain why incompletetions aren't all on the QB because we don't know the routes. Then you say INT's are 90% percent on the QB even though we don't know the routes supposed to be run. Just a question, do you use fumbles lost or just fumbles on the turnover part of the page?
I think I listed multiple categories from the beginning of this thread and yards per carry wasn't one of the main ones. As far as rushing goes, I'm not sure where you are going with that and I don't have that information broken down like what you are talking about. I also don't see why that makes a difference because I'm not comparing Tebow's rushing stats to passing QBs rushing stats. I used it to get the total attempts(pass/rush combined) to touchdown/turnover efficiency. Yardage was of little interest to me. As far as your Sanchez comparison goes, while you're right in that he looks better because he might get designed plays, or because he scrambles, let's not ignore the reason he has designed plays in the first place. He can rush. There aren't many other dual pass/rush quarterbacks I know of right now in the NFL that run like a freaking running back. I think the point you miss is the fact that Tebow get designed rushes is because he's a good rusher, while other quarterbacks don't have that because they're not good rushers in the first place. As far as fumbling to rush %, I didn't pay attention to that from the get go. I listed it but the important part is to get the total touchdown to turnover efficiency numbers. And when you break it down to efficiency, then total numbers aren't as important as the efficiency %. The ratio. And I stated that in my opening post, I counted all fumbles against the rush because it was simple, but the fumbling % against the rush isn't as important than the total turnovers against total attempts. That will be somewhat skewed in that column but only until you add them up in the total column. I listed the numbers for verification purposes. But I don't actually expect Brady to have the same number or rushing touchdowns or Sanchez to have the same yards per carry(unless you want to claim he's a dual threat QB) any more than I expect Tebow to complete at 70% in Denver's offense or have as many passing touchdowns as Brady. But by the same argument, I'm trying to explain to you why you shouldn't expect Tebow to have the same type of passing numbers they put up. So what's important, and what I tried to present, is then what do they do as a complete package. Pure pocket passer will have more passing touchdowns and more completions as well as more passing attempts in general than a guy who's splitting them up. Which is why it's very important, in the case of dual threat QB's NOT to leave out what they do with their feet. He's not going to have the elite numbers of a pure pocket passers, and he's not going to have the yards production of elite running backs, but when you combine the two together does he give you more production than some pocket passers? That's what we need to consider. And as it turns out, yeah he does. I completely disagree with your 1, 2 8 and 3 yard touchdown comments. Not only does he have a lot of rushing touchdowns beyond the red-zone, but you can't take that away from Tebow anymore than taking away red-zone passing touchdowns for 1 or 5 or 7 yards. Sure Mark's handing it over to his running backs, and it doesn't count for him, but the rest of the time he's getting those red-zone passing touchdowns. Tebow also takes away from his passing touchdowns numbers because he runs them in. So while he may be benefiting in the rushing department he's hurting himself in the passing touchdown category. Once again, another reason I wanted to get a total numbers and use efficiency % for these guys. So if Sanchez does hand over the ball, well yeah he gets no credit for it, but there's also nothing credit against him. There's no attempts, rush or pass. And I used fumbles lost. Again in the end, don't pay attention to the fumbles to rush % as much as you need to look at total turnovers to total attempts.
You threw 5.4 reckelssly in some posts saying that if Tebow is pressured he could take of for 5.4 yards. That is not correct because if he tries to scramble on a pass play and gets sacked, it doesn't negatively affect his rushing total. Also, his running plays also factor into his YPC. If it was possible to break it up, it would be much more viable stat to throw around. Sanchez got designed rushes too, You are correct saying that Sanchez has a high amount of RZ TD's because that offense was really poor outside the 20's. Now Tebow does get the passing attempts. I don't feel like breaking it down, but earlier I saw 67% of his TD's came within 20 yards. I have no idea how this stacks up, but with his low attempts and low points total this adds to a lot of TD's being within 20 on less plays. I do recall while looking I saw a drive from the KC DEN game where Denvor scored >3 points. The first TD drive was 6-7 plays where Tebow has no attempts and then scores on one rush from 7 yards out. You see how this greatly effects his efficiency even though he didn't do anything all drive except hand the ball off. I think about 85% of QB's in the league would have had more than one attempt on that drive. Also if you are inside the RZ, the most attempts you can have is 6 if you don't go into 4 down territory. Since the majority of his TD's are from within the RZ, this means he has a greater chance of positively affecting his efficiency. Now a lot of people have been saying Tebow led the league in 3 and outs, is this correct? If it is that means Tebow is running less attempts per game since if he is going 3 out a lot, this means he is negatively affecting his efficiency less than other QB's who might have a 6 play drive that ends in a FG or a 8 play drive that ends in a punt. In real football terms, their drives were more effective and efficient for their team, in your stats, they are worse off. I also looked up that Tebow has 27 total attempts per game. Factor in the average nfl teams takes 25 and change pass attempts per game, that means high amount of TD's in RZ + low amount of total attempts = higher efficiency. Tebow gets credit because he is scoring while in the RZ, but I think he also benefits from being so close. He also was not forced into low efficiency situations. If your team can hold teams to under 20 points in 6 games, you aren't put into low efficiency situations. In Tebow's scenario 3 and out might be perfectly fine because he didn't turn the ball over. In most other teams scenario 3 and out is a failure since they can't hold teams to under 20 like that. So combine all that, I see Tebow put into high effeiciency situations where he succeeded. It doesn't take anything away from him saying he isn't a high scoring QB. He needs help from the team like any other QB. Is he effective scoring, sure. You think because he is a great QB, I think because he was put in good situations to succeed. We are arguing chicken vs the egg essentially. You probably will counter saying Tebow put himself in those good positons, and I'm going to say the team put him in those good situations. I appreciate the stats you gathered and I only asked about fumbles lost since fumbles lost is arbitrary in my mind. It would have been better in my mind just take fumbles since recovering a fumble seems like a 50/50 proposition. The football is such a strange shape, its bounces can go anywhere. I just don't see Tebow being an effective NFL QB, especially on the Jets. Like I said, I would love if he did become one in the future, but I don' think he can. I do think he can be used effectively and creatively by the Jets and not as a starting QB, and I hope that works. Now lets look at the losses. The Broncos were leading the Pats the first time but they let the Patriots take a one point lead by fumbling. Next drive Tebow fumbles and the Pats go up 8. Next drive Broncos 3 and out, 2 incompletetions, Bell run stopped. Down 11 into half. 2nd half, their first drive stalls out incompletetion and sack. NE goes up 18. Broncos get one first down and then punt. Tebow has a solid drive cutting to 11 with 9 minutes left. This loss should fall on the offense because they failed a few times in the first half. DEN-BUF. Denver starts off with a good drive and goes up 7-0. Buf then misses 2 FGs and onto the 2nd quarter. The offense does a lot of nothing and BUF eventually gets 3. Broncos go 3 and out. BUF ST scores 7-10. Broncos 3 and out. Down 7-17. Broncos come out good drive 14-17. Buf answers with 3, 14-20. DEN goes 3 and out. 3 more for Buf. Den 5 plays and punt. Buf kicks another FG 14-26, only 2 possesion still. 4 plays and punt for Den. Back to back pick sixes. game over. I see another loss on the offense. The defense while playing incosistent held the Bills to 26 points and a lot of FG. Tebow scored as many as he gave up. Last game of season: 3 and out. 3 and out.Tebow fumbles in RZ.4 plays and punt (1st down on mcgahee run for 10) 2 first downs, none by Tebow, Incomplete, rush for 1, incomplete all Tebow. Half, KC muffs punt, Denver at KC 20, settle for FG, 0 first downs. 2 first downs (none tebow) willis rush for 4, incomplete, incomplte punt. 3rd and 6 at KC 36, Tebow sacked for -9 yards. Takes his team out of FG position. Broncos defense holds steady and Broncos gets ball at KC 49, 3 and out. 3 and out. INT on 4th and 2. I see a QB who either hit a cold steak or was figured out. The defense kept the teams in the game in all 3. Poor offensive play led to all 3 losses. Looking at these losses, I wouldn't say Tebow is an efficient scorer. I would say he maximizes opportunities in the red zone and is very good at not turning the ball over. However, the team struggled even when the defense was pitching very good games. THe struggles came mostly from the offensive side of the ball. Watching those games, going over them, and looking ahead I don't think Tebow makes a huge jump anytime in the future. Does this mean he won't develop into a great QB, no. This means I think it is more likely he turns into a backup/special package QB than into a viable starting QB. For your general knowledge right now I see Sanchez as a middle of a pack average QB. I think he can turn into an above average starting QB, but I would lean towards his peak his slightly higher than what he is at now. Taking off my green colored glasses, I don't think he becomes elite, but I think he can be a viable starter and a top 13 QB.
To understand Tebow you only need to look at one stat: proven winner comments by fans to gimmick kneeling in front of camera.
One thing I have learned the last few years and seen is that both sides of the Tebow debate can post real stats to support their points and launch walls of text debating back and forth but never is anyone convinced of anything. People that say he sucks will continue to say he sucks no matter what he actually accomplishes , supporters are going to say he is great no matter what they see that would indicate otherwise . The truth , as everything with Tebow , is right in the middle. He is both simultaneously great and horrible ( he really is) he wins having never had a losing reord as a starter at any level and yet few want him on a team because of other factors like the media. It's back and forth and back and forth. The only thing most agree on is that he is a good leader and a good human being. For me personally , I love seeing him play. Exciting as hell , ugly for long periods and then mind numbingly exciting . I look forward to this year .
The Broncos defense benefited mightily from all those injuries to key players on the opponents during Tebows winning streak. They looked way better during that stretch than they really were. Much more so than Tebow I think.
I didn't throw it wrecklessly I responded to someone making an off handed remark that Sanchez must be a better rusher QB because they have similar touchdowns ignoring everything else. I don't really agree with your argument that Tebow was "put" in high efficiency situations. You're basing your argument on some incredibly specific situational stats and a few examples without doing the same for all the other quarterbacks in the league. You don't know where all the other quarterbacks rank, or the break down for them, and a lot of that has to do with offensive strategy to begin with. As far as low attempts and red zone touchdowns leading to higher efficiency, it's just not true and I discussed it earlier in the thread. It goes either way. Bad QB's with low attempts who can't score are going to look inefficient, not efficient. Low attempts and high touchdowns leads to efficiency. High attempts doesn't stop Rodgers, Brady, Ryan and many others from being efficient. That's actually what you hope to have. The more touchdowns per attempt the more efficient you are. Inefficiency comes from moving up and down the field and scoring either nothing, or only a FG. As far as fumbles goes, you can't included fumbles recovered because that's not a turnover. You have to use fumbles lost if you're trying to get a turnover %. While it can be argued that it's somewhat a random event as far as to who recovers it, it's still on them not to fumble in the first place. And that's an argument you can make for a fluke interception like say one that bounces off a receivers hands. It's not something that realistically you can actually go through and pick and choose what to count and what not to count. I can only go off of whatever numbers the NFL has, but since they are all counted the same way for all quarterbacks, that random factor is applied across the board to all quarterbacks as well. For your Patriots example, I agree. That's how the Pats blew the game open, both times. They forced a fumble and gained great field position. Which once again points to the importance of not turning over the ball. In both games the Pats got to Tebow. And finally there's no point to debating or drawing conclusions on the 3 losses. Obviously he wasn't an efficient scorer in the 3 losses. But you are looking at...3 losses. Can't pick and choose your sample. I'm using career or 2011 season numbers. You can draw the same conclusion about any quarterback from Tebow to Tom Brady, if you only look at their losses.
