And the Donkeys won despite Tebow's crappy play until teams figured out how to stop him. Then the Donkeys stopped winning. I suspect that the reason the Donkeys released Orton was to avoid a further QB controversy. The Bills did the exact same thing in 2010 when they replaced Trent Edwards with Ryan Fitzpatrick. A lot of coaches don't like former starters hanging around causing controversy simply by being on the team. Furthermore, as soon as John Elway procured a QB that couldn't be touched by the Tebots, he couldn't wait to send Tebow packing. That says all there is to say about how successful Tebow was as a starter. You can cite all the dumbassed stats that you can pull out of your anal orifice or conjure up from burnt goat entrails, but the fact is that teams don't trade away young first round QBs who've started for them the previous season unless they feel they're busts.
2011 Orton in weeks 1 through 5 > 2011 Tebow in weeks 7 through 11. Fact supported by statistical analysis.
On turnovers and turnovers alone, the answer is different; you are correct. However, so there can be no exception for turnovers when comparing Orton in weeks 1 through 5 versus Tebow in weeks 7 through 11.
How abut clutch play under pressure when it counts? Kyle Orton has 6 fourth quarter comebacks and 7 game winning drives in 71 career starts ( 7 years) Time Tebow has 6 fourth quarter comebacks and 7 game winning drives in 16 career starts Quite a disparity when the game is on the line and it hinges on a few clutch plays.
Which is why I posted an analysis on TD% TO% and TD/TO ratios, because believe it or not, that's what matters most and that's the reason Orton lost his job, and Tebow succeeded. When you start turning over the ball just as much or more than scoring, or at least helping your team score points, you're going to lose your job as a quarterback. The facts are Orton turned the ball over too much, which DIRECTLY impacts your chances of winning in the NFL, went 1-4, and lost his job to Tebow who stages a pretty impressive comeback the game he came in. And those are facts supported by reality. This is typically what happens to ALL quarterbacks who lose their job. And why are you comparing his first 5 starts to Tebow's week 7 through 11 anyway? And does EPA and WPA include their rushing stats? Because Tebow is a dual pass/rush QB.... Orton had 8 touchdowns and 8 turnovers in his first 5 starts. Tebow had 8 touchdowns and 2 turnovers in his first 5 starts. But that wasn't Orton's first year as a starter. Orton was a veteran QB, who had the entire off-season and preseason to train in a conventional offense, and Tebow was a first year starter in a makeshift offense patched together over 1 bye week, for his first 5 starts. Truth is it shouldn't have even been close if Orton had what it took. And of course, there's the whole winning thing that comes into account. Tebow went 5-0 in those same weeks which ultimately is what matters.
I was citing the analysis I posted a link to. And EPA/WPA include many performance aspects. No matter whose better at rushing the ball if either Orton or Tebow were to rush the ball for 5 yards that statistic would impact the EPA and WPA.
A lot of the Tebow lovefest reminds me of Romo's first year in Dallas (where I live). Romo didn't have a big support network of fans and he was undrafted coming out of college but that year he replaced Bledsoe there was a lot of media pressure and fans screaming for Romo. He pushed that team into the playoffs that year and everybody acted like he was Aikman and Staubach rolled into one. Well you've seen how that team has done since. However, if you look at Romo's stats, he still has some very impressive numbers. They just don't happen to be in the win column anymore. The team around him didn't suddenly go from ass to class when he started. He energized them and gave them focus. Other teams didn't have tape on him and he was able to exploit defenses not knowing a lot about him. He played better than a lot of people expected. And he's a decent QB. You can see the same things about Tebow. Came in, energized the team, did really well working an angle that other teams weren't prepared for. Played better than expected. He does have some skills. Obviously analogous situations do not prove whether Tebow is a good player or not but it does legitimize some skepticism that he is the best QB of all time because he had a good run his first season.
Orton 1-4 Tebow with a lesser team (no #1 WR) 7-4 and sets record for a QB vs the #1 Defense in the NFL. If Sanchez is losing then who can argue that Tebow should replace him. Lombardi and Ryan are SMART if they don't make the playoffs they are both gone and they are NOT hitching their Wagon to Sanchez they have the most qualified back up QB in the NFL and are installing an offense he runs great. They need to add a speed burning WR and another big RB and this team is set for Tebow IF I said IF Sanchez flops. Tebow replaced Orton because he was failing and Tebow succeeded mightly even with the worst WRs in the NFL bar none. He turned Thomas' career around. If Tebow hadn't come in no way Manning wants to go there now.
Here's some facts that don't need "statistical analysis". Denver was the worst team in the NFL the previous 31 games going 7-24 before Tebow's first start in 2011. Tebow went 1-2 in 2010, so that means that monster Orton went 6-22 his last 28 starts. But yeah, he's awesome.
The bottom line is nobody trust Tebow to be a starting QB right. Now that may change but I don't really think so. He just to bad at throwing that ball and he show no signs of being a drop back QB.
its early in the morning so my brain is still fuzzy, so I apologize if I am wrong. Didn't the article say that Orton's EPA was higher, but his WPA was lower. That would indicate to me that either a high # of Ortons points were garbage time points while Tebows were garbage time, or that his turnovers were with the game on the line whil tebows were after the game was out of reach. That is my interpretation any way. Basically Orton helped them score more points, but was less likley to help them win, Tebow te opposite. I thought our previous post was reffering to general stats, not epa/wpa my apologies
I don't think that anyone who is rational is arguing best of all time, or really even good. I think the argument is that he is far from the worst of all time, and not nearly hopeless. Mostly skills in line with a typical 2nd year guy a la Bradford, McCoy. At least that is the way I see it
He's no where close to Bradford as a QB, and McCoy is a bust. The guy is a worse passing, better running, white Christian version of Vince young, minus the Napoleon complex college fanbase.
It is different since he was DESCRIBING something, not merely opining on something. Did you read the post?
