All-purpose, running Tim Tebow sucks/is a deity thread!

[BYH]

There is no way the Bengals win a playoff game--even over the Texans and T.J. Hooker at QB.

I not sure if TJ will be playing Saturday or not.

For your sake I hope he does, b/c the alternative is Jake Delhomme.

 

[Double Down]

deck, all due respect, stop making shirt up. People arguing on behalf of Tebow here, on this website, were not -- in any instance -- arguing that he was "so good." It didn't happen. What people argued, and I'll happily admit I was one of those people, was that the other extreme was stupid. And there were people here suggesting he was contributing nothing to any of the team's success. That evidence is easy to produce. On the other side, you have created a strawman in an effort to be smug. If you want to imply anyone here was sucking off Tebow and claiming he was "so good" please produce the posts. I'm confident the kind of hyperbole you're accusing people of exists only in your head.

Talk about creating a strawman. Who said Tebow was contributing nothing?

Well, Rick for one, Herbert for another. There's two.

Who you got for the jury on your side, bro?

 

[outofplace]

deck, all due respect, stop making shirt up. People arguing on behalf of Tebow here, on this website, were not -- in any instance -- arguing that he was "so good." It didn't happen. What people argued, and I'll happily admit I was one of those people, was that the other extreme was stupid. And there were people here suggesting he was contributing nothing to any of the team's success. That evidence is easy to produce. On the other side, you have created a strawman in an effort to be smug. If you want to imply anyone here was sucking off Tebow and claiming he was "so good" please produce the posts. I'm confident the kind of hyperbole you're accusing people of exists only in your head.

Talk about creating a strawman. Who said Tebow was contributing nothing?

Well, Rick for one, Herbert for another. There's two.

Who you got for the jury on your side, bro?

They said he was not a factor at all? Got the posts to back that up? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I sure doubt it.

And there were plenty of posters going on and on about the team's record with Orton and the record with Tebow while ignoring all other factors. I'm far too lazy to look up who, which is why I didn't argue that part of your post.

 

[Double Down]

deck, all due respect, stop making shirt up. People arguing on behalf of Tebow here, on this website, were not -- in any instance -- arguing that he was "so good." It didn't happen. What people argued, and I'll happily admit I was one of those people, was that the other extreme was stupid. And there were people here suggesting he was contributing nothing to any of the team's success. That evidence is easy to produce. On the other side, you have created a strawman in an effort to be smug. If you want to imply anyone here was sucking off Tebow and claiming he was "so good" please produce the posts. I'm confident the kind of hyperbole you're accusing people of exists only in your head.

Talk about creating a strawman. Who said Tebow was contributing nothing?

Well, Rick for one, Herbert for another. There's two.

Who you got for the jury on your side, bro?

They said he was not a factor at all? Got the posts to back that up? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I sure doubt it.

And there were plenty of posters going on and on about the team's record with Orton and the record with Tebow while ignoring all other factors. I'm far too lazy to look up who, which is why I didn't argue that part of your post.

No, in fact, people were not ignoring all other factors. People keep creating these extremes in this debate because they're so desperate to make the other side look like fundamentalist loons, and they want to believe they're the only sane voice shouting in the crowd. Those debates were incredibly nuanced. LongTermListener went round and round and round, over and over and over again, asking (nee, begging!) the people like Rick to see the middle ground. There was no IGNORING other factors. That's an instance, over and over, of people hearing and seeing only want the want to hear. If you want to accuse, say, Skip Bayless of holding those trollish positions, that's fine. But to sit here and say "Some people here will be leading the chorus of those saying Tebow led them to the playoffs" is forking stupid. The people arguing on Tebow's behalf all year have never once argued he was AMAZING. Or, to quote deck once again, that he was "so good." Only that he wasn't the raging, flaming, awful piece of garbage. That he was "dishonoring the game" which is another direct quote from this website. That the Broncos weren't "minimizing his role to the point where he's not a factor in the outcome," as long as you throw out various fourth quarter outliers.

 

[outofplace]

Actually, if I remember correctly, Herb's point on dishonoring the game was a reference to the system the Broncos have run, not Tebow himself.

I'm sorry, but the argument about the records being so different since he took over sure sounds like the extreme I described.

All I can speak to is my own argument, which is that Tebow was simply a part of the team's improvement, but that some where giving him way too much credit. The improvement of the defense and the adjustments by the coaching staff were larger factors.

 

[Double Down]

Again, who are these mysterious "some" in the "some where giving him too much credit?"

It's a bullshirt statement. LTL and poindexter were probably the two most vocal Tebow "advocates" here over the last month. And neither of them argued any such thing. You and deck have created them in your head because it make the people you're "calling out" seem more foolish, assigning them positions they did not hold. When in fact, all they've done is have a nuanced argument about Tebow over and over again.

It's late. I'm done.

 

[outofplace]

Again, who are these mysterious "some" in the "some where giving him too much credit?"

It's a bullshirt statement. LTL and poindexter were probably the two most vocal Tebow "advocates" here over the last month. And neither of them argued any such thing. You and deck have created them in your head because it make the people you're "calling out" seem more foolish, assigning them positions they did not hold. When in fact, all they've done is have a nuanced argument about Tebow over and over again.

It's late. I'm done.

Nobody ever posted that all we need to look at is the record with Orton and the record with Tebow? Seriously? If you really believe that, you missed a bunch of posts.

 

[BrianGriffin]

I can go back on this thread and find people who were convinced he was a legitimate NFL starter.

That's when I jumped in the fray because nothing he was doing in the winning streak suggested that to me.

So am I saying "He's a legitimate NFL starter" was heaping too much praise on him?

I suppose I am.

 

[LongTimeListener]

I appreciate Double Down's attempts on my behalf. I suspect that he too is finding that there is no convincing some people, but it's nice to know the points weren't lost on everyone.

My argument was always, from the second I jumped into the Tebow storyline after the first KC game, that it was hella fun to watch in an otherwise cookie-cutter NFL and that the Broncos were A) using their best quarterback; and B) putting him in position to win. I was always pretty sure the ride would end at some point; my early guess was the New England game, but the rails didn't really come off until the Buffalo game. In any case, I still hold that after a 1-4 start there is no way they are even 8-8 with Orton.

There is still a belief that all Tebow's comebacks were a happy accident and that end-of-game football is no different from second-quarter football. That's ridiculous to me. But if you're going to judge football on a spreadsheet, I suppose it's the way to look at it.

I'm on a phone and away from a computer for a couple of days, so I can't go look up all the posts, but there are many many posts by many different people saying the Broncos were winning despite Tebow. That they were "marginalizing" him, after a game when he had 20+ carries. It's all there.

In the big picture, he was a first-time starter who was struggling with accuracy but playing mistake-free, helping his defense (with an enormous increase in opponent field position over where they were with Orton), keeping his team in the game and putting it together at the end. Not a bad profile. The difference is the last three weeks -- and a little bit before that, but especially the last three weeks -- he wasn't playing mistake-free. That is the big problem and the big change.

Funny thing is, after this season I figure I'm off the Tebow bandwagon anyway, because he's either going to be unable to run a pro-style offense or he's going to beat the odds and learn how to run one, in which case he's going to look like everyone else and I won't care.

But y'all just wait till Blake Bell gets in the league!

 

[BrianGriffin]

LTL, I made a post in, of all places, the Notre Dame thread (don't ask) that explains the problem with praising him for playing mistake free.

The Broncos ran a flea-flicker today and when Tebow got the pitch back, the intended receiver (Decker?) was open. But Tebow held the ball and wound up throwing it away. Decker had his man beat by a step, but Tebow CHOSE not to throw it. Too risky. That's like getting credit for not taking a bad shot in basketball and instead letting the shot clock expire.

That's playing not to lose and it's what he had been doing the whole time.

I never put much stock on his 20-carry games because, as you said, that's not something he can make a living doing. Heck, not many running backs can do that.

And in no way, shape or form, should he get credit for "keeping his team in the game" when he's doing so by producing multiple 3-and-outs. In no bizzaro universe is that "helping" your defense.

And the difference in the last three weeks (well, the last two, not this week) is that Denver needed to try to do something other than run clock to get to the end in a close, low-scoring game. New England and Buffalo were scoring points.

Denver ought to go sign Matt Flynn then let him throw a few passes to Tebow lined up at tight end. They'd be doing both players a favor.

 

[BrianGriffin]

I appreciate Double Down's attempts on my behalf. I suspect that he too is finding that there is no convincing some people, but it's nice to know the points weren't lost on everyone.

My argument was always, from the second I jumped into the Tebow storyline after the first KC game, that it was hella fun to watch in an otherwise cookie-cutter NFL and that the Broncos were A) using their best quarterback; and B) putting him in position to win. I was always pretty sure the ride would end at some point; my early guess was the New England game, but the rails didn't really come off until the Buffalo game. In any case, I still hold that after a 1-4 start there is no way they are even 8-8 with Orton.

There is still a belief that all Tebow's comebacks were a happy accident and that end-of-game football is no different from second-quarter football. That's ridiculous to me. But if you're going to judge football on a spreadsheet, I suppose it's the way to look at it.

I'm on a phone and away from a computer for a couple of days, so I can't go look up all the posts, but there are many many posts by many different people saying the Broncos were winning despite Tebow. That they were "marginalizing" him, after a game when he had 20+ carries. It's all there.

In the big picture, he was a first-time starter who was struggling with accuracy but playing mistake-free, helping his defense (with an enormous increase in opponent field position over where they were with Orton), keeping his team in the game and putting it together at the end. Not a bad profile. The difference is the last three weeks -- and a little bit before that, but especially the last three weeks -- he wasn't playing mistake-free. That is the big problem and the big change.

Funny thing is, after this season I figure I'm off the Tebow bandwagon anyway, because he's either going to be unable to run a pro-style offense or he's going to beat the odds and learn how to run one, in which case he's going to look like everyone else and I won't care.

But y'all just wait till Blake Bell gets in the league!

The only thing I can add to this is that I do believe Tim Tebow, if put in a system that fits his skill-set, is one of the 32 best quarterbacks in the NFL. He's probably one of the 20 best, but I'd have to make a list to be sure.

You can make the standard argument that NFL teams run that standard "pro-style" offense because it's proved effective against NFL defenses. I'd counter that the Saints and the Steelers run exceedingly different offenses built around their respective quarterbacks with the intention of maximizing strengths and weaknesses.

I would also say that because so many teams run such similar offenses, if you've got Kyle Orton (or Rex Grossman or Dan Orlovsky or A.J. Feeley or John Skelton or Kellen Clemens or Tarvaris Jackson, etc.) as your signal caller, you're resigning yourself to mediocrity. There aren't enough stud quarterbacks to go around. If you don't have one, you can do one of two things: stick with the status quo and hope to find enough success in the traditional run game and on defense to eke out enough wins to qualify for the playoffs or take a risk and think outside the box.

Fox obviously made clear in the early part of this season that he wanted to stay traditional and blindly hope it worked. It didn't. He made the smart decision to take a chance, an it worked. And the Broncos went 7-4 with Tebow starting. And while it's frustrating to watch Tebow fail to complete a routine pass, it's startling to watch him take off on a draw play or heave a deep ball. He makes plays in ways that many NFL starting quarterbacks, with this set of weapons, couldn't.

I don't think you can run an NFL offense where you invite the quarterback to be hit on 15-20 plays a game, game-in, game-out. Even running backs aren't asked to take that punishment very often any more. A feature back may have some 20-yard games, but most teams now use a stable to spread the wear.

With all the responsibilities heaped on a QB, it would be foolish to ask him to take the punishment you no longer expect your running backs to take.

Now, I give credit to Fox for the move because he caught the league unprepared. But a gimmick only takes you so far.

 

[BYH]

There is still a belief that all Tebow's comebacks were a happy accident and that end-of-game football is no different from second-quarter football. That's ridiculous to me. But if you're going to judge football on a spreadsheet, I suppose it's the way to look at it.

That's EXACTLY what it was. Of Tebow's seven wins, at least five were the result of abject ineptitude by the opposition:

Mia (18-15): Dolphins can't recover an onside kick with the lead late in regulation
KC (17-10): Tebow was 2-for-8 passing. TWO-FOR-EIGHT.
Jets (17-13): Scored their first TD on a pick of Mark Sanchez and punted on eight straight possessions before the Jets allowed him to go 95 yards in the final five minutes
Vikings (35-32): Ponder throws a pick deep in Broncos territory in the final minute
Bears (13-10): Marion Barber is the world's biggest idiot

That's not even counting a Norv Turner special against the Chargers. The Broncos should be 4-12, at best. Lord Tebow is not even remotely close to an NFL QB, and he's set the Broncos back another couple years with his fluke run. Hopefully they open 0-8 next year and we never have to hear about him ever again.