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

Bruce Arthur's column in The National Post, "What was the fuss all about?"

http://www.nationalpost.com/What+fuss+about/6001021/story.html

 

They went 8-8. Over a protracted period of time, it showed itself to have failed. The clock struck 12.

And you still don't know the team wouldn't have responded to Orton as the season grew on. You simply don't know.

 

That's a good point. I noted earlier that they could just as easily have asked Orton to lower his risk taking during the bulk of a game, play like he used to with the Bears, and manage games with defense. Orton was just as capable of producing copious amounts for 3-and-outs like Tebow. He too could throw the ball out of bounds rather than take a chance on throwing the ball toward a receiver who has a defensive back within the same zip code as him.

What would have happened if they told Orton to manage games in the same way Tebow was told to manage games? And then they introduce a Wildcat package with Tebow to add a couple of wrinkles to the running game? Would they have better results? Worse results? The same?

One thing that is important to note at the end of the season, head-to-head, Orton beat Tebow in a game Tebow needed to win (he got a reprieve from the Raiders).

 

That was justice for the Tebow freaks piling on Orton -- the guy who "just won games" before he got to a team with a talent problem.

Karma coming back to take a bite out of the ass.

 

Asking Orton to just manage the game would not have worked the same because he didn't present the threat as a runner that Tebow did. I don't think there is any way Orton gets them past the Steelers. Obviously, this is all subjective because we don't know what the team would have done if they had stuck with Orton. What we do know is that they played better after Fox and his staff made adjustments, including the change at quarterback.

No way in hell that team beats the Patriots with either guy at quarterback. None.

 

I think Orton could be depended on to complete an intermediate pass.

Fact: Tebow was up over the 50 percent completion mark in two games this season. No one else in the league could get away with that level of inefficacy, and no one else could put up those kinds of numbers and have mushmouths say he has a great future.

 

The Patriots have ended many a team's season over the past decade. Did the "clock strike 12" for those teams? Or did the better team with a Hall of Fame quarterback simply win games it should have won?

Put the Broncos against the Ravens yesterday, and you'll likely see a low-scoring game that (who knows?) maybe Denver pulls out in the end, putting them in the AFC title game.

 

New England hadn't won a playoff game in four years, and I can't remember any of their playoff wins in this era being a shit-kicking like that. It was the kind of game where one team doesn't belong on the same field as the other, and certainly where one quarterback doesn't belong on the same field, either.

 

Tim Tebow's completion percentage, 2011: 46.5
John Elway's completion percentage, 1983: 47.5

Tim Tebow's passer rating, 2011: 72.9
John Elway's passer rating, 1983: 54.9
John Elway's passer rating, 1984: 76.8
John Elway's passer rating, 1985: 70.2

 

Elway operated a pro-style offense. Once again you are operating from a false premise. It won't do.

 

I was responding to your comment that nobody could put up those kinds of numbers and be considered to have a great future. I do recall quite a bit of gushing over Elway's future even at the time. Somewhat justified in retrospect.

 

Elway could throw the GD ball. Your comparison is insane and you know it.