He wasn't "rated dead last." In quarterback rating, he was clumped in together with a lot of the lower tier QB's in the 70's. Higher QB rating than Sam Bradford, Christian Ponder, and Blaine Gabbert. That's not to say any of them are necessarily good, but it shows that early on most QB's struggle statistically. He did have the lowest completion percentage, but a lot of them are clumped together. It's just too early to draw conclusions based solely on the numbers.
I was watching some Skip Bayless this week and I think it is clear he might believe things, but ESPN definitely forces some polarizing opinions on him and tell him to back it.
For a team, yes. For an individual player, not at all. Again, it was successful for the TEAM, but the actual play of the quarterback was dreadful. Using wins as a measure of a QB is retarded at best in every single case. Judge a player on their individual performance in helping a team win, judge the team on wins and losses.
There are very few QBs that are held in high regard that did not win a Super Bowl. And most of them are kept out of the top echelon simply due to not winning a Super Bowl. Marino is not mentioned as one of the GOATs simply due to the fact he didnt win enough. Winning will forever be the reason guys like Namath, Bradshaw, Aikman, and Montana get mentioned over Marino. Were they better than Marino probably not but they won. If you believe the measure of QBs has nothing to do with Wins and Losses, you have zero understanding of quarterbacks, zero understanding of football, and zero understanding about sports. Players in all sports will under the bottom line be decided by wins and losses. The best players are winners. End of story.
I agree with most of this. Anyone who puts Namath, Bradshaw, or Aikman over Marino is out of their mind. Most the time, the best players win, but as you said there is Marino ans what about Barry Sanders. Was he no great because the entire team was awful around him? I think what the poster is saying is the whole he is a "winner" thing is overrated and overused, especially in this case. Tebow has started 16 games and his record is 9-7 with 3 of those losses coming in the last three weeks of the season when the division championship was on the line and teams had film on what the Broncos were trying to do. It is easily similar to Vince Young. If Tebow stayed in Denver I think it would have followed a similar path and there would not be talk about him being a starting QB in the NFL. Also, I don't want to here about college. Tebow won one championship as the starter, the same as Leak and McElroy. Kellen Moore has the record for most college wins. Is he just a winner and is the NFL dumb for not drafting this guy early?
Pretty much. I'm a big believer in guys like Kellen Moore -- can't believe he wasn't drafted. But, I guess if he doesn't have the arm strength to play the position, that's sort of a problem. I think it comes down to (1) winning tendencies; PLUS (2) elite physical talent, such as size, strength, quickness, and arm strength. You've got to give guys like that a very close look. Look for the guy everyone says is lucky. Like Abraham Lincoln said about finding a general -- he said he was looking for one that was lucky, because the failures kept telling him they had bad luck.
IMO, Moore is a lot like McElroy. A very smart kid who got by mostly on brains (and a very talented team), but doesn't quite have the physical tools to succeed at an NFL level. Also, Moore played against extremely weak competition.
Oh, Tebow lost his last three games ? And you think that people's opinions/perceptions have nothing to do with Tebow ? Troy Aikman went 0-11 in his first 11 starts. You say that Tebow consistently won games scoring 15-17 pts ? Aikman and the Cowboys averaged 11.45 points per game that season, and that was with an offense that included Micheal Irvin, Herschel Walker, and Darryl Johnson. Or how about Eli Manning's first 7 starts where he went 1-6 and averaged 16.71 pts ?
Troy Aikman and Eli Manning were overall number one picks that both started in their rookie years. People could see the talent was there and the team lost. This is my point exactly. Tebow went 8-5 in his second year and all you tebots say he is a winner and it is all on tebow. My point is even though he won 8 games, he looked awful in most of them. He completed 2 passes and beat KC. Tebow should have been a 3-4 round pick. McDaniels reached, you cult followers over reacted and are actually hindering the development of Tebow. He should have been buried on the bench and actually fixed his throwing motion, learned how to take a snap under center, and learn to read a defense.
As if Aikman and Eli weren't awful in their first bunch of starts. In Eli's 5th start, he was 4 of 18 for 27 yards, 0 TD's and 2 Int's. In Aikman's 4th, he was 1 of 6 for 11 yards. Now, you pointed out that Aikman and Eli were number one picks, so was was Jamarcus Russell and a number of other #1 busts. That they were #1's didn't ensure that they would become good NFL QBs. Also, that Tebow should have been a 3rd/4th rounder doesn't really mean that much as some other notable QBs were late round picks. Brady comes to mind. Look, again, I'm not saying that Tebow was the best QB ever or that he had a particularly GOOD year overall. What I am saying is that given the circumstances, he did ok and that with time, he CAN become a better QB. That's a much different position than saying "he sucks and will never be an NFL QB".
I never said they were number one picks so they would succeed. I was saying that they were #1 picks and were going to get the time to succeed or fail. Also, since they were #1 picks, they were on some pretty bad teams. You see the one or two passes that Tebow makes that compares to a NFL QB. I see the other 55% that are not even close. I was at the Jets/Broncos game. The one thing I was amazed at was the WR didn't even know where to expect the ball to be after their breaks. The ball is simply all over the place. Instead of making a sharp cut and preparing for the ball to hit you in stride, the WRs basically make the cut, get their head around and try to figure out where the hell the ball is going. Tebow is so inconsistent and off so bad, the DBs don't even have a chance to make a pick. You keep hoping, I have seen enough.
Most people either like Tebow or hate him. That is why ESPN developed the SSA v Bayless dog and pony show. It feeds that itch. Tebow wasn't handed the job in Denver because of fan pressure, he was handed the job because the team was God awful. Denver was 4-14 with Tebow on the bench and 9-7 with him on the field in his first two years. Denver had several major key injuries on offense and defense at the end of last year. DT had basically never played before Tebow's first start last year. Lloyd was traded before Tebow started and Decker was supposed to be the go to receiver. Decker got injured and the receiver's were the dropping some very key passes. They were among the worst in the NFL in drops. McGahee was running about half speed the end of the season with a hammy. One OL was injured and out and another was a rookie on Tebow's blind side. The defense was also hobbling because Dawkins and Miller were injured. Tebow was playing on a terrible team. But with all that he helped them win games. So here is another poster gaga over Tebow because he carried the Broncos - right? Wrong, Tebow looked terrible at times and probably more times than he looked good. But let's not pretend he had nothing to do with Denver being able to win a few games. I like Tebow because he competes and he competes hard. I think he can make it as an NFL QB but am I positive - no.
Tebow won with a very tried and true method in the NFL. Run the ball control clock keep the defense fresh keep the game close try to win in it in the end. Tebow was like having and extra running back in the game. The problem with this style of play is that at times you are going to have to fling the ball around to win drop back and throw the ball. Tebow has not shown he can do this Sanchez has shown it on occasion.
Both his and Smith's "Get Eeem" attitude are stupid and usually don't last more then a couple seconds into listening to what they're actually talking about. So i could care less. /filler
Ponder and Gabbert were rookies on teams much worse than the Donkeys. Bradford was a sophomore like Tebow, but St Louis was also a sucky team. Put Tebow on the Vikes, the Jags or the Rams, and he would have sucked even worse.
Actually, Tebow won because teams didn't know how to defense him until they got some film on him. Once they analyzed his game, Tebow stopped "helping" his team win and "helped" them lose 4 out of their last 5 games. Only Pittsburgh didn't apply the formula to stopping Tebow: contain the run contain Tebow's running so that you force him to throw play zone pass defense and stick to your assignments It worked like a charm for the Pats (twice), the Bills, and the Chiefs. Tebow threw 5 INTs in his last 3 regular season games. As red75bronco said, with Tebow the DBs and WRs don't know where the ball is going to end up, so playing zone is much better than trying to play man-to-man like Pitt did. Defenders in zone coverage have better shots at Tebow's numerous errant passes.
