These stats were purposely presented absent of context. They are just numbers. Draw your own conclusions. I don't think you meant to use the word "illogical", as it doesn't apply in this situation. If you said "unfair", I could see where you were going with that, but like I said... they're just numbers. Cold hard numbers.
how about these numbers? 401 TDs (in fewer games than any QB in history) Lifetime 95% QB rating Lifetime 65% Completion perctentage 4th most wins (142) 4 MVPs 6x AFC player of the year 2 SB 1 SB win 1SB MVP I joined a while ago and am content to sit back and watch the Tebowmania section until something that is so stupid I have to check in. I am a "sit and see what happens guy" and who knows what will happen with tebow but to even mention him in the same breath as manning is borderline retarded. Yes he had one good game against the Steelers... Manning is 7-1 against Dick Lebeau. Talk to me when Tebow has done the same until then by all means keep up the Tebow banter.
So is that what it's come to? You're doing the "Peyton Manning has a better body of work than Tim Tebow" position? The point of comparison is only to try and evaluate what the Jets have in Tebow, and to figure out if the "can't play quarterback" claims are true. Stats require context, and inherently involve comparing to what other good or great players have done.
I get what your saying but 1 game isn't enough to do that with. In science you must prove and reprove your hypothesis over and over before you can come up with an accepted answer. So Tebow had 1 good game against the steelers... that doesn't prove long term viability as a starting NFL QB. How about his starts against the Patriots? That doesn't prove he is a horrible QB either. 16 games isn't enough to tell what he is or isn't. So comparing him against anyone that has 207 starts in the NFL is flawed science.
I merely posted stats of the two QBs on the same (for the most part) team against the same (for the most part) opponent within a reasonably short time frame. It is not a comparison on their entire body of work, nor specific abilities. Argue the numbers, not the motivation or context, of which there was none to argue.
I'm sorry but I have been following the Tebow section for a while and there is no way there isn't some SUBTEXT to your post. Phaytal is a denver douche bag that loves crapping on Tebow but he isn't wrong all the time.
When the proposition is "Can't do it, does not have it in him," then suddenly the investigation is greatly simplified. Because whether he could do it for years on end consistently is a separate question. But a very small number of examples of him doing it are very instructive on whether he ultimately has the potential. I mean, it's a postseason game, against the #1 defense in the NFL, and he didn't just bag a win, he played well, with a good YPA (one of the most important stats). And he was instrumental in all the key scores. So yeah, it's not conclusive on whether a team should want to make him their starter. But it is pretty weighty on whether the ability is there.
I mean, I'd say the same thing about Charlie Batch. If the question were, can he start at quarterback in this league, I'd say yes, absolutely. I've seen enough to know he has that ability. Whether he's good enough at it such that a team should want to make him their starter -- maybe not. I'd be happy if people would just put Tebow in that Charlie Batch category. But they keep insisting he belongs in the "joke" category. We've been through it before -- Tebow just "looks" wrong to the eyes of many people. That's a fact -- he affects the brain, makes it go "not a quarterback, not a quarterback" in a high percentage of people. But if you look past what he looks like moving, looking around, throwing -- his passing ability by itself warrants a long look.
How so? did you forget his stinkers against the Chiefs? Patriots? Bills? For every good game there's a bad game. You can't prove or disprove anything with such a small sample. Now... you could... if he was good-to-great in say 14 out of the 16 games, even if he lost. this argument is about long term viability right? and so far there is no evidence he is good enough to play at the level he played at in his better games. I also dont think he has enough bad games to right him off completely either. I play a ton of golf and had a couple rounds in the mid 70's over the summer ... that doesn't mean I will be on the tour anytime soon.
I have my opinions, but I provided no subtext. Draw your own conclusions. My opinion does not matter.
I guess I see an assymetry between looking for potential and ultimately concluding the potential not met. Every good example displays the potential is there. To use your golf example, make the round a 65, under PGA conditions. Then, I would say "You have displayed the potential to be a professional golfer." It wouldn't matter that you didn't do it every time. Because I'd know you had it in you to do something that good. If you gave it a full try and all the time it needed, and couldn't do it -- so be it. But I would never say "Sure, you shot that 65. But a lot of times you didn't. You've shot a whole lot worse than that. Therefore, I conclude you do not have the potential to be a pro golfer." That's the difference between a flash of the good potential, and drawing conclusions from the bad days -- the bad days are always going to happen. Mark Sanchez looked like crap against Denver last year, deep into his third year, after getting all the reps and all the starts, and all the OTA's. But we know there were other reasons for that.
I see what you are saying and I don't disagree so much with your reasoning just your conclusion. I just don't think you can make one yet. There is too much bad and not enough good to be anything but a wash at this point. Can he be a good QB? Sure... I have seen enough to think if he can get his flaws fixed he could be a serviceable NFL QB. CAn he be a bust and be out of the league in a couple of years? Sure... I have seen enough to think he cant fix his flaws enough to be a serviceable NFL QB. So to me, I cant say where he will fall as I can see both scenario's playing out.
I don't see any real problem with that analysis. It's a myth that the "Tebow Debate" is on whether he's the greatest of all time or not. The debate is whether he even belongs on an NFL roster as a QB. I think he's fine -- I think he's a better prospect than McElroy. As uncontroversial as that opinion should sound, you'd get vehement disagreement from a huge devoted group that wants to declare "bust."
Yup, and after Sunday's game, all the headlines and media are saying he is irrelevant. Because of Rex Ryan's hype of how he would be used so much and so differently, the fact that he was a punt protector and wildcat (run-only) QB during the game for a handful of possessions just made it all look like a gimmick. I was really thinking he would be used like he was alongside Chris Leak. Tebow looked foolish and Sanchez came out looking like a boss. I'm not in favor of using Tebow to boost up Sanchez. Not while I think Tebow has a bigger upside. That's my opinion guys... I understand that most think Sanchez is better now and long-term as well. I won't argue that. It's a reasonable position to take.
It was a romp. They still put him in. Not much to take a way from it, football wise. It's a long season. The only thing that concerned me was the booing AFTER the play. I think there's a difference between booing with Sanchez is pulled, and waiting until after a play gets stuffed and booing. One play, in a rout. Happens all the time in football -- the play's not blocked, the defense reads it, whatever. And the fans booing. It's a sign of that same polarizing thing going on.
I dont rememeber anyone really "booing" tebow, or any Tebow negativity while at the game, if anything he got alot of support. I heard it from the analysts this morning and it kind of caught me off guard, I had no idea what they were talking about, I disagree and say its not true. Edit: Besides harmless sarcasm to your local fans of course.
That's good. It's hard to tell if it's just a few fans near a microphone or not. It's not the end of the world, but man -- it's a rout. Drink a beer.
Ok. Roger that. It appeared to me that you were saying the juxtaposition was illogical, and therefore any conclusions drawn would be illogical. On that I disagree.
