This is 100% irrelevant to the point I made. They're both young NFL QB's, are peers, QB'd overall pretty bad teams and should be judged by the same standard. Actually, I take that back, it's incorrect. Luck should be judged by a higher standard since he was the #1 pick in the draft and the best QB to enter the draft since John Elway, according to everyone and their brother. Tebow was just a guy who shouldn't have gone before the 4th round of the draft according to everyone and their brother. If giving up 5 TD's to Brady in the first half is a defense "playing its ass off for 60 minutes", then I'd hate to see a defense that was slacking.
All high-round draft pick QB's in the NFL, starting for bad teams, should be judged by the same standards, given the same benefit of the doubt. Whether it's RGIII, Luck, Weeden, Bradford, Sanchez, or Tebow. Period. Actually, I take that back. Those picked higher in the draft should be judged by a little higher standard, but the same basic standard. Your opinion on how good Tebow or any of those other QB's is, is beside the point.
Do you believe Luck is better than Tebow? (I'm sure you will ignore this question and say that it's not your point) Luck receives the benefit of the doubt because his play to date is significantly higher and he performed better in the situation you are describing.
Explain to me how punting the ball back to Tom Brady after 3 plays for most of the game didn't hurt? ....and when you are done. Tell me how they DIDN'T play their asses off for 60 minutes for 5 out of his 7 wins in the regular season holding teams to 15 points... three of which STILL took OT to beat them? Tebow wouldn't have won a bowl of snot without it.
EXACTLY. Luck actually looks like a QB out there and is already one of the better players on his team. Tebow was.... not. He was carried most of the way. To use a baseball analogy, it's like he was walked to third base. Then he gets home on a pop fly error, while all the Tebowner fans of his insist that he actually hit an inside the park home run.
If you are a young QB going against Belichick for the first time, unless you have a strong D and running game, the chances you have to winning the game is 0.
I completely agree. First rounders should absolutely be held to a higher standard, and like it or not, Tebow was a first round quarterback. He has not yet proved that he is a franchise quarterback of any kind, and his stock is falling fast. Nobody wants a quarterback that cant complete half their throws. Nobody wants a quarterback that fumbles more than once a game. Nobody wants a quarterback that does not have high school level fundamentals buttoned up. Nobody wants a quarterback that lacks field vision, that can not read defensive schemes, that has a ridiculous wind up and release to compensate for his lack of arm strength. Sometimes college players and their play style simply do not translate well to the NFL. Sometimes they can't hold up mentally. Sometimes they fold under the immense pressure of the NFL. That's just how it is. The Jets will cut him at the end of the season, and maybe someone picks him up, and maybe they don't. Either way, he is nowhere near field ready, and may takes years to break all the bad habits he has developed over his lifetime.
Read recently that, apparently, some unknown team offered the Colts every draft pick they had and declared no player on their roster un-touchable in order to try and acquire Luck. The Colts declined.
Wow... Prior to acquiring Manning on the Broncos, I was an advocate for "Going Ditka" in the draft and offering whatever it took for Luck. (Wonder if it was Elway and the Broncos, the way he stalked Luck during last season.) But the Colts KNOW what a franchise QB looks like. Denver got so used to seeing Chris Simms, Kyle Orton, Jay Cutler (probably the best of that bunch,) Brady Quinn, Brian Griese, etc... I think they forgot what a franchise QB looked like until Manning came in. Jake Plummer was alright though, nothing great. But Indianapolis's knowledge on what a franchis QB is made of shouldn't surprise me why they declined an offer like that.
Crazy? I'd throw in our next two first-round draft picks as well (at least) and the Colts would still tell me to take a hike.
Its not irrelevant at all to the point you made. Your point was off the statistics from the games that the experts analysis was biased against tebow and for luck. The point he made is that anyone who watches alot of football would tell you that Luck is by far the better QB prospect and showed it to anyone that actually watched both games. You opened the can of worms, now you get to defend it or deflect and ignore as you seem to have chosen to. Using only stats to back up a point about QB's is bad. Using stats to defend Tebow whos best attributes are not put on a stat sheet is asinine.
Funny thing is that most people that have a clue still question ESPN's "QBR" as a valid stat. Now, if you go back and look at QB Rating, which has been accepted for years, Tebow and Luck's ratings are actually very close, 72.9 for Tebow, 77.2 for Luck. That said, OP was spot on. It's something I noticed last night during end of day breakdowns/analysis. Luck had a bad day against the Pats, got beat down worse than the Broncos did in the playoffs, and "oh well, just a bad game for the kid, he'll learn from it". The double standard is glaring.
As a pure drop-back passer? Yes, Luck is definitely better at that right now, and he should be since he has been in a pro-style offense for a long time. But you're right, it is beside the point that I was making, which isn't about Luck so much as it is about Tebow. I just used Luck because his team lost to the Patriots by the exact same point margin that the Broncos lost to the Patriots by in the playoffs. If RGIII had an atrocious beatdown by the Patriots last night, the same thing would apply, because he would be judged by the same standard that Luck was judged by, not the one Tebow would be judged by. See, here's the thing....if you're talking about passing yards and completion %, then you're correct. But here's a few other stats that are a little more important in the real world. Luck through 1st 10 NFL Starts: - 12 pass td - 12 int - 8 fumbles - 5 rush td - QB rating 77.2 - W-L record 6-4 Tebow through 1st 10 NFL Starts: - 14 pass td - 3 int - 7 fumbles - 6 rush td - QB rating 90.33 - W-L record 7-3 As you can see, through their first 10 NFL starts, Tebow "performed" better for his team than Luck did for his team. We're not talking about throwing motion here, we're talking about real world, quantifiable statistics. Tebow - 1 turnover, lose game by 35 points. Luck - 4 turnovers including 2 pick-6's, lose game by 35 points. The end result was the same. The difference was that Luck threw for more yards, had quadruple the number of turnovers and spotted the Patriots 14 points via his two pick-6 throws. Did the Colts lose just as badly as the Broncos did? Then how did Luck help his team come any closer to beating the Patriots? Against a mixture of back-up's and some of the worst starting QB's in the league. Sorry, I am not impressed. Maybe you can tell me how this great Denver defense gave up 40+ points in 5 games in one season last year, which is more than the New England Patriots and Green Bay Packers defenses have given up in the entire starting careers of Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers - COMBINED. To put that in perspective for you....The Denver defense gave up more 40+ point games in a single 16 game season than the Packers and Patriots gave up in a combined 240+ games. 240! And Tebow is held to a higher standard than any other young 1st rd QB currently in the league, despite the fact that he came into the NFL as practically already a "failure" before he ever took his first snap, according to the "analysts" and "experts", and wasn't worthy of a high round draft pick, according to those same "experts". He's the guy that is getting held to the highest standard, not the multiple guys who were chosen way higher than him in the draft.
Cute post. You can ignore QBR. You can ignore that Luck's worst game was better than a few of Tebow's wins, and quite a few of his losses. Call it how ever you see it. But I'll tell you how the entire NFL sees it: Almost every team in this league would give anything for Andrew Luck. He is the real deal. Tim Tebow is pretty much the exact opposite of that. No one wants him, and the Jets will cut him at the end of the year.
QB rating if anything is the only real valid comparison there. Wins are the stupidest QB stat in the world, like wins for pitchers in baseball but even worse. Tebow's 10 starts came after almost an entire year sitting on the bench where Luck started from day one. Tebow threw only 229 attempts over those 10 games, Luck threw 412 times. Denver D gave up 24.7 points per in those 10, 21.7 in the 7 2011 games. Indy D gave up 26 ppg this year. Denver ran for 111 ypg (excluding Tebow). Indy ran for 94ypg (excluding Luck) So obviously Luck is asked to carry a much larger portion of the offense on the back of his throwing while compensating for a considerably worse defense. That is obviously going to lead to more picks if you have to throw it 41 times a game as opposed to someone who throws it 22 times per game. There are some decent points to be made about Luck being overpraised for the fact that he looks like he will be elite and not criticized enough for his turnovers, but ignoring the different circumstances involved in their first ten games in favor of cherry picking stats that make Tebow look good is silly.
