Mike Ditka often clashed with Bears QB Jim McMahon. Most of the time McMahon ignored the play that Ditka sent in and called what he thought should be done. It went Jimbo's way about 99% of the time. I like "Iron Mike" and think that he's one of the greatest coaches ever, but that doesn't automatically make him a QB guru...
I didn't say he was a QB guru, just that he has the stones to say what he really believes about Tebow and stick to it, even when 99% of the other NFL "analyst" lemmings are talking in lock step with one another saying the exact opposite.
I get it. If you are part of the 99% who watched Tebow and didn't come away impressed, they must be Lemmings. It couldn't be that the other 1% of his cult are too stoned out from the fumes from Tebow's jock strap to see it.
Okay, so you found a few that like Tebow. Wanna list those that DON'T think he's that great? I bet you there are far more of them. Or are they ALL lemmings? I'm guessing that must be true of just about everyone that doesn't agree with you.
Ditka simply thinks highly of him as a player and loves his work ethic. Youung still thinks he can develop to bea QB in this league. Those guys are simply wrong about Tebow. Nothing wrong with that. I don't count him as one of the 1% like yourself who stretch stat sheet projections, and act like the kid walks on water, and can spark a team pretty much by his lonesome. Now answer my question, because you guys have been dodging it from day one. Are the guys you guys constantly list backing up your point credible simply because they agree with you? Are all those other critics that disagree with you simply "lemmings?" Steve Young is not, but John Elway IS a lemming? Is Merril Hoge a lemming simply because he doesn't think tebow is a good QB? Are the coaches that actually SEE him every day lemmings? I guess Ditka and Steve Young, (who DON'T see him on a daily basis) just can't be wrong. I'd say they were cultists if they kept trying to stretch stat sheets into stats that don't actually exist to make some kind of point that he's as good as anyone else, like I've been seeing from some of you. I hadn't heard any of them try to say Tebow was better than the guys ahead of him and couldn't get the job because of some man crush. Until they do, they're separate from the tebow cultists who see almost nothing wrong with his game.
:lol: I'm sure they appreciate your forebearance with them for having such a "wrong" opinion. As opposed to you, who completely ignores every stat about Tebow except completion % and 3rd down stuff, neither of which is strongly correlative to wins and losses. When the NFL media lemmings start being critical of other QB's for some of the same issues they're critical of Tebow on, then I'll be happy to take those particular ones out of the lemming list. But as long as they're hypocrites, criticizing Tebow for things they completely let slide on other young QB's, then yep, they're simply "towing the line" on what they say about Tebow. How many times have you heard the announcers getting on to Colin Kaepernick this year about tucking the ball without "going through his reads" and taking off running when he sees an opening in the line, even if he just got the snap and it clearly wasn't a called run? How many times have you heard the announcers call out Jake Locker for the same thing? ??????
I think they do correlate to wins and losses... over the LONG TERM. I think the completion percentage goes hand in hand with why they led the league in three and outs. I think punting all day to Tom Brady is a good reason they lost 45-10 to the Patriots. When you have an offense that is THAT unproductive, the wins and losses come down to the defense. I think a defense that gives up 15 points or less is an even better correlation to wins. You can still win with shitty passing and punting all day. If the defense gave up.... say, 20 points. Those shitty offensive stats hurt a lot more. Like that Patriots game last year. The defense couldn't hang with Brady, and all Tebow did was give it back to him. Most GMs, coaches, and analysts are smart enough to realize this, which is why Tebow gets such a bad rap. It became obvious what he was doing was no longer working during the 1-4 stretch at the end and suddenly 16 points was no longer enough. Few, other than the kool-aid drinkers, thought it was a sustainable way to win. That is why Elway got rid of him, that is why the Jets didn't play him, and that is why he'll be lucky to have an NFL home next season.
When the last time a QB won a lot of games in the NFL? Won a lot of games throwing under 50% comp? When a QB won a SB throwing under 50%? Don't go back 40 years ago.
First, you don't know anything about Tebow "LONG TERM", because you are not a fortune teller as far as I'm aware. You act like a young QB has never improved his completion % over the course of a career. :lol: Nothing could be further from the truth. Secondly, whole lotta' "I think" going on here. Maybe if you would actually consult real, live, statistics, you could say "here is what the facts show", or more likely you would just keep your mouth shut since you'd be talking out of your backside. All that should really need to be pointed out is that the Ravens and 49ers are #20 and #25 in 3rd down conversions, #24 and #14 in 3 and outs, and have QB's that were ranked #19 and #12 in completion % this year, and they're both going to the Super Bowl. Barely in the top half of the league this year in any of the 3 categories you deem most important as a barometer of QB success....and they're going to the Super Bowl. Good call on that. In the 5 years Joe Flacco has been in the NFL, the Ravens Offense has averaged: - 14th best 3rd down conversion - 15th best 3 and out % - 17th best completion % Not exactly numbers you'd figure for a team that has been to the play-off's 5 years in a row in a very tough division. How do they keep doing it, with those kind of Offensive numbers? Well, they averaged being the 4th stingiest scoring Defense in the league over that time period, allowing an average of 17.3 pts./game. That might have something to do with it. So, this is where you tell me that that is exactly the reason Denver went on a winning streak with Tebow last year, because of the Defense. Yeah, about that.... The Denver Defense averaged being the 24th stingiest scoring Defense last year, allowing an average of 24.4 points/game. I suggest you go back and watch what Ditka had to say to Merril Hoge when he was making every excuse under the sun for why the Broncos were winning last year, and why it wasn't happening under Orton before Tebow became the starter. Well dagnabbit, now you've got me all confused! When New England pasted the Rams 45-7 in October, was it because of Sam Bradford's 73% completion rate or his 3/10 3rd down conversion rate? When NE smoked the Bills 52-28 on 9/30/12, was it because of the Bills 53% 3rd down conversion rate (Pats were at 36%) or Fitzpatrick's 4 INT's? When NE killed the Dolphins 41-14 in 2010 was it because of Chad Henne's 75% completion rate and his 67% 3rd down conversion rate? When NE schooled the Chiefs 34-3 in 2011 was it because Tyler Palko had both a better completion % and a better 3rd down conversion rate than Brady (65% & 6/14 vs. 55% and 4/13 for Brady)? When the Pats smacked the Jets 37-16 in 2011, was it because they had a worse 3rd down conversation rate than the Jets or because Sanchez completed only 51% of his passes? When NE beat the Jets 29-26 earlier this season, was it because Sanchez had a better completion % and a better 3rd down conversion rate than Brady? When the Pats manhandled the Texans 41-28 a few weeks ago, was it because Schaub had a better completion % than Brady? When New England lost to Arizona early in the season, was it because Brady had both a better completion rate and a better 3rd down conversion rate than Kolb? When New England lost to Seattle in October, was it because Brady had both a better completion rate and a better 3rd down conversion rate than Russell Wilson? In all of the above games, many of which were blowouts, the losing team was better in at least one, and sometimes both, of the metrics that you hold so dear to your heart for making a judgement that Tebow was just along for the ride last year and is actually no good at all. In many of those instances, the losing team's QB had more turnovers than the winning team's QB, proving (as if it was necessary) that much more goes into determining efficient QB play than completion % and 3rd down conversion rate, and that those 2 stats are not largely predictive of WINS, as the above statistics show. Consequently, your contention that Tebow's completion rate and 3rd down conversion rate are the primary reasons that New England blew them out are just poppycock. New England blows a lot of people out. Every year. And sometimes has worse stats while doing it. If the Denver Defense last year was half as good as you think they were, instead of the 24th ranked Defense overall that they actually were, then maybe they could have held Brady to only 3 TD passes in the first half instead of 5, regardless of how many 3 and outs the Denver Offense had. Well that's funny, because I've seen you claim to no end that the Denver Defense was responsible for the WINS last year but that Tebow was responsible for the LOSSES. Which is it? Wow. I'm impressed you admitted that. So, here's the facts: In the Broncos first loss to New England last year, they had a 40% 3rd down conversion rate. The Pats were 42% on 3rd down, not exactly a huge difference. In their play-off loss to New England last year, they had a 39% 3rd down conversion rate. In a vacuum, that would have been tied for 11th best in the league last year. So much for that part of your equation. In the first game they had exactly one 3 and out that resulted in a punt. In the second game they had five 3 and outs that resulted in a punt. So, if I understand correctly, you're telling me that those four more 3 and outs and 1% less 3rd down conversion rate resulted in the Patriots scoring a much larger total of 45 points as opposed to....41? Have I got that right? So, if in the 2nd game they have a 3rd down conversion rate and 3 and out rate closer to the first game, they only lose somewhere in the neighborhood of.....41-23? Buddy, you're going to have to work just a little bit harder to pin those massive Patriots point totals on Tebow. You're right about one thing, though. The Denver Defense definitely couldn't hang with Brady. Funny, but I seem to recall that he generally got good reviews after the first Patriots game. The following sentence was in the Yahoo Sports recap: And then of course you like to gloss over the Steelers game, which, no matter how you try to wish it away, actually did happen. Yep, Tebow didn't play well against the Chiefs with a new coach and renewed vigor, the same Chiefs who made Aaron Rodgers look decidely human as well. And the Bills defense who intercepted Tom Brady 5 times last season also gave Tebow a rough time. And yep, they got pasted by the Patriots. If Tebow had only converted a few more 3rd downs maybe they would have only lost 41-23 instead of 45-10. Probably news to you, but sometimes young QB's struggle, doesn't mean they've been "figured out" or will never again have success in the NFL. That's absurd. Kaepernick and Luck both had a long stretch of games in the 2nd half of the season where they posted pretty unimpressive completion percentages, but no one claimed it was anything other than young QB growing pains. Which it was. And the same for Tebow as well. Andrew Luck was 3-1 in sub-50% completion games over the last 5 games of the regular season. No one said it was a "miracle" or "unexplainable", they talked about how "clutch" he was and "came through with his best plays of the game in the big moments". Funny, but you act like young QB's have never improved their completion % over the course of a long career, in the history of the NFL.
I highly doubt that Tebow going to the Bears even if was a good QB. The Bears are coddling Cutler, heck he had a say in the head coach hire.
Wow Agree 100.% Thank Jeezus Idzik will be ridding the Jets of this lesion and hopefully this will also result in the departure from TGG of his malignant fan base
I didn't see an answer to my question when I answered yours. Is every journalist. coahc, GM, critic that disagrees with you on Tebow a lemming? the rest of that was just spinning. You can make a stat sheet mean whatever you want. It doesn't change the fact they were #1 in three and outs, and DEAD LAST in almost every major passing category. It explains why the Broncos passing offense that year was the LEAST productive in nearly three decades. Doesn't guarantee wins or losses, but it sure as shit makes it harder to win than an offense that actually moved the ball and put up points from time to time. Yes I'm putting part of that lopsided score on Tebow. The Patriots were able to rack up as many points as they did because they had all friggin day to do it. Brady would march down the field in a nice beautiful 14 play 8 minute drive for a TD. Tebow gets that ball, and in like 3 - 5 plays (if they were lucky enough to get a first down) and about 2-3 minutes later.... PUNT. Brady marches down the field again. Defense couldn't get off.... and the Tebow led offense just couldn't keep it out of Brady's hands. Patriots will win 99 out of 100 times that way. Defense sucked, Tebow didn't help and helped contribute to the problems. Come on, now. This is football 101. Ball control helps the defense. Giving up the ball after several short drives does not.
Well, if I've been saying that to no end, I challenge you to find a post where I said he was responsible for the losses. I DID blame him in large part for the Buffalo loss for his fumble six and pick six, and royal suckage. I DID blame him in large part for sucking against Kansas City. After all, he was the one in the driver's seat when they racked up a whole three points. How could you NOT put a lot of the blame on him for that one? I've said numerous times, the defense carried the team, true. ...and when they weren't able to, the Broncos ended up getting destroyed. Saying they won in SPITE of Tebow isn't saying the same thing as he was the one solely responsible for the losses. There was only one or two game that I can think of where the defense didn't do so well and they still won. For the most part though, THEY were the ones who dictated whether the Broncos won or lost. Tebow got far far far too much credit for that. I also gotta ask, when those stat sheets will convince a GM to give Tebow a job?
Nope, but a lot are. Same guys who didn't say boo about Russell Wilson or Colin Kaepernick coming into the draft. How smart do they look now? Not very. Maybe that gives us a good idea of exactly how good of talent evaluators a majority of "expert" journalists, coaches and GM's in the league are. I didn't have much of an opinion one way or the other on Kaepernick when he first came out because I hadn't seen much of him. But I had seen a lot of Russell Wilson and I thought he was easily the 3rd best QB in the draft, no, not because he's tall or has a rocket arm, but because of the dreaded "I" word - because of his INTANGIBLES, something that apparently only Pete Carroll and his GM and scouts noticed to a degree they were willing to take a chance on him when the "majority" of the rest of teams wrote him off out of hand because of his height. So, how many teams passed on Kaepernick once and on Wilson not once, not twice but THREE times? And you're going to tell me those guys are the smartest ones in the room? The same guys who had hot garbage playing under center on at least 1/4 of NFL teams this year? Right. Is it just possible that Ditka, Gruden and Young see something in Tebow that guys like Mike Mularkey, Rex Ryan, Ken Whisenhunt, Romeo Crenell, Leslie Frazier, Dennis Allen and maybe one or two others don't/can't? You're seriously going to tell me that those guys (throw John Fox in there, too, look at some of the QB's he drafted and played in Carolina) know what a good QB is? SERIOUSLY? Sorry, but that is pure, unadulterated nonsense. Numbers mean things. I blew your hypothesis out of the water just by pointing out the Ravens and Niners numbers this year, before I even mentioned any of the other stuff. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about numbers, all you have to do is participate. I'm already doing my part, but all you're doing is pulling numbers out of your butt and attaching the words "I think" before them. Yeah, Tebow did have a tough time defending those Patriots receivers and rushing Tom Brady at the same time. Look, you're just being stupid. The Broncos had 5 times as many 3 and outs in the play-off game against the Pats as they did in the regular season game against the Pats, and it resulted in the Patriots scoring a resounding 4 more points. 4. And Tebow's completion rate was quite a bit worse in the 2nd game. And....4 more points. I know you've got to try and think of every possible way to pin the blame on Tebow, but at this point people are just laughing at the grasping of straws you're doing here. Yep, that 40% 3rd down conversion rate and one 3 and out in the first game helped the defense so much that they let Tom Brady score 41 points. Dude, seriously??? You just finished explaining why he was responsible for the 45-10 loss to the Pats in the postseason.
You did no such thing. You found similar numbers, but the Ravens actually moved the chains, put points on the board, and stayed on the field once in a while. Tebow punted, punted, punted, punted. How can you sit there and tell me the offense he ran was effective? Sure, there were good running numgers, but almost nothing else. The total offense still ranked in the high 20s. Why? cuz they couldn't get first downs. He didn't complete passes, and they punted too damn much. Thanks for not throwing interceptions, but I would think a defensive coordinator would be fine if they faced an offese that did very little. How does any of that NOT point to offensive ineptitude? Or was every defense they faced top of the line? Numbers out of context can be spun in ANY direction you want. People pointed at his gaudy rushing statistics. Said that made the offense effective. I point out the barely 100 yards of passing in each of those games and point out the scoring and passing were at the bottom of the league, and those #1 rushing yards made them good enough for about 25th of 32. that isn't too far from the cellar. See how misleading those rushing numbers can be when still leading the league in three and outs and not scoring? I can probably take a few numbers and make him look like the best player who ever lived too. But I see league leading three and outs and one of the worst offenses in recent Denver history? Why? Cuz I saw a QB who couldn't throw worth a shit. 3rd down conversion was terrible. Less than half his passes were completed, and it was so bad the coaching staff severely limited passing as part of the offense. How is that NOT a factor in winning or losing. It makes winning harder. ...and it would have been without a defense giving up 15 points or less. Tebow would have 3 wins at best without the defense covering for his ineptitude. [qupte]Dude, seriously??? You just finished explaining why he was responsible for the 45-10 loss to the Pats in the postseason.[/QUOTE] No, you claimed I said he was responsible. As if I put 100% of the blame on Tebow. I merely pointed out the part he was responsible for. You only WISH I tried to blame him for the whole damn thing.
You know what's funny is you don't even realize you are proving my point for me! The Niners and the Ravens had mediocre to bad 3rd down conversion and 3 and out statistics, mediocre QB completion statistics this year, and good to great defensive play and they're GOING TO THE SUPER BOWL! This is where a light should pop on in your head and you realize that those QB stats you're quoting ad nauseum maybe aren't all they're cracked up to be as far as wins and losses. Tebow 2011 Passing TD % - #13 Tebow 2011 Passing INT % - #11 Tebow 2011 Yards/Completion - #4 Tebow 2011 4th Q Comebacks - #3 Tebow 2011 Game Winning Drives - #3 A majority of the guys in front of him on those lists made the play-offs last year. You add to that his #8 ranking in Yards per Rushing Attempt and I'd say yeah, that wasn't the greatest offense in the league, but it was effective. You have already admitted in the past - after heavy badgering from me - that the heavy run/pass ratio was bound to keep scoring low. And you have NO ANSWER that draws on logic or reason for why Tebow's offense scored almost 25% more points per game in his 2010 starts when he was throwing almost 25% more passes per game, so I don't really know why you keep harping on the low score thing. You think a combination of a low 3rd down conversion and high 3 and outs + not great completion rate automatically equals low scoring and losses. Well, I proved with my stats about the Ravens and Niners that it doesn't. Heck, just look at Denver's 3 highest scoring games with Tebow under center in 2011 to disprove your theory: Denver vs. Oakland - 3/12 3rd down conversion, two 3 and outs, sub-50% completion rate = 38 points Denver vs. Minnesota - 3/11 3rd down conversion, four 3 and outs = 35 points Denver vs. Pittsburgh - 3/10 3rd down conversion, two 3 and outs, sub-50% completion rate = 29 points Why do you feel it necessary to embellish and exaggerate your comments so strongly that they aren't even a caricature of the truth? He had exactly 4 games that were below 100 or near 100 yards passing, and one of those was only a half game (vs. SD). Feel free to point out anywhere I have highlighted statistics out of context. I'll be waiting for that one. If anyone is giving stats out of context it is you by inferring that a set of stats, added together with another set of stats, added together with another set of stats, automatically produces x result, even when it very plainly and clearly doesn't, except in your own mind. The stats I post about Tebow and the Broncos can stand on their own. I will say again that numbers mean things. Because the Broncos were a low scoring offense with Tebow doesn't mean that their rushing dominance didn't happen or doesn't mean anything. To the contrary, their heavy run game is largely why they were a low scoring offense. You have basically admitted as much. You don't want to acknowledge the good stats that Tebow produced, so your only explanation for what happened is a) the Denver Defense carried the team (even though they were ranked 24th in the league) or b) it was a miracle/supernatural occurence. In reality, their success can be explained largely by the fact that Tebow played the QB position pretty efficiently - even with a low completion rate and poor 3rd down stats - and that the Denver Defense held bad offensive teams to low scores (for the most part), as it should have. I saw an article from Cold Hard Football Facts recently examining last year's run with Tebow, and the premise was that in almost every game the Broncos won with Tebow, Tebow outplayed the opposing team's QB and that was largely the reason they won. Yep, ugly motion, low completion rate and all. Outplayed the other QB. Hyperbole for breakfast, lunch and dinner. You need to vary your diet just a tad. No one ever claimed he was the best QB who ever lived. You just have an extreme problem with admitting that he was a very efficient QB in several respects. Even though they scored more when he threw more in 2010. Genius! Good grief. Do you really want to start playing the IF game again? Well, you said the 3rd down and 3 and out stats were responsible for losing the game, didn't you? A game where the Patriots scored exactly 4 more points than the previous game when the Broncos had pretty good 3rd down and 3 and out stats. And you accuse me of twisting the stat sheet to say anything I want....sheesh.
