Let me qualify that then. Most of those wins had to do with mistakes made by the opposing team gifting the games to the Broncos. Those events (Barber not running out of bounds, Rivers fumbling a snap etc.) had nothing, nada, zippo to do with Tebow.
What Tim Tebow did last year, which was basically win a bunch of games despite being a pretty terrible QB is just not going to happen for him again. The events that lead to the wins were almost, well, divine. Could he win enough games to get into the playoffs again with a stronger defense? Sure. Is it likely to happen? Probably not. Could he have a Trent Dilfer experience where the defense wins a Super Bowl for one of the few times in NFL history? Sure. Is it likely to happen...
What Tim Tebow did last year provided evidence he has enough talent to win games despite some serious shortcomings. You're right that there were some "anomalies" that factored into those games that probably won't crop up as frequently as they seemed to last year. The question is, "Can he improve on his shortcomings enough to warrant serious consideration as a starting QB?" Some folks think he can, some don't, but almost no one doubts he'll help the Jets win games in the role they've assigned him.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that while Barber made a mistake by bouncing the play outside, he still tried to get down but couldn't before a Denver defender drove him out of bounds. Check the replay. Heads up play by the defense. Also, on the fumble, it wasn't like Barber was running down the field and just accidentally lost a hold of the ball. A defender stepped in and stripped him clear as day. Another good play by a defender. Couple those two things with the words of future HoF'er, Cchamp Bailey who said that he played harder when Tebow was on the field. Basically, if the game is close, Tebow just gives you a sense that you are in the game and there's still hope.
What ever Tebow can do to help this team is good - But being the regular starter at QB ain't one them. He simply doesn't have an NFL arm to start for any NFL team. Still a good football player though and should help us this year.
If he causes the team not to support Sanchez with the best possible personnel and schemes then he's a negative. Boomer was right, the Jets should have cut Tebow early in camp when it was obvious that he had not progressed much as a passer despite having two NFL teams in a row working with him on that. The controversy and instability that his presence engenders outweighs the possible contributions he can realistically make. John Elway didn't run him out of town in Denver because he wasn't a good football player. John Elway ran him out of town in Denver because he wasn't a good QB and the controversy he caused was bad for the team. Good for a short period of time maybe but bad in the long-run. You can't win in the NFL with a QB who cannot throw the ball and Tim Tebow can't throw the ball. The occasional deep-strike against a defensive backfield pulled up tight doesn't change that basic fact.
That "QB who can't throw the ball" should have been 5 of 8 against Cincy (with Hill's drop), and 1 clear throwaway, which, if you treat like spiking the ball, would have made him 5 of 7. Not bad for someone who can't throw. Also, I believe the reports out of camp as of late have Tebow hitting on something like 70+ % of his passes ?
This thead should not even have been started, as it holds no merit for either QB. We do not know the inner workings of whats going on between snaps. We need to step back and see what unfolds. I will say this, Sanchez has done a hell of a job dealing with the pressure that has been put on him through the media. They have started to unload on the guy after one preseason game.
Sounds reasonable enough...although I haven't seen any evidence to back this claim up, taking into account his record as a starting QB.
Nah, there's no way Tebow's a better leader than Sanchez. They both have similar demeanors, however. Part of being a good leader is helping your team succeed and they both have done it. Sanchez obviously has way more experience and is a better all around QB, but saying Tebow's a better leader after less than a full off season is a bit presumptuous. He says all the right things, but being an actual leader is different. Sanchez owns this team right now.
I'm not so sure about that...I'm sure everyone on the team is aware that Sanchez owes any of his success largely to the Jets defense. If he "owned" the team, I doubt the coaching staff would be discussing taking him out on the goal line or in short yardage situations...If he truly owned the team he would be out there on those critical downs.
If you believe that, then you are ignoring just about all the other qualities of leadership. A marginal player can be a much better/stronger leader than someone who is highly talented. Disagree ? Look at Kyle Orton amongst others. He's a better passer hands down. No question about it. Better leader ? Not on your life. BTW, I'm not putting Sanchez on Orton's level. Sanchez seems to have seriously stepped up in the leadership role so far this season.
Hate to tell you, but leadership is not specific to football experience. Leadership is a quality of an individual as a whole in any situation. Additionally, Tebow and Sanchez do not have remotely similar demeanors.
All Barber had to do was fall down and it was game over. That play had nothing to do with the defense. All Rivers had to do was hold on to a snap from center and it was game over. Those two plays make Tebow 5-6 and no playoffs and no Tebowmania. Denver doesn't recover an onsides kick and Prater misses just one 50+ yard FG at the end of games and we are looking at 3-8 for Tebow. I have never in the history of the NFL seen a player get credit for things he had nothing to do with than Tebow did last year.
Ehh 2009 was largely to the defense even though they faltered late in games. 2010 was a lot of Sanchez playing well. Last year was a lot of bad everything including Sanchez. The bold is one of these narratives the media loves, but isn't correct. And if you want to blame any of his success to the defense, his failures have to go that way too if you want to talk in absolutes
That's not true. They couldn't have killed the clock (or it would have been time for victory formation). At most, they could have run off 35 more seconds or so. The lead was only 3. Denver would have still gotten the ball with 20 seconds, needing only a field goal, in good field position. (And Tebow quickly completed 3 passes for 40 yards as it was, two of them on the sideline). If they thought they could win by downing it, they would have downed. Barber was trying to pick up the first down to keep from giving the ball back to Tebow -- because everybody in the world knew if you gave him back the ball, he'd tie the game.
So you're okay when folks say "if the receivers had dropped 2 fewer passes per game, Tebow would be at 55%." Because that's your argument, above. Yep, Tebow benefited from some fortunate bounces, mistakes, etc. And he may have received more credit than he deserved. But he played the hand he was dealt and he delivered more often than not last season. And Champ and other defenders did say they played harder for Tebow, because they believed if they could keep it close into the 4th qtr, he'd deliver.
Excuse me, but 20/20 hindsight arguments aren't valid in any type of debate. If X had (or had not) occurred, then Y would (or would not) have occurred bases a conclusion on a circumstance that didn't happen. Unless you are omniscient, this line of reasoning doesn't make any sense as a basis for presenting an argument. Plain old argumentative, "cause I said so" doesn't work very well on this forum.
If, if, if. All Denver had to do was make the FG they missed earlier in the game. Or perhaps if DThomas would have caught the sure TD pass that he dropped, Barber wouldn't have mattered. You can do If, if, if about many games each year with most teams. The simple fact of the matter is that when the time came, and the opportunity was there, Tebow drove down the field and Denver put the necessary points on the board.
