I never said otherwise, and certainly agree. I was responding to a poster that listed Gabbert (among a few other guys) as a bad QB who was around for "years and years". Jax did not keep him around for "years and years" and he has only been in the league 4 years period. I think you missed my point.
Tim Tebow
- Thread starter Scalp'em Nole
- Start date
But the point is still valid. Gabbert and many other first-round QB's have been given many more starts than Tebow was given, before being pushed aside, and many of them achieved far less with those starts.
He might have been given a bit longer than Tebow, but he also had injuries off and on, which can slow down the progress of a young QB. The last thing a team wants to do in that situation is get rid of a guy too early who has suffered injuries, then he goes somewhere else and lights it up. In saying that, Gabbert only got 27 career starts, which is more than Tebow yes, but still not even 2 full seasons worth. And also keep in mind, Gabbert had much less talent around him than Tebow. That also has to be factored in in regards to how much of a chance someone is given.
What starting QBs in the league right now, should Tebow be starting over?
This post was edited on 3/2 12:05 PM by Cubs79
Why do you keep arguing that strawman? Nobody here has said Tebow should be starting anywhere. What's been said is that given the amount of bad starters, not to mention the horrible backups, he should at least be on a roster. You can't tell me with a straight face that many of the backup guys are better. Not even GM's believe that. Bottom line is Tebow is looked at as too much of a 'distraction' due to his following and teams don't want to risk perceived controversy on their team, which is unfair to Tebow. That's the point. He's good enough to be on a roster as a backup at a minimum. If you don't think so, you don't know football.
The argument is that he should be in the NFL, not that he should be a starter. You're trying to change the argument, because you realize how foolish you look trying to argue that Blaine Gabbert showed more in the NFL than Tebow. How about if you list all the backup quarterbacks in the NFL who are better than Tebow and who would give their team a better chance to win games if the starter came out? Start by looking for the backups with playoff wins in the last three years. It won't take you long.
As for the Broncos talent that year, the team had some good young players, but was 2-4 before Tebow took over as starter. The broncos had one offensive pro bowler the year before Tebow took over, WR Brandon Lloyd, and Elway traded away Lloyd as soon as Tebow took the job.
Just off the top of my head though, here's a list of teams that I think would arguably have had a better chance to win games with Tebow as a starter last year: Washington Redskins, Arizona Cardinals after the first two guys got hurt, St Louis Rams, Tampa Bay Bucs, Titans, Jaguars, Texans (particularly after the Fitzgerald injury), Browns, Bengals, Jets, Bills (who started Orton). This is presuming that it's the same Tebow we saw for Denver, and that he did not improve at all in the last two years.
As for the Broncos talent that year, the team had some good young players, but was 2-4 before Tebow took over as starter. The broncos had one offensive pro bowler the year before Tebow took over, WR Brandon Lloyd, and Elway traded away Lloyd as soon as Tebow took the job.
Just off the top of my head though, here's a list of teams that I think would arguably have had a better chance to win games with Tebow as a starter last year: Washington Redskins, Arizona Cardinals after the first two guys got hurt, St Louis Rams, Tampa Bay Bucs, Titans, Jaguars, Texans (particularly after the Fitzgerald injury), Browns, Bengals, Jets, Bills (who started Orton). This is presuming that it's the same Tebow we saw for Denver, and that he did not improve at all in the last two years.
I never once said that, you completely don't understand my point, maybe you need to go back and read why Gabbert was brought up in the first place and you will get my point. I realize Gabbert sucks, which is why his career right now is at a point where he is going to be fighting for a 3rd sting spot for a year or two, and his career will be over.
Wait, that list cannot be serious. YOu think the Bengals, who have made the playoffs 3 straight years with Dalton, would be better off with Tebow at QB? You cannot be remotely serious. The only kind of teams Tebow would have any chance of being a decent backup or third stringer, would be a team who plays defense and runs. Maybe a Seattle or somewhere like that. Any team that wants to throw the ball, could not possibly win with Tebow at QB.
This post was edited on 3/2 12:45 PM by Cubs79
This post was edited on 3/2 12:46 PM by Cubs79
I listed nine teams. You disagree with one. How about the rest? Kyle Orton, Ryan Lindley, Shaun Hill, Austin Davis, Josh Mccown, Charlie Whitehurst, Jake Locker, Case Keenum, Manziel, Hoyer, Geno Smith, EJ Manuel.
Please explain how these qbs, who started games last year and are still in the league, are demonstrably more effective qbs than what tebow has shown.
Please explain how these qbs, who started games last year and are still in the league, are demonstrably more effective qbs than what tebow has shown.
By the way, Dalton has been to the playoffs 4 years in a row. Guess how many games he's won? How many touchdowns do you think he's thrown? I'll give you a hint, it's one more than his win number.
No, I disagree with all of them, I just called out one. And I dont have time to go through all of your guys listed, but lets go through a few. Orton, has been a solid backup everywhere he has been. Orton IMO, is what you should want out of a back up. Veteran guy who can fill in a game here and game there easily.
Even Austin Davis, threw for over 2000 yards and had a QB rating of 85 in 10 games with his first significant playing time. His #s are better than Tebow, and he is younger and more of a pro style QB. I would take Davis over Tebow all day.
Too early to tell with guys like Emanual or Manziel. Both could very well be out of the league within a year, so that's not saying much saying Tim should be in the league before them, since it is debatable whether they should be in the league. But, they are young, so we shall see.
And the thing about a lof of the guys you mentioned. Most of them are either young (Geno, Manziel, EJ), who will either improve a lot, or will be out of the league like Tebow. Many of the others aren't very good, but they are at least pocket passers. Ryan Lindley (who was actually released by AZ and brought back after the 2 QB injuries) might not be good, but he can at last run the offense in AZ. Tebow was a terrible pocket passer, there is no way he could come close to being able to run that type of offense. Whitehurst the same way. He was running a system he had been in for a while and was brought in as more of a tudor than as an actual QB.
This post was edited on 3/2 1:50 PM by Cubs79
This post was edited on 3/2 1:55 PM by Cubs79
This post was edited on 3/2 12:03 PM by Cubs79
This is just circular logic. The first roster he was on, he won a playoff game. The second roster he was on, they had an established guy who they were paying 10+ million to and never gave him a shot at the starting job, so he left after a year. The third roster had Tom effing Brady on it and Ryan Mallett, a guy they had been grooming. So it made no sense for them to keep him on as a 3rd QB when that roster spot can be used for another position. You also conveniently left out that the Patriots almost never carry 3 QB's, feel free to fact check it. How about you name all the backup QB's that are so much better than he is? You're the one claiming they are, so get to proving. List the accomplishments of all these backup guys that are so much better.
What proof do you have he can't run a 'prostyle' system? That term really has no meaning anyway as almost zero teams run the traditional proset. The Patriots for example are a spread offense. Same with Green Bay, New Orleans, Miami, and numerous other teams. Let's just agree to disagree because I don't know how you determine 'fit' unless you're in those locker rooms, so I'm not about to waste my time arguing it.
Also, you're kind of proving everybody's point. First you stated he wasn't better than any of those guys and now you're saying he may be, but he's not the right fit. Uh, ok then. How can anybody argue with something so subjective? Bottom line is that he's better than many of those backup guys. If he doesn't fit, then that implies it's for non-football reasons, which was everyone's point to begin with.
What proof do you have that he can? That is a silly argument. Do you have proof I can't run a pro style system? If not, then should an NFL team give me millions of dollars to be a back up? See how silly that argument is. Nothing, in the style he played in college, or the couples seasons he played in the NFL, indicated he could run a pro style system.
And those offenses are spread offense the require a lot of accuracy in the passing game. They are not the spread-option offenses that he ran in college.
And I we will agree to disagree, but people who have been in locker rooms with him, and on the practice field, etc, don't think he can play, so I think their word probably carries a little more weight than an average fans opinion.
I am not proving anyone's point. Being a guy who can play in NFL type systems is always going to be better, than a guy who almost needs a system built around his skillset. One game he won in Denver he was 2-8 passing. Sorry, that doesnt work in 99% of NFL systems, so yes, having a guy as a back up who can throw from the pocket, and can run the system a specific team runs, with limited adaptions, is always going to be better than having a back up who you have to completely change the system for if he has to play.
This post was edited on 3/2 3:16 PM by Cubs79
Let's start by you defining what a 'prostyle' system is. Because people like to throw that term around and seem to have no idea what the hell it means. As to my proof, in his last start he threw for 300+ on the NFL's #1 defense. That's admittedly a small sample size, but I don't know of any backup or 3rd string QB in the NFL who has done it. Your turn.
His last start was a 45-10 loss to the Patriot's where he was 9-26 for 136 yards. The game against the Steelers he did throw for 300 yards, but he still only had 10 completions and 80 of those yards were on the last pass to Thomas, and the Bronco's offense was held to 3 points in the 2nd half. How many teams have you seen in todays NFL that consistently win, with a QB who barely completes over 10 passes a game? He only completed 20+ passes once, and that was in 40 attempts and his team still only scored 13 points in that game. Do you honestly think a QB who completes less than 50% of his passes, can be successful in todays NFL?
This post was edited on 3/2 4:24 PM by Cubs79
And yet you still ignore the actual argument that Tebow was not given the same opportunity as others of similar talent levels because of who he is. Saying he "never did this and never did that" means what when he had such little time to play and develop.
He was given the opportunity with 3 different teams. How many teams should give him a shot before it is considered a "fair" chance? And just curious, who are some similar qbs who have similar talents that you compare him too?
This post was edited on 3/2 4:51 PM by Cubs79
Hard for anybody to take you seriously when you can't even be intellectually honest. He was given a shot on exactly one team. A team in which he won nearly 60% of the games he started. NY traded for him and played him as a fullback and TE. He was never given a chance to be the starting QB there, they even had him as a gunner on special teams. Tebow asked to be released after that year after feeling lied to. I'll give you NE...barely, but even then he was battling for the backup job with a guy who is thought of as one of the better young arms in the league in Mallett and a guy who also had knowledge of NE's system for 2 years before that, so no shame in not beating him out.
Tim Tebow started 16 games in his career, the equivalent of 1 NFL regular season. And these are his numbers: 2,422 yards, 17 TD, 9 INTS, and a career QB rating of 75.3. Yep, that screams terrible
He was on the roster for 2 teams, and in training camp with a 3rd. That is being given a shot. Where is this attitude coming from that he is owed a starting job I guess. If being a back up, and invited to camp aren't considered chances, then I assume being a starter is the only thing you consider being given a shot. So, explain to me why he is owed that? There are successful college QBs year after year that are given less of a chance than what Tebow had, so explain to me where this attitude comes from that he was not given a fair chance. Did Eric Crouch not give a sufficient chance? Did you complain about that too back in the day? He was a Heisman winng QB, and no one would even bring him in for a chance to compete for a QB job, much less did he ever start at QB. So, is there a difference, was Crouch owed a chance too? Or if there is a difference explain to me what it is.Originally posted by oozie7:
Hard for anybody to take you seriously when you can't even be intellectually honest. He was given a shot on exactly one team. A team in which he won nearly 60% of the games he started. NY traded for him and played him as a fullback and TE. He was never given a chance to be the starting QB there, they even had him as a gunner on special teams. Tebow asked to be released after that year after feeling lied to. I'll give you NE...barely, but even then he was battling for the backup job with a guy who is thought of as one of the better young arms in the league in Mallett and a guy who also had knowledge of NE's system for 2 years before that, so no shame in not beating him out.
Tim Tebow started 16 games in his career, the equivalent of 1 NFL regular season. And these are his numbers: 2,422 yards, 17 TD, 9 INTS, and a career QB rating of 75.3. Yep, that screams terrible. Teams cut lose 1st round QB's on a 16 game sample all the time, it's soooooo common.
2400 yards in 16 games and 173 completions in 16 starts is not good. That isnt even 11 completions per start, yes, that is not good.Originally posted by oozie7:
Hard for anybody to take you seriously when you can't even be intellectually honest. He was given a shot on exactly one team. A team in which he won nearly 60% of the games he started. NY traded for him and played him as a fullback and TE. He was never given a chance to be the starting QB there, they even had him as a gunner on special teams. Tebow asked to be released after that year after feeling lied to. I'll give you NE...barely, but even then he was battling for the backup job with a guy who is thought of as one of the better young arms in the league in Mallett and a guy who also had knowledge of NE's system for 2 years before that, so no shame in not beating him out.
Tim Tebow started 16 games in his career, the equivalent of 1 NFL regular season. And these are his numbers: 2,422 yards, 17 TD, 9 INTS, and a career QB rating of 75.3. Yep, that screams terrible. Teams cut lose 1st round QB's on a 16 game sample all the time, it's soooooo common.
The Eric Crouch comparison is terrible. To make it, you must know very little about the numbers Tebow put up and the level of success he had playing in the best league in the country. Go compare Crouch's passing stats to Tebow and tell me if you honestly can't tell the difference.
He offered some good points but a lot of his stuff was just football ignorant, like the whole 'prostyle' deal. I swear I don't think I hate a word more than that one, mainly because it doesn't come close to meaning what people think it means. But because they hear some moron on tv say it everyone repeats it. The standard 'proset' isn't used anywhere in football, especially the pros. If you look at what they're doing, they're spreading the ball out and playing with wider splits, hell Peyton Manning runs the pistol half the time. Yet you still hear these lazy talking points about QB's not being able to play in the 'prostyle' offenses when damn near every pro offense is a variation of the spread. Ugh.
I was shocked at how much tebow struggled throwing the ball in the nfl, and it's a legitimate question whether he could ever be accurate enough to be an effective starter in the pros. But you could say the same thing about 1/3 of the starters in the nfl and probably 95 percent of the backups, and i think that he has shown enough on the field to at least get a chance to work and improve and prove people wrong.
As far as backups go, if your pocket passer starter gets hurt, are you better off having some stiff come in and try to throw from the pocket, or putting a tebow or a terrell prior back there, running zone read and playing defense? I get that nfl coaches don't want to ut up with tebow mania for a backup, but I just think it's a shame for him and nfl fans that he's not in the league.
As far as backups go, if your pocket passer starter gets hurt, are you better off having some stiff come in and try to throw from the pocket, or putting a tebow or a terrell prior back there, running zone read and playing defense? I get that nfl coaches don't want to ut up with tebow mania for a backup, but I just think it's a shame for him and nfl fans that he's not in the league.
I wasn't shocked he struggled throwing, most young guys do. Manning and Luck were considered two next level guys coming in and both led the league in interceptions their first year. Tebow for sure had accuracy issues, but I don't think their gameplan helped him either. If you rewatch some of his games with Denver they would waste 1st and 2nd down running some variation of the Wildcat. So he was constantly throwing on obvious passing situations. That's hard for pure passers to do much less a QB like Tebow. The Cubs guy brought up the game where he only had 6 completions or whatever against the Chiefs but he had 14 attempts, almost all on 3rd down. How can any QB get into a rhythm like that? They had no idea what to do with a QB like him.
