Tebow is the Eminem of the NFL

boogle wrote:

How do you know she is a witch? "SHE LOOKS LIKE ONE"

Except I didn't dress him like a witch. Its his choice to not be analytical or offer anything of substance in his on field conversations with teammates. No "Man, I need you to cut earlier on that slant route", all "You'll get it next time! You'll catch the game winning catch!".[/quote]

You think a professional receiver who has been playing and practicing all season doesn't have the coach/oc/etc coming over to tell him about the cut? You think he doesn't know that? A leader is not only concerned with the execution of the plan, he's concerned with the moral of his people. I've seen the video you're referring to and it's by no means comprehensive so you really have no idea whether he ever talks analytically or not. I would find it hard to believe that he can't.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Tebow was the singly worst QB in the entire league the last three weeks of the regular season, and was still one of the most-discussed players in the league. None of that talk has anything to do with his ability as a football player.

The talk mostly has to do with him being a QB with limited skills who won games, and a guy who wears his religion on his sleeve. Half the talk about Tebow on any given day is people talking about his mediocre skills. The other half is people arguing about his religion. He drives page hits in a way Cam Newton doesn't, because Cam Newton is a good quarterback on a small market team that went 6-10 this season. If you're an editor or TV producer, what story are you seeing in Newton that brings eyeballs? What's the controversy or story that allows you to fill 20 minutes of segment time on your sports show?

This is an entertainment business. That's what drives coverage.

Funkenpants wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Tebow was the singly worst QB in the entire league the last three weeks of the regular season, and was still one of the most-discussed players in the league. None of that talk has anything to do with his ability as a football player.

The talk mostly has to do with him being a QB with limited skills who won games, and a guy who wears his religion on his sleeve. Half the talk about Tebow on any given day is people talking about his mediocre skills. The other half is people arguing about his religion. He drives page hits in a way Cam Newton doesn't, because Cam Newton is a good quarterback on a small market team that went 6-10 this season. If you're an editor or TV producer, what story are you seeing in Newton that brings eyeballs? What's the controversy or story that allows you to fill 20 minutes of segment time on your sports show?

This is an entertainment business. That's what drives coverage.

i.e.: Sanjaya Malakar.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

For the record, statistically I consider him to be a poor QB. However his physical running skills allow the coach to play a system in which he can be successful. Also remember that with the lockout he hasn't had the training that he's needed since college. He used to sidearm the ball pretty bad, they corrected that a bit but if they actually remap his muscle memory into a proper throw... boy could be dangerous.

He corrected his delivery a bit at first, but eventually fell back into his old habits. That's the kind of muscle memory that it takes thousands upon thousands of repetitions to correct, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone change their delivery that much. Based on past examples, it's effectively a lost cause. Also, he's really not that great of a runner compared to a guy like Cam Newton, which is again the point of comparison; Newton was superior to Tebow in pretty much every way this year, other than the fact that (A) Tebow played on a team with a really good defense that helped compensate for his terrible play and (B) Tebow is a white guy who says the right stuff.

His running ability does not allow him to play in a system where he can be successful, it allowed him to play in a system where for a limited set of games, his team won because a combination of excellent defense and insane luck led to last-minute wins. Call it success, sure, but what's important is sustainable success, and that's now what we saw. Denver won that Jets game because of a combination of bad Jets defensive plays and Mark Sanchez brain farts; they won the Chicago game because of a 59-yard FG plus Marion Barber doing everything he could to make Chicago lose.

Tebow was the singly worst QB in the entire league the last three weeks of the regular season, and was still one of the most-discussed players in the league. None of that talk has anything to do with his ability as a football player.

Two bolded things I'd like to address, because I think your Tebow hate is clouding your mind.

1. No one is suggesting that Tim Tebow is statistically a better QB than Cam Newton. In fact, if you look at the discussion for rookie of the year, it's pretty much AJ Green, Newton, and/or Dalton. So you can't really whine about Tebow (a guy on a playoff team) getting more attention during the playoff run than the guy who will probably win rookie of the year but isn't on a playoff contender. Newton got mad props this season early on for his dominance, and I believe he did set a QB rushing touchdown record this year too. I'll be shocked if he isn't rookie of the year. So any black vs white thing is silly, they're not being talked about for the same things, Tebow was a mid season QB change on a team that went from the basement to the playoffs and Cam was in the rookie of the year discussion for a non contender that performed just about where people thought they would.

2. Tebow was not the worst QB in the league. He was better than Gabbert, Painter, and statistically tied with Sam Bradford. As I said, statistically he's not very good, but you're trying to make it sound like he has no business on the field and I don't see anyone saying that about Bradford. Hell, Sanchez and Ponder are within spitting distance of Tebow for QBR.

Also, it doesn't matter what the defense did or how many times Marion Barber fumbled. Tebow moved the offense within field goal range. Doesn't matter if it was a 20, 30, 40, or 60 yard field goal, it was enough. At the end of the day, wins are what matter. Even if they are unlikely wins. Doesn't matter if you're the greatest statistical QB to ever play the game, if you don't win a superbowl, people aren't going to talk about you much.

bandit0013 wrote:

Doesn't matter if you're the greatest statistical QB to ever play the game, if you don't win a superbowl, people aren't going to talk about you much.

IMAGE(http://images.nitrosell.com/product_images/8/1877/dan%20marino%20fathead.jpg)

When you're statistically tied with Sam Bradford (who had a revolving door offensive line) and you have one of the best o-lines in football, you're doing it wrong. Very, very wrong.

bandit0013 wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

For the record, statistically I consider him to be a poor QB. However his physical running skills allow the coach to play a system in which he can be successful. Also remember that with the lockout he hasn't had the training that he's needed since college. He used to sidearm the ball pretty bad, they corrected that a bit but if they actually remap his muscle memory into a proper throw... boy could be dangerous.

He corrected his delivery a bit at first, but eventually fell back into his old habits. That's the kind of muscle memory that it takes thousands upon thousands of repetitions to correct, and I don't recall ever seeing anyone change their delivery that much. Based on past examples, it's effectively a lost cause. Also, he's really not that great of a runner compared to a guy like Cam Newton, which is again the point of comparison; Newton was superior to Tebow in pretty much every way this year, other than the fact that (A) Tebow played on a team with a really good defense that helped compensate for his terrible play and (B) Tebow is a white guy who says the right stuff.

His running ability does not allow him to play in a system where he can be successful, it allowed him to play in a system where for a limited set of games, his team won because a combination of excellent defense and insane luck led to last-minute wins. Call it success, sure, but what's important is sustainable success, and that's now what we saw. Denver won that Jets game because of a combination of bad Jets defensive plays and Mark Sanchez brain farts; they won the Chicago game because of a 59-yard FG plus Marion Barber doing everything he could to make Chicago lose.

Tebow was the singly worst QB in the entire league the last three weeks of the regular season, and was still one of the most-discussed players in the league. None of that talk has anything to do with his ability as a football player.

Two bolded things I'd like to address, because I think your Tebow hate is clouding your mind.

1. No one is suggesting that Tim Tebow is statistically a better QB than Cam Newton. In fact, if you look at the discussion for rookie of the year, it's pretty much AJ Green, Newton, and/or Dalton. So you can't really whine about Tebow (a guy on a playoff team) getting more attention during the playoff run than the guy who will probably win rookie of the year but isn't on a playoff contender. Newton got mad props this season early on for his dominance, and I believe he did set a QB rushing touchdown record this year too. I'll be shocked if he isn't rookie of the year. So any black vs white thing is silly, they're not being talked about for the same things, Tebow was a mid season QB change on a team that went from the basement to the playoffs and Cam was in the rookie of the year discussion for a non contender that performed just about where people thought they would.

2. Tebow was not the worst QB in the league. He was better than Gabbert, Painter, and statistically tied with Sam Bradford. As I said, statistically he's not very good, but you're trying to make it sound like he has no business on the field and I don't see anyone saying that about Bradford. Hell, Sanchez and Ponder are within spitting distance of Tebow for QBR.

Also, it doesn't matter what the defense did or how many times Marion Barber fumbled. Tebow moved the offense within field goal range. Doesn't matter if it was a 20, 30, 40, or 60 yard field goal, it was enough. At the end of the day, wins are what matter. Even if they are unlikely wins. Doesn't matter if you're the greatest statistical QB to ever play the game, if you don't win a superbowl, people aren't going to talk about you much.

As for #2, I did not say Tebow was the worst QB in the league last year, I said he was the worst QB during the last three weeks of the regular season and still received his normal attention. Those three weeks he was 30/73 for 439 yards (146.3 yards/game), with 4 INTs and five fumbles. He was sacked ten times. He was in the midst of a race for the division title, and only the incompetence of the rest of the AFC West meant Denver made the playoffs.

Again, Tebow gets his credit because he's white and overtly Christian. That's it. Other QBs "just win", but there wasn't anybody putting up billboards to keep Trent Dilfer in Baltimore after the Super Bowl. It's all about be white and loving Jesus.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Doesn't matter if you're the greatest statistical QB to ever play the game, if you don't win a superbowl, people aren't going to talk about you much.

IMAGE(http://images.nitrosell.com/product_images/8/1877/dan%20marino%20fathead.jpg)

Wait. The Isotoner guy played football?

Spoiler:

Everyone knows he would have won the Super Bowl if Ray Finkle had just hit that kick.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Doesn't matter if you're the greatest statistical QB to ever play the game, if you don't win a superbowl, people aren't going to talk about you much.

IMAGE(http://images.nitrosell.com/product_images/8/1877/dan%20marino%20fathead.jpg)

Wait. The Isotoner guy played football?

Spoiler:

Everyone knows he would have won the Super Bowl if Ray Finkle had just hit that kick.

Wait? That NFL TV analyst used to work for Isotoner? What's an Isotoner?

And Oscar nominated for his role in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective.

Well at least now I know a couple of options where the Nutrisystem guy came from. Though if he was an NFL TV analyst, was he just some arm chair quarterback that they pulled off the streets of Miami or something?

DSGamer wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Doesn't matter if you're the greatest statistical QB to ever play the game, if you don't win a superbowl, people aren't going to talk about you much.

IMAGE(http://images.nitrosell.com/product_images/8/1877/dan%20marino%20fathead.jpg)

Wait. The Isotoner guy played football?

Spoiler:

Everyone knows he would have won the Super Bowl if Ray Finkle had just hit that kick.

Wait? That NFL TV analyst used to work for Isotoner? What's an Isotoner?

It tones your isos.

DSGamer wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Doesn't matter if you're the greatest statistical QB to ever play the game, if you don't win a superbowl, people aren't going to talk about you much.

IMAGE(http://images.nitrosell.com/product_images/8/1877/dan%20marino%20fathead.jpg)

Wait. The Isotoner guy played football?

Spoiler:

Everyone knows he would have won the Super Bowl if Ray Finkle had just hit that kick.

Wait? That NFL TV analyst used to work for Isotoner? What's an Isotoner?

Wait. NFL TV analysts used to play football? Why are they all so dumb then?

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Doesn't matter if you're the greatest statistical QB to ever play the game, if you don't win a superbowl, people aren't going to talk about you much.

IMAGE(http://images.nitrosell.com/product_images/8/1877/dan%20marino%20fathead.jpg)

Wait. The Isotoner guy played football?

Spoiler:

Everyone knows he would have won the Super Bowl if Ray Finkle had just hit that kick.

You realize that no one does talk about Marino much. The only time he comes up is when someone was about to break the single season passing record (which happened this year). Now that the passing record is broken (his TD record already fell), you're not going to hear about him anymore much.

Also, if you look at statistical numbers, Terry Bradshaw isn't even close to being elite, but he won 4 superbowls.

bandit0013 wrote:

You realize that no one does talk about Marino much. The only time he comes up is when someone was about to break the single season passing record (which happened this year). Now that the passing record is broken, you're not going to hear about marino except if someone is X-0, and once they break it, he'll be gone.

You realize that no one talks about Elway much. He only comes up when they're talking about Tebow. You realize that no one talks about Aikman much. He only comes up when he says something stupid on tv. You realize that no one talks about Montana much. He only comes up when somebody wants to talk about "The Catch".

This thread was interesting when we were talking about Tebow, but then it took an arrow to the knee.

bandit0013 wrote:

Also, if you look at statistical numbers, Terry Bradshaw isn't even close to being elite, but he won 4 superbowls.

Either are Bart Starr, Sonny Jurgensen, Roger Staubach . . . hey, that Otto Graham, he never threw for 3,000 yards in a season! What a bum.

Bradshaw's numbers are crap compared to today's pass-happy game, but they're good for his era. Yes, the four Super Bowls are why he's in Canton, but it was "run for four yards, throw it deep on occasion, long TDs and lots of INTs" kind of era (otherwise known as the boring-as-hell era).

Marino is rightly regarded as an all-time great and an undoubtedly deserving first-ballot HOFer. People don't talk about him now because he's not playing anymore, just like they don't talk about most old players. You don't see people talking about Dan Fouts a whole lot these days, another great without a ring. They wouldn't be talking about Bradshaw if he wasn't an annoying talking head on Fox.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Also, if you look at statistical numbers, Terry Bradshaw isn't even close to being elite, but he won 4 superbowls.

Either are Bart Starr, Sonny Jurgensen, Roger Staubach . . . hey, that Otto Graham, he never threw for 3,000 yards in a season! What a bum.

Bradshaw's numbers are crap compared to today's pass-happy game, but they're good for his era. Yes, the four Super Bowls are why he's in Canton, but it was "run for four yards, throw it deep on occasion, long TDs and lots of INTs" kind of era (otherwise known as the boring-as-hell era).

Marino is rightly regarded as an all-time great and an undoubtedly deserving first-ballot HOFer. People don't talk about him now because he's not playing anymore, just like they don't talk about most old players. You don't see people talking about Dan Fouts a whole lot these days, another great without a ring. They wouldn't be talking about Bradshaw if he wasn't an annoying talking head on Fox.

Precisely. To compare modern numbers with the numbers of the Bradshaw era (where you could flesh tuxedo wide receivers and no one would call pass interference, asking for a "roughing the passer" call was likely to get you a "boo hoo" from the ref, and "defenseless receiver" were two words you wouldn't put together without the words "he shot the" in front of them) is a demonstration of either insincere argument or a lack of understanding of the game.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

they won the Chicago game because of a 59-yard FG plus Marion Barber doing everything he could to make Chicago lose.

This is the part that just pisses me off about Tebow. Marion Barber takes a knee, the Bears would have won, the raiders would have gone to the playoffs, the Broncos would be seeing how many sexual favors are necessary to get Luck away from Indy, and, most importantly, this entire conversation wouldn't have happened.

He's a terrible quarterback, not anywhere near below average. At best, he's the anti-LeBron, because he only shows up in the 4th quarter.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Bradshaw's numbers are crap compared to today's pass-happy game, but they're good for his era. Yes, the four Super Bowls are why he's in Canton, but it was "run for four yards, throw it deep on occasion, long TDs and lots of INTs" kind of era (otherwise known as the boring-as-hell era).

This is why we can't have nice thingsgood football.

wordsmythe wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Bradshaw's numbers are crap compared to today's pass-happy game, but they're good for his era. Yes, the four Super Bowls are why he's in Canton, but it was "run for four yards, throw it deep on occasion, long TDs and lots of INTs" kind of era (otherwise known as the boring-as-hell era).

This is why we can't have nice thingsgood football.

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/ws.jpg)

WOO BRING BACK DICK BUTKUS

cube wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

they won the Chicago game because of a 59-yard FG plus Marion Barber doing everything he could to make Chicago lose.

He's a terrible quarterback, not anywhere near below average. At best, he's the anti-LeBron, because he only shows up in the 4th quarter.

Again, I challenge people to quantify this. Terrible, really? How many wins did the Broncos get under his lead again? So we can assign wins and hall of fame status to a guy like Bradshaw, etc based on wins but Tebow's wins are irrelevant because... he's Tebow?

Seriously, statistically he's not anywhere near aaron rodgers et al, but Terrible? Simple? I think some of you guys have a bias that is really clouding your view on things.

Look at his rushing numbers. Cam Newton ran for 709 and 14TD. 14TD is a statistical anomaly, he'll probably never again come close to that. Tebow ran for 665 and 6TDs and played less games. Cam Newton is in the discussion for Rookie of the Year and Tebow is Terrible, unfit to grace a football field? (Cam Newton is a better passer, but his passing rank this year was solidly average, Tebow is near the bottom, but not last)

And honestly, I don't really like Tebow, I'm kind of irritated I feel compelled to defend him.

Nomad wrote:

I assumed the Tebow mania had a good deal to do with the "Rudy" factor. (ie. subpar underdog guy with a big heart leads his team to victory)

"Rudy"? Don't you mean "Radio"?

IMAGE(http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/9422/32176311.jpg)

TheGameguru wrote:

Growing up in West Philly during the formation of rap..

Let me guess: 'til a couple of guys who were up to no good started making trouble in your neighborhood?

EDIT: To add the video of Jesus' encounter with Tebow, which I think says it all.

Only thing I will add, is that anyone who thinks the Denver defense was anything other than below average, did not really watch what was happening to them during the season. It wasn't defensive players missing from the teams that Denver beat, it was offensive players. Denver's defense was made to look better because in almost ever case, the "superstars" from the other team were either maimed or out. Sure Tebow didn't do much, which resulted in some pretty interesting 4th quarters, but had all those hurt players been available to the opposing team, we'd have had a lot more 30+ and 40+ games (and no chance at 4th quarter comebacks credited to Tebow).

Wins do not have a great correlation to skill of an individual player. All your 'statistical anomaly' and predictive crap on Newton is just that, crap. We honestly don't know if he will get those numbers again, but he might. Tebow is a great athelete. He is a sh*t quarterback who limits your offensive options significantly from a modern (Can I just say past Air-Coryell here?) perspective. Its not bias, its those deep balls in the middle of the field that Eddie Royal is working his ass of to adjust for after burning a corner with no safety help. That isn't a throw that indicates more options. It indicates a guy without a terrible amount of touch on the ball who can heave it every once and awhile.

Hey bandit, if all the proof everyone else has shown that he is a bad QB isn't enough for you, well then tell us what a bad QB is. Tell us who was the worst QB over the last 3 weeks of the regular season. Please show your work.

boogle wrote:

Wins do not have a great correlation to skill of an individual player.

Tell that to the Colts without Peyton Manning this season. Contender to last place... one player.

boogle wrote:

All your 'statistical anomaly' and predictive crap on Newton is just that, crap. We honestly don't know if he will get those numbers again, but he might.

anomaly n. , pl. , -lies . Deviation or departure from the normal or common order, form, or rule.

Cam newton had 13 rushing touchdowns this season. Only 5 QBs in the history of football have had more than 10 in a season. The guy who had 12 did it in 1976. No QB in the history of football has ever rushed for double digit touchdowns in multiple seasons, let alone back-to-back.

That my friend, is a statistical anomaly until he does it again. Care to figure the odds on it given the dataset?

boogle wrote:

Tebow is a great athelete. He is a sh*t quarterback who limits your offensive options significantly from a modern (Can I just say past Air-Coryell here?) perspective. Its not bias, its those deep balls in the middle of the field that Eddie Royal is working his ass of to adjust for after burning a corner with no safety help. That isn't a throw that indicates more options. It indicates a guy without a terrible amount of touch on the ball who can heave it every once and awhile.

Nobody remembers football teams for how many options they had, how many plays in the playbook. They remember them for wins. The Broncos were 1-4 under Orten and 7-3 with Tebow. So again, you're tossing a word like 'sh*t' out there at a player who is winning ball games. I disagree.

Elliottx wrote:

Hey bandit, if all the proof everyone else has shown that he is a bad QB isn't enough for you, well then tell us what a bad QB is. Tell us who was the worst QB over the last 3 weeks of the regular season. Please show your work.

Since when is the judge of an NFL quarterback 3 games? You are also selecting the 3 games. I bet I can find a 3 game stretch where Drew Brees was in the bottom half of the league. Can I call him terrible?

Can we compare quarterbacks in just the first round of the playoffs? Hey look, tebow is elite.

And by the way, the worst NFL QB of all time was probably Ryan Leaf. If you're going to throw the word terrible around, put it in perspective.