Tebow stinks.

[bpwallace49]

Reminds me of the wildcat. How the Dolphins started it, it had its doubters, than it became the thing to do in the next off-season and most teams added something like it to their playbook; but then everyone learned the best way to defend it and it became useless.

 

I think if teams can view a full season of how Tebow plays after this season and dissect it, they will probably find some trends they can capitalize on. I wouldn't be surprised if next season he struggled mightily.

 

[darth vader] I find your lack of faith disturbing. [/darth vader]

[Bronco Billy]

Right now, Tebow couldn't run that Offense. And believe me the Read Option Offense won't be a staple for long in the NFL, more than likely not past this season.

 

Really? Why is that? The running game relies on trying to get enough blockers on enough defenders so that the ball carrier is isolated on a single defender. It then becomes the runner's responsibility to be able to beat the isolated defender in a one-on-one situation. This is true whether a team is running a wham, a lead I, a toss sweep, a trap, a cut-back, etc. The philosophy doesn't change. Because with a traditional QB the D outnumbers the O by 2 (the QB and the ball carrier are not blocking) the O has to try to get its even-up match up in very localized areas.

 

Where the advantage on the read option comes in is that the O can actually gain another player in the running play, and thereby provides more opportunity for that one-on-one matchup. The reason conventional wisdom has prevented NFL teams from running it is that most QBs are not predisposed to taking the regular pounding that can come with running the option, NFL coaches prefer not to take a risk with running their QB, and that the thought process is that NFL D players are too fast to allow the play to fully develop. So it's run only as a gadget, and sometimes with a RB playing the QB spot to do it.

 

Tebow is as big as many of the LBs playing in the NFL, and also is very well prepared to run the O. It also forces opposing Ds to use more practice time during the week to get ready to stop it, which is a definite added benefit, especially with the new rules regarding contact in practices per the CBA. It also requires discipline to maintain assignments when the D is trying to stop it, and we've all seen how fundamentals and self discipline have broken down at the NFL level - look at how poorly a lot of the guys tackle.

 

If a player has the ability to run it, and can run it successfully, why would a team adhere to conventional thinking? My thinking is that DEN will continue to run it until it fails to work - but given its success so far, It's hard to tell when that will be. Opponents already have half a season's book on it and it's still working. By your thought process, it should have played itself out a few games ago. It's not the whole offense, but it sure is a nice wrinkle that can be used regularly.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Really? Why is that? The running game relies on trying to get enough blockers on enough defenders so that the ball carrier is isolated on a single defender. It then becomes the runner's responsibility to be able to beat the isolated defender in a one-on-one situation. This is true whether a team is running a wham, a lead I, a toss sweep, a trap, a cut-back, etc. The philosophy doesn't change. Because with a traditional QB the D outnumbers the O by 2 (the QB and the ball carrier are not blocking) the O has to try to get its even-up match up in very localized areas.

 

Where the advantage on the read option comes in is that the O can actually gain another player in the running play, and thereby provides more opportunity for that one-on-one matchup. The reason conventional wisdom has prevented NFL teams from running it is that most QBs are not predisposed to taking the regular pounding that can come with running the option, NFL coaches prefer not to take a risk with running their QB, and that the thought process is that NFL D players are too fast to allow the play to fully develop. So it's run only as a gadget, and sometimes with a RB playing the QB spot to do it.

 

Tebow is as big as many of the LBs playing in the NFL, and also is very well prepared to run the O. It also forces opposing Ds to use more practice time during the week to get ready to stop it, which is a definite added benefit, especially with the new rules regarding contact in practices per the CBA. It also requires discipline to maintain assignments when the D is trying to stop it, and we've all seen how fundamentals and self discipline have broken down at the NFL level - look at how poorly a lot of the guys tackle.

 

If a player has the ability to run it, and can run it successfully, why would a team adhere to conventional thinking? My thinking is that DEN will continue to run it until it fails to work - but given its success so far, It's hard to tell when that will be. Opponents already have half a season's book on it and it's still working. By your thought process, it should have played itself out a few games ago. It's not the whole offense, but it sure is a nice wrinkle that can be used regularly.

 

Is the dirty talk really necessary?

[detlef]

Last night watching Alex Smith I could not help but feel the 49ers would be better off with Tebow.

 

 

Right now, Tebow couldn't run that Offense. And believe me the Read Option Offense won't be a staple for long in the NFL, more than likely not past this season.

IMO, neither the Niners nor the Broncos have the QB they need. Certainly either or both could theoretically grow into that role, but I believe both will ultimately be the reason why their teams can only go so far this year (or possibly next).

 

The Niners have a better D (but Denver certainly has a good one). Denver has a better running game (but the Niners have a good one). But neither has a QB that can trade blows with the best. And, ultimately, those are typically the teams that win it all. Sure, Dilfer has a ring, but that's certainly not the norm.

 

ETA: Given the outstanding D and kicking games, I would not be surprised if Tebow could have had similar results in SF as Smith has.

 

ETA2: I'm still very glad we don't have Tebow over Smith, for no other reason than the fact that it won't be PR suicide if the Niners decide next year that Kaeperneck is the better QB and go with him. If the Brconcos so much as sniff another QB option, the fans will go ballistic.

Edited December 21, 2011 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

[/b]

 

Is the dirty talk really necessary?

 

There's nothing more heartbreaking than an underused wrinkle.

 

Do you check your phone messages? Call me!

Edited December 21, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Ditkaless Wonders]

There's nothing more heartbreaking than an underused wrinkle.

 

Do you check your phone messages? Call me!

 

 

Once a week or so. I'll go do so now.

[Bronco Billy]

IMO, neither the Niners nor the Broncos have the QB they need. Certainly either or both could theoretically grow into that role, but I believe both will ultimately be the reason why their teams can only go so far this year (or possibly next).

 

The Niners have a better D (but Denver certainly has a good one). Denver has a better running game (but the Niners have a good one). But neither has a QB that can trade blows with the best. And, ultimately, those are typically the teams that win it all. Sure, Dilfer has a ring, but that's certainly not the norm.

 

ETA: Given the outstanding D and kicking games, I would not be surprised if Tebow could have had similar results in SF as Smith has.

 

ETA2: I'm still very glad we don't have Tebow over Smith, for no other reason than the fact that it won't be PR suicide if the Niners decide next year that Kaeperneck is the better QB and go with him. If the Brconcos so much as sniff another QB option, the fans will go ballistic.

 

Odd comparison. A QB with 64 career starts and 6 years in the league who has shown over that time that on his very best day he's barely beyond mediocre, to a QB with 12 career starts in his 2 years in the league. It took Tebow on his second start what it took Smith 43 starts to do - crack 300 yds passing in a game. And 64 starts in, that's Smith's one & only 300 yd game.

 

Smith was horrendous for literally years as SF lost for 5 years before Harbaugh arrived as a HC. His career record is 30-34 as a starter, and that includes this year's 11-3 record. Given his track record, unless Smith has a Gannon-like epiphany, he's going to be nothing greater than a game manager his entire career.

 

Tebow is 8-4 in his 12 starts - and he took over the reins for a team that literally had the worst record in the NFL over a 2 year period. Now they are a playoff contender. Tebow does more than game manage - he makes big plays. And this is despite his throwing opportunities being throttled by the decisions of the coaches to run an ultra-conservative offense until they ask him to come through with his 4th quarter heroics.

 

I don't see SF players turn to Smith in the 4th quarter and expect to see him pull the game out of the fire the way DEN players do with Tebow - and this with less than a full season of starts under Tebow's belt.

 

That said, if Tebow has 6 years of combined mediocrity and over that same time and given all that same opportunity, shows that he is no more than a pedestrian NFL QB as Smith has, I'm completely confident that the overwhelming majority of DEN fans will be ready to turn the page and move on with someone else taking snaps for the team. In fact, I'm sure that most DEN fans would have been willing to move on after this year or next at the latest if Tebow had shown as little as Smith has so far in his career.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[detlef]

I'm not getting sucked back into this, so this is all I will say.

 

The comparison is odd because you want it to be odd. Neither QB is carrying his team. Both teams will likely have their season come to an end this year because their QB could not trade punches with the best.

 

You are so quick to blame Tebow's issues on his coaches (which is funny because they started playing conservative after he showed he was entirely unprepared to run a more dynamic offense. I asked you this before and you ignored it. Are you truly suggesting that they run a two minute offense all game long? Do you really think that Tebow has the intellect to do so?). None the less, you also seem prepared to ignore that Smith has had a different OC and and HC in nearly every season he has played.

 

The funny thing is, one of the posts I was addressing said that Tebow couldn't run the SF offense and I said it would not surprise me at all to see Tebow lead the Niners to as good a record as Smith has. Does everyone have to agree with you 100%?

[Bronco Billy]

I'm not getting sucked back into this, so this is all I will say.

 

The comparison is odd because you want it to be odd. Neither QB is carrying his team. Both teams will likely have their season come to an end this year because their QB could not trade punches with the best.

 

You are so quick to blame Tebow's issues on his coaches (which is funny because they started playing conservative after he showed he was entirely unprepared to run a more dynamic offense. I asked you this before and you ignored it. Are you truly suggesting that they run a two minute offense all game long? Do you really think that Tebow has the intellect to do so?). None the less, you also seem prepared to ignore that Smith has had a different OC and and HC in nearly every season he has played.

 

The funny thing is, one of the posts I was addressing said that Tebow couldn't run the SF offense and I said it would not surprise me at all to see Tebow lead the Niners to as good a record as Smith has. Does everyone have to agree with you 100%?

 

I don't expect anyone to agree with me 100%. Do you expect discussion to conclude simply because you have posted something and therefore you deem that it shall be the last word on the subject?

 

And if you read carefully, you'd notice that I blame DEN's passing woes on more than just Tebow. I do not, nor have I ever excluded Tebow from blame and I am more than willing to heap extremely derogatory adjectives to his passing when appropriate. I'm not sure why you want to take a position similar to guys like bpwallace when I know that you know much better and you can make good solid arguments without resorting to those kinds of tactics.

 

And FWIW, I'd call DEN's O dynamic right now. Unconventional by NFL standards, for sure, but also dynamic. A football offense doesn't have to put up 400 yds passing to be labeled dynamic. No, I don't want to see the 2 minute O all game. That would be stupid given where Tebow is on his learning curve, don't you think? I would like to see some spread looks throughout the first 3 quarters though. I'd like to see Tebow throwing 22-25 times a game - and not just single digit pass attempts going into the 4th quarter - to mix in with the hammering run game.

 

And yes, I am certain that Tebow has the intellectual capacity to run a NFL offense. Everyone who I have seen interviewed and has known Tebow from a footbal perspective says that he's a student of the game and soaks knowledge up, and is among the hardest workers they've ever seen. But like a lot of QBs who ran spread Os in college, he's got a lot to unlearn and then relearn, and that can take time. A lot of those guys never get it despite being prolific passers in college. Tebow is showing definite progression in his learning curve. He's shown a distinct and definite disposition to going through his learning progression and performing as coached while on the job - and that includes the DET debacle where coaches told him to work on climbing the pocket in the face of DEN's interior line having no chance of holding the middle of the pocket against the DET DTs (or OT Orlando Franklin vs DET's DEs for that matter) .

 

ETA - And I still think he has a lot to prove to be considered a reliable NFL starter for a decade or more, but I'm growing more optimistic after watching the way he's progressed this year so far. I've definitely - and obviously - tilted the odds in favor of his success from my perspective.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[bpwallace49]

And yes, I am certain that Tebow has the intellectual capacity to run a NFL offense. Everyone who I have seen interviewed and has known Tebow from a footbal perspective says that he's a student of the game and soaks knowledge up, and is among the hardest workers they've ever seen.

 

Then it is truly amazing how incredibly unprepared he was in his first few starts this year after sitting and learning for a whole year. Y'know, being such a student of the game and such a hard worker and all . . .

 

But I am sure you have a handy excuse for that too.

[Bronco Billy]

Then it is truly amazing how incredibly unprepared he was in his first few starts this year after sitting and learning for a whole year. Y'know, being such a student of the game and such a hard worker and all . . .

 

But I am sure you have a handy excuse for that too.

 

I forgot again. You certainly know about Tebow's football intellect and work ethic much better than people who have been his coaches or teammates for years. I also forgot that every QB should be expected to be ready to throw for 300+ yds and 2+ TDs every game he starts after 1 year in the league.

 

But I'm glad that your persistence matches your football acumen, and that you will always be there to correct me when I forget these indisputable truths.

 

One word of advice for you, if I might be so bold as to give you some. Use more of these: in your posts. The more you use, the more people will recognize the magnificence of your football intellect, and maybe dumbasses like me won't have to be reminded so often of how lowly our opinion is when compared to your shining brilliance.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Square]

Glad to see this thread got back to normal.

[detlef]

And this is despite his throwing opportunities being throttled by the decisions of the coaches to run an ultra-conservative offense until they ask him to come through with his 4th quarter heroics.

 

 

And FWIW, I'd call DEN's O dynamic right now. Unconventional by NFL standards, for sure, but also dynamic. A football offense doesn't have to put up 400 yds passing to be labeled dynamic.

Would you care to reconcile these two statements?

 

And you can call it dynamic if you want, but you can't really call it effective, which is what I'm guessing they'd rather be known as. There is exactly one team who anyone considers "good" who scores less points per game than the Broncos do.

 

I don't really care how you get down the field. Run it all day. Fling it around the yard. But, at the end of the day, the team who scores the most points wins. And basically all the "good" teams score more than Denver does.

Edited December 21, 2011 by detlef

[stevegrab]

Really? Why is that? The running game relies on trying to get enough blockers on enough defenders so that the ball carrier is isolated on a single defender. It then becomes the runner's responsibility to be able to beat the isolated defender in a one-on-one situation. This is true whether a team is running a wham, a lead I, a toss sweep, a trap, a cut-back, etc. The philosophy doesn't change. Because with a traditional QB the D outnumbers the O by 2 (the QB and the ball carrier are not blocking) the O has to try to get its even-up match up in very localized areas.

 

Where the advantage on the read option comes in is that the O can actually gain another player in the running play, and thereby provides more opportunity for that one-on-one matchup. The reason conventional wisdom has prevented NFL teams from running it is that most QBs are not predisposed to taking the regular pounding that can come with running the option, NFL coaches prefer not to take a risk with running their QB, and that the thought process is that NFL D players are too fast to allow the play to fully develop. So it's run only as a gadget, and sometimes with a RB playing the QB spot to do it.

 

Tebow is as big as many of the LBs playing in the NFL, and also is very well prepared to run the O. It also forces opposing Ds to use more practice time during the week to get ready to stop it, which is a definite added benefit, especially with the new rules regarding contact in practices per the CBA. It also requires discipline to maintain assignments when the D is trying to stop it, and we've all seen how fundamentals and self discipline have broken down at the NFL level - look at how poorly a lot of the guys tackle.

 

If a player has the ability to run it, and can run it successfully, why would a team adhere to conventional thinking? My thinking is that DEN will continue to run it until it fails to work - but given its success so far, It's hard to tell when that will be. Opponents already have half a season's book on it and it's still working. By your thought process, it should have played itself out a few games ago. It's not the whole offense, but it sure is a nice wrinkle that can be used regularly.

 

 

Good unbiased analysis. When NFLN ran their Playbook special Tebow edition they covered a lot of this and it made sense. The extra man (since QB can carry and RB block, or vice versa), the QB having the running ability, the tough decisions it makes the defense take are worth considering. And you're right, DEN will run that until it is stopped. And that could mean their offense continues to be pretty potent. But they will suffer when they have to throw more, and it will further prevent Tebow from developing into a good passing QB. None of that means they cannot win, reach the playoffs and even do well. But it does mean Tebow will continue to be a mediocre at best passing QB,with low attempt #s, low completion%, and low yards per game. Of course if they are winning, none of that matters.

[detlef]

Good unbiased analysis. When NFLN ran their Playbook special Tebow edition they covered a lot of this and it made sense. The extra man (since QB can carry and RB block, or vice versa), the QB having the running ability, the tough decisions it makes the defense take are worth considering. And you're right, DEN will run that until it is stopped. And that could mean their offense continues to be pretty potent. But they will suffer when they have to throw more, and it will further prevent Tebow from developing into a good passing QB. None of that means they cannot win, reach the playoffs and even do well. But it does mean Tebow will continue to be a mediocre at best passing QB,with low attempt #s, low completion%, and low yards per game. Of course if they are winning, none of that matters.

For the record, they're ranked 19th in yards and 20th in scoring. Can I get an official definition of "potent"?

[Bronco Billy]

Would you care to reconcile these two statements?

 

Really? You really need to to explain the difference?

 

DEN rushes the ball 2nd most in the league, compared to passing the ball 378 times, least in the league. That's ultra-conservative.

 

DEN also runs a lead option as a regular part of their offense and runs the ball at 4.9 ypc - substantially better than any of the other top 5 rushing teams. Teams know they are going to run the ball, yet DEN runs for almost 5 yds for every running play. That's dynamic.

[Bronco Billy]

For the record, they're ranked 19th in yards and 20th in scoring. Can I get an official definition of "potent"?

 

link

 

po·tent (ptnt)

adj.

 

1. Possessing inner or physical strength; powerful.

[Bronco Billy]

Good unbiased analysis. When NFLN ran their Playbook special Tebow edition they covered a lot of this and it made sense. The extra man (since QB can carry and RB block, or vice versa), the QB having the running ability, the tough decisions it makes the defense take are worth considering. And you're right, DEN will run that until it is stopped. And that could mean their offense continues to be pretty potent. But they will suffer when they have to throw more, and it will further prevent Tebow from developing into a good passing QB. None of that means they cannot win, reach the playoffs and even do well. But it does mean Tebow will continue to be a mediocre at best passing QB,with low attempt #s, low completion%, and low yards per game. Of course if they are winning, none of that matters.

 

I agree with what you are saying here. I think Tebow will get a lot of work this offseason regarding passing, and I expect the Exec VP to roll his sleeves up and get involved. There still appears to be a trust issue with at least McCoy regarding Tebow - which to me seems odd, because when DEN does go spread/up-tempo in crunch time at the end of games in critical situations they seem to do so pretty effectively regardless of what the other team throws at them.

[detlef]

Really? You really need to to explain the difference?

 

DEN rushes the ball 2nd most in the league, compared to passing the ball 378 times, least in the league. That's ultra-conservative.

 

DEN also runs a lead option as a regular part of their offense and runs the ball at 4.9 ypc - substantially better than any of the other top 5 rushing teams. Teams know they are going to run the ball, yet DEN runs for almost 5 yds for every running play. That's dynamic.

So, dynamic but not "effective"? Because they're certainly not effective at moving the ball. You guys love to lean on the fact that they run so well, and that's great. Or, at least, would be great if they could pass well enough to compliment that running attack and actually move the chains. Which they don't. As mediocre as their points scored and yardage gained numbers are, their ability to not only pull drives out of their asses but also have things break the right way for them at the end of games to buy them extra possessions makes their yardage and points look even better than it typically is.

 

And, btw, I'm really trying to focus on "the offense" here, not Tebow. I realize that he's only part of the equation. Mind you, that seems to be a more important distinction when we're talking about their failures, as I was basically laughed at by Az for not giving Tebow enough specific and measurable credit for how well the D was playing. None the less, I'm just trying to avoid playing make believe.

 

Like when you said he's making plays early in games often including in the first half of the Dolphins game. Because he didn't.

Like now, when people are actually saying the offense is "effective". Because they're not.

[bpwallace49]

I love watching ESPN First Take.

 

I get my daily dose of Bronco Billy by watching Skip Bayless.

[Bronco Billy]

Like when you said he's making plays early in games often including in the first half of the Dolphins game. Because he didn't.

 

Link to play by play DEN vs MIA

 

1-10-DEN 37 (8:43 Q1) (Shotgun) 15-T.Tebow scrambles left guard ran ob at 50 for 13 yards (58-K.Dansby).

2-6-DEN 24 (13:35 Q2) 15-T.Tebow pass short left to 46-S.Larsen to DEN 40 for 16 yards (27-J.Wilson).

2-20-DEN 15 (1:52 Q2) 15-T.Tebow right guard to DEN 36 for 21 yards (58-K.Dansby).

 

Any other player in the league would get credit for making plays when they have runs of 13 and 21 yds, and a pass go for 16 yds. I guess because his name is Tebow, those don't count. Tebow threw all of 5 passes the entire half discounting plays with penalties, completing 3 of them.

 

ETA - by the way, the claim's inference was that Tebow didn't make plays in the first 3.5 quarters of games. My response was an implication that I could look through his body or work this season and find sufficient examples of his having made plays in the first 3.5 quarters; and then further stated that I could find examples of his having made plays in the first half of games, including the MIA game - which I've quoted above.

 

Here are the quotes:

 

How did you know that was going to happen? Is it because BB conceding a point is about as likely as Tebow making a play in the first 3.5 quarters of a football game?

 

I don't understand your position here. Are you saying that I willingly and often concede points?

 

I don't think that is your intent, but I may be mistaken. I can show you more than a few cases of Tebow making plays in the first half of games, including in his first start this year vs MIA, so that would seem to be what you are saying, unless you have no clue what you are talking about, which I guess would be the other possibility.

 

That you've decided to conviently edit my statements to your own ends - something you're awfully good at - doesn't negate the validity of the statements I've made.

 

Tell you what, let's play a little game. I'll willingly concede that Tebow didn't often make plays in the first half of the MIA game; and you willingly concede that you mixed my two points into one that has a different meaning than what I intended.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[bushwacked]

Glad to see this thread got back to normal.

 

[detlef]

Link to play by play DEN vs MIA

 

1-10-DEN 37 (8:43 Q1) (Shotgun) 15-T.Tebow scrambles left guard ran ob at 50 for 13 yards (58-K.Dansby).

2-6-DEN 24 (13:35 Q2) 15-T.Tebow pass short left to 46-S.Larsen to DEN 40 for 16 yards (27-J.Wilson).

2-20-DEN 15 (1:52 Q2) 15-T.Tebow right guard to DEN 36 for 21 yards (58-K.Dansby).

 

Any other player in the league would get credit for making plays when they have runs of 13 and 21 yds, and a pass go for 16 yds. I guess because his name is Tebow, those don't count. Tebow threw all of 5 passes the entire half discounting plays with penalties, completing 3 of them.

 

ETA - by the way, the claim's inference was that Tebow didn't make plays in the first 3.5 quarters of games. My response was an implication that I could look through his body or work this season and find sufficient examples of his having made plays in the first 3.5 quarters; and then further stated that I could find examples of his having made plays in the first half of games, including the MIA game - which I've quoted above.

 

Here are the quotes:

 

 

 

 

 

That you've decided to conviently edit my statements to your own ends - something you're awfully good at - doesn't negate the validity of the statements I've made.

Someone said you're as likely to concede a point as Tebow is of making plays early in games and you replied by saying "Are you saying I concede them willingly and often?" Was it truly unfair for me to paraphrase you and say that you're saying Tebow "often makes plays" early in games?

 

So, great, you showed me 3 plays. Whoop-dee-freaking-do. Three plays, in 50+ minutes of play. Sorry, but do you expect anyone to look at that as "making plays"? Again, in over 3 quarters of play, the best they could manage was a drive good enough that it should have, but didn't result in a FG. That is horrible and completely and totally negates any "plays" one might make.

 

Yet, you play the "any other player in the league would get credit..." For what? Only going 3 and out almost every time as opposed to absolutely every time?

 

What "negates the validity" of your statements is the fact that they're utterly and completely inane. I'm sure when the person who made that quote, made it, he likely realized that not each and every play that Tebow runs in the first half of games results in an incomplete pass or short gain. Just almost all of them.

 

ETA: And yes, I understand that he "made plays" and moved the ball early in the Oakland and KC games. He even did this past week (but that was after your point).

 

So great, there's 2 games. Are you really going to insist that we recognize that as "often"? Do I need to post how historically bad they've been in the first half of every game besides KC, Oakland, and NE?

Edited December 21, 2011 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

Someone said you're as likely to concede a point as Tebow is of making plays early in games and you replied by saying "Are you saying I concede them willingly and often?" Was it truly unfair for me to paraphrase you and say that you're saying Tebow "often makes plays" early in games?

 

So, great, you showed me 3 plays. Whoop-dee-freaking-do. Three plays, in 50+ minutes of play. Sorry, but do you expect anyone to look at that as "making plays"? Again, in over 3 quarters of play, the best they could manage was a drive good enough that it should have, but didn't result in a FG. That is horrible and completely and totally negates any "plays" one might make.

 

Yet, you play the "any other player in the league would get credit..." For what? Only going 3 and out almost every time as opposed to absolutely every time?

 

What "negates the validity" of your statements is the fact that they're utterly and completely inane. I'm sure when the person who made that quote, made it, he likely realized that not each and every play that Tebow runs in the first half of games results in an incomplete pass or short gain. Just almost all of them.

 

ETA: And yes, I understand that he "made plays" and moved the ball early in the Oakland and KC games. He even did this past week (but that was after your point).

 

So great, there's 2 games. Are you really going to insist that we recognize that as "often"? Do I need to post how historically bad they've been in the first half of every game besides KC, Oakland, and NE?

 

Okay, I guess we won't play. Well, I'll concede your point at least, as tortured as it is. You keep playing your game, if it makes you happy.

[detlef]

Okay, I guess we won't play. Well, I'll concede your point at least, as tortured as it is. You keep playing your game, if it makes you happy.

Dude, like I said before, I'm prepared to suspend the will he or won't he be good until there's more evidence on either side.

 

I'd just prefer that we not pretend things that are true when they're really not. You have the fourth quarter and, every now and then, some good moments prior to that. You're going to have to be content with that because implying otherwise is not at all accurate.

 

You make fine enough points in general that you may as well stick to what is actually true.