For those that wanted Tebow...

[metzelaars_lives]

I live in Denver and I can tell you that most of what is on here is true. The fans want Tebow overwhelmingly and yes, Orton, apparently, has looked WAY better in camp (what- 4 days of practice?) But the thing that gets overlooked in all of this and I can't believe no one is mentioning it is that Tebow looked pretty damn good last year when he played. So I'm not really sure where the "Tebow will always suck" crowd is coming from. He got thrown into the fire last year on a bad football team as a rookie and did not suck.

[NewEra]

I'm saying it doesnt matter if he has those things or not, he will never be a very good or great NFL quarterback because he cannot throw NFL quality passes often enough because of his throwing motion. Too many passes will be incomplete, batted down, or intercepted because he cannot get the ball to his receivers quick enough from the time he sees them open and the time the ball arrives, all due to his throwing motion. That's the criticism that scouts have on him.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I understand your point, but ithrowing motion is something that many of qbs have changed. Whether or not tebow will ever be able to, I don't know, but it is fixable.

[Kelly the Dog]

I live in Denver and I can tell you that most of what is on here is true. The fans want Tebow overwhelmingly and yes, Orton, apparently, has looked WAY better in camp (what- 4 days of practice?) But the thing that gets overlooked in all of this and I can't believe no one is mentioning it is that Tebow looked pretty damn good last year when he played. So I'm not really sure where the "Tebow will always suck" crowd is coming from. He got thrown into the fire last year on a bad football team as a rookie and did not suck.

Throwing the ball, he sucked. I watched him play and he sucked. The first TD he threw was a terrible pass that should have been intercepted twice. It fell into the hands of the Bronco because the DB mistimed it, but it wasn't a good pass at all. Sure, one can say all TDs are good passes, and for the most part that is true. But the problems throwing that scouts were concerned about were very self-evident watching him on the field in those games. It catches up to you.

 

He's exciting. He can run. He can make plays with his feet. He won't give up, He can complete some passes other QBs can't often do. There is a really lot to like about him. But he can't throw and it will eventually kill him and his chances.

 

I do think he could be a decent back-up, the kind that can come in for a half or a game or two. And I do think he can be a situational wildcat kind of QB, as well as somewhat effective in the redzone (although not a situation where as soon as you're in the redzone he comes in the game, just once in awhile). The new third QB rules make him a decent if not good player to have on your team.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog

[Zulu Cthulhu]

He wasn't a complete dumpster fire last year in his 3 starts. He made plays with his feet at times. But as Kelly said, the throwing issues were obvious. He had his best performance against Houston, who had one of the worst defenses in recent memory last year. The following week, against a good defense in san diego, he regressed badly.

[metzelaars_lives]

Throwing the ball, he sucked. I watched him play and he sucked. The first TD he threw was a terrible pass that should have been intercepted twice. It fell into the hands of the Bronco because the DB mistimed it, but it wasn't a good pass at all. Sure, one can say all TDs are good passes, and for the most part that is true. But the problems throwing that scouts were concerned about were very self-evident watching him on the field in those games. It catches up to you.

 

He's exciting. He can run. He can make plays with his feet. He won't give up, He can complete some passes other QBs can't often do. There is a really lot to like about him. But he can't throw and it will eventually kill him and his chances.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I don't think he's gonna be that great either. But didn't he throw for 300 yards against Houston? I think J.P. Losman did that once in his entire career and Trent Edwards never did it. For a rookie, that's not too bad.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

I am not saying that Tim Tebow is the next Johnny Unitas, but you can't write anyone off after one year, a year that when he did play, he wasn't that bad. If a QB is going to be written off after the rookie year that Tebow had, then Peyton Manning who pretty much sucked his rookie year would have been cut immediately. Little early too be proudly waving your "I told you so" banner. There are alot of questions about Tebow, but looking at our QB situation here, I mean we essentially have a roster of three backups and one who probably shouldn't even be in the NFL, so it still would have been worth a 2nd round pick on him. Could he have done much worse at this stage then our draft class from 2010 did? Not really. I bet you aren't willing to write off Spiller yet after a terrible rookie season, so why Tebow?

Wow.

 

Watching you, Dick Drawn, and Harvey Lives being so patient and eloquent in your defense of something you like is touching.

 

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I understand your point, but ithrowing motion is something that many of qbs have changed. Whether or not tebow will ever be able to, I don't know, but it is fixable.

Aaron Rodgers had that weird Tedford-style delivery and was able to exorcise it so yeah, it is possible.

 

So far Tebow hasn't been able to change his delivery. He started working on it last February so it's been about 18 months.

 

It might take him 2-3 years to be truly ready to start an NFL game.

 

At this point, I'd rather have any of the 3 QBs we have on our roster than Tebow.

 

Tebow has a lot of knowledgeable critics out there who he has to prove wrong. Too bad there were no offseason workouts and that there was a coaching change in Denver. He really has an uphill battle.

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Aaron Rodgers had that weird Tedford-style delivery and was able to exorcise it so yeah, it is possible.

 

So far Tebow hasn't been able to change his delivery. He started working on it last February so it's been about 18 months.

 

 

 

Rodgers delivery problems were nowhere near Tebow's. Not even a comparison, IMO. He didn't have the full windup issues. The kind of delivery problem he had is often overcome by coaching and repetition.

[1billsfan]

I live in Denver and I can tell you that most of what is on here is true. The fans want Tebow overwhelmingly and yes, Orton, apparently, has looked WAY better in camp (what- 4 days of practice?) But the thing that gets overlooked in all of this and I can't believe no one is mentioning it is that Tebow looked pretty damn good last year when he played. So I'm not really sure where the "Tebow will always suck" crowd is coming from. He got thrown into the fire last year on a bad football team as a rookie and did not suck.

 

 

If I were Tebow, I'd give this QB position attempt one more season before becoming the best tight end in the league the rest of his career. This is the classic square hole round peg argument.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Rodgers delivery problems were nowhere near Tebow's. Not even a comparison, IMO. He didn't have the full windup issues. The kind of delivery problem he had is often overcome by coaching and repetition.

Also, Rodgers had a pretty long developmental time too. He sat behind Favre for what, three years?

 

I think it's possible for Tebow but I think it's gonna be a long road.

 

 

[thebandit27]

Throwing the ball, he sucked. I watched him play and he sucked. The first TD he threw was a terrible pass that should have been intercepted twice. It fell into the hands of the Bronco because the DB mistimed it, but it wasn't a good pass at all. Sure, one can say all TDs are good passes, and for the most part that is true. But the problems throwing that scouts were concerned about were very self-evident watching him on the field in those games. It catches up to you.

 

He's exciting. He can run. He can make plays with his feet. He won't give up, He can complete some passes other QBs can't often do. There is a really lot to like about him. But he can't throw and it will eventually kill him and his chances.

 

I do think he could be a decent back-up, the kind that can come in for a half or a game or two. And I do think he can be a situational wildcat kind of QB, as well as somewhat effective in the redzone (although not a situation where as soon as you're in the redzone he comes in the game, just once in awhile). The new third QB rules make him a decent if not good player to have on your team.

 

While I firmly believe that Orton should remain Denver's starter for this season, I believe you're over-exaggerating Tebow's suckitude here.

 

The guy started 3 games, during which he averaged 217 ypg passing, with 4 TDs, 3 INTs, a passer rating of 82.1 (which would've ranked him ahead of Fitzpatrick for the season had he qualified - note for clarity that I'm not saying he's better than Fitzy), and a YPA of 8.0 (again, would've been good for 5th in the NFL if he played enough to qualify). Now, the downside of that is he was only a 50% passer, which simply must improve.

 

To me, that says he was a rookie, not a sucky QB. And as you mention, he was extremely effective running the football, including a 94-yard rushing effort against the league's #4 rush defense (SD) in week 17. I also think it's important to note that, although he only started 3 games and played 13 total snaps across 4 others, the guy did amass 11 TDs as a rookie with 3 turnovers. By contrast, Sam Bradford started 16 games as a rookie and amassed 19 total TDs with a 60% completion rate, QB rating of 76.5, a YPA of 6.0, and 17 total turnovers. Is that a fair comparison of their relative skill sets? Probably not, but from the perspective of "can this guy play in the NFL?", nobody seems to doubt that Bradford can, and there's room for an argument that Tebow's small sample space is--at the very least--on a relative par with Bradford's rookie performance.

 

Again, I'm not championing Tebow for Denver's starting QB position, but I think it's more than a bit overboard to say that he can't throw the football or play QB in the NFL. Let's remember that rookie completion percentage isn't exactly a sign of things to come:

 

P. Manning ('98) - 56.7

D. Brees ('01) - 55.6

E. Manning ('04) - 48.2

D. McNabb ('99) - 49.1

M. Vick ('01) - 44.2

 

Just sayin'

[eball]

Aaron Rodgers had that weird Tedford-style delivery and was able to exorcise it so yeah, it is possible.

Did Rodgers begin his throwing motion at his hip coming out of college?

[Kelly the Dog]

While I firmly believe that Orton should remain Denver's starter for this season, I believe you're over-exaggerating Tebow's suckitude here.

 

The guy started 3 games, during which he averaged 217 ypg passing, with 4 TDs, 3 INTs, a passer rating of 82.1 (which would've ranked him ahead of Fitzpatrick for the season had he qualified - note for clarity that I'm not saying he's better than Fitzy), and a YPA of 8.0 (again, would've been good for 5th in the NFL if he played enough to qualify). Now, the downside of that is he was only a 50% passer, which simply must improve.

 

To me, that says he was a rookie, not a sucky QB. And as you mention, he was extremely effective running the football, including a 94-yard rushing effort against the league's #4 rush defense (SD) in week 17. I also think it's important to note that, although he only started 3 games and played 13 total snaps across 4 others, the guy did amass 11 TDs as a rookie with 3 turnovers. By contrast, Sam Bradford started 16 games as a rookie and amassed 19 total TDs with a 60% completion rate, QB rating of 76.5, a YPA of 6.0, and 17 total turnovers. Is that a fair comparison of their relative skill sets? Probably not, but from the perspective of "can this guy play in the NFL?", nobody seems to doubt that Bradford can, and there's room for an argument that Tebow's small sample space is--at the very least--on a relative par with Bradford's rookie performance.

 

Again, I'm not championing Tebow for Denver's starting QB position, but I think it's more than a bit overboard to say that he can't throw the football or play QB in the NFL. Let's remember that rookie completion percentage isn't exactly a sign of things to come:

 

P. Manning ('98) - 56.7

D. Brees ('01) - 55.6

E. Manning ('04) - 48.2

D. McNabb ('99) - 49.1

M. Vick ('01) - 44.2

 

Just sayin'

Keep sayin'. The stats mean zero. I'm talking about watching him play. There are two schools of thought on him. Everyone thinks he's got the intangibles, everyone thinks he can run, everyone thinks he has the drive. Most NFL men and scouts that I have read or seen talking say he has a physical limitation that will keep him from being a good starting NFL QB. Others say he will be able to succeed despite having that glaring liability. A few people I respect believe he can. But very few, and they have great reservations about whether he will be able to, like the Mayock quote posted above. Stats have nothing to do with it.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Keep sayin'. The stats mean zero. I'm talking about watching him play. There are two schools of thought on him. Everyone thinks he's got the intangibles, everyone thinks he can run, everyone thinks he has the drive. Most NFL men and scouts that I have read or seen talking say he has a physical limitation that will keep him from being a good starting NFL QB. Others say he will be able to succeed despite having that glaring liability. A few people I respect believe he can. But very few, and they have great reservations about whether he will be able to, like the Mayock quote posted above. Stats have nothing to do with it.

 

I'm on record for predicting Tebow will struggle to succeed, but it's patently incorrect to say the stats mean zero. We all know numbers tell part of the story.

 

Or are you saying the sample size is too small?

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm on record for predicting Tebow will struggle to succeed, but it's patently incorrect to say the stats mean zero. We all know numbers tell part of the story.

 

Or are you saying the sample size is too small?

Well, A) the sample size is very small, yes. And part of the reason I think there is little to no chance of him succeeding is that his physical limitations will catch up to him. The longer he plays the better the defenses will learn to take advantage of it.

 

But B), what I'm really saying is that there are certain players where stats tell you little to nothing about them. Tackling figures on defense, especially DBs for example. They mean nothing because they tell you nothing, and sometimes tell you just the opposite.

 

For example, Trent Edwards, to me, was a QB whose stats meant nothing. He was capable of producing decent stats, but they told you nothing about whether he was a good QB or not. And of course, when I say "nothing" it's not technically nothing, it's for all intents and purposes, nothing.

 

To me, and this is just my opinion, numbers tell you nothing about Tim Tebow. If he succeeds in this league, I really don't think it's going to be the numbers that bear it out. He could have good stats and suck, and he could have very pedestrian stats and succeed. If his motion doesn't harm him as much as I think it will, he will succeed. I have little doubt of that. Like I said, there is a ton to like about him. If the defenses can't get to the ball quick enough like I think they will, he could be a solid if not good and possibly great QB in this league. I'm betting they can, but numbers will not show it either way.

 

I also think his style of play will get him hurt in the NFL, but that's not something I am sure or very confident about. It may not. But I think it will. It was brought up recently that in a game last year, he was heard on the TV cameras telling the coaches, "No one runs the ball down here but me" or something to that affect, when they were near the goalline. He will get hurt, and knocked out of action in the NFL if he thinks that.

 

It's a message board. It's all opinions. There are few facts, even with numbers.

[thebandit27]

Keep sayin'. The stats mean zero. I'm talking about watching him play. There are two schools of thought on him. Everyone thinks he's got the intangibles, everyone thinks he can run, everyone thinks he has the drive. Most NFL men and scouts that I have read or seen talking say he has a physical limitation that will keep him from being a good starting NFL QB. Others say he will be able to succeed despite having that glaring liability. A few people I respect believe he can. But very few, and they have great reservations about whether he will be able to, like the Mayock quote posted above. Stats have nothing to do with it.

 

No offense intended here: Tebow does not have a physical limitation; an awkward release is not a physical limitation. A physical limitation is having one arm, or missing a toe, or some type of defect. Tebow needs to re-work his release; that's not a physical limitation. If you don't think he's capable of developing a new habit, okay, I can accept that that's your opinion, but mechanics are a learned trait.

 

Well, A) the sample size is very small, yes. And part of the reason I think there is little to no chance of him succeeding is that his physical limitations will catch up to him. The longer he plays the better the defenses will learn to take advantage of it.

 

Now he's got multiple physical limitations? What are they? Again, I respect your opinion on this issue, but that sounds pretty ridiculous. I've never seen anyone assert that Tebow is anything other than a very gifted athlete. Seldom (if ever) do you see the phrases "gifted athlete" and "physical limitations" used in the same argument.

 

But B), what I'm really saying is that there are certain players where stats tell you little to nothing about them. Tackling figures on defense, especially DBs for example. They mean nothing because they tell you nothing, and sometimes tell you just the opposite.

 

For example, Trent Edwards, to me, was a QB whose stats meant nothing. He was capable of producing decent stats, but they told you nothing about whether he was a good QB or not. And of course, when I say "nothing" it's not technically nothing, it's for all intents and purposes, nothing.

 

To me, and this is just my opinion, numbers tell you nothing about Tim Tebow. If he succeeds in this league, I really don't think it's going to be the numbers that bear it out. He could have good stats and suck, and he could have very pedestrian stats and succeed. If his motion doesn't harm him as much as I think it will, he will succeed. I have little doubt of that. Like I said, there is a ton to like about him. If the defenses can't get to the ball quick enough like I think they will, he could be a solid if not good and possibly great QB in this league. I'm betting they can, but numbers will not show it either way.

 

I also think his style of play will get him hurt in the NFL, but that's not something I am sure or very confident about. It may not. But I think it will. It was brought up recently that in a game last year, he was heard on the TV cameras telling the coaches, "No one runs the ball down here but me" or something to that affect, when they were near the goalline. He will get hurt, and knocked out of action in the NFL if he thinks that.

 

It's a message board. It's all opinions. There are few facts, even with numbers.

 

This, to me, is a much more well-thought-out argument. While I agree that there are some instances where stats don't tell the story (your example of tackles is a good one), there are plenty of others where they tell you quite a bit. For example, if I asked you to name the 4 QBs that played the best football in 2011, as a knowledgable fan, your answer would likely look like this:

 

Aaron Rodgers

Tom Brady

Philip Rivers

Michael Vick

 

Well, those guys all finished at the top of the NFL in both YPA and QB rating. So those stats would be very good indicators of QB play in my opinion, because if you look at who finsihed at the bottom of the league in both categories, you get names like Jimmy Clausen and Derrick Anderson.

 

So I guess all that I'm trying to say is that you can't simply throw the stats in the trash because they're just numbers. They may not tell the whole story, but they certainly are a reflection of performance.

Edited August 4, 2011 by thebandit27

[Mickey]

Kinda early for Denver to look at either QB and make any judgements with such a short off season. We all know Orton can play well enough to win, but clearly he is not, nor will ever be that "franchise" QB that all teams need.

 

Tebow hasn't been able to train with the team at all in the off season so it could be expected he might have regressed in his throwing form to what he was in college. NBD from my view, he needs work as do all QB's that play in a college spread offense, from Cam Newton-Jake Locker et al.

 

Tebow still has tremendous potential if developed properly, like Mike Mayock stated he is a one to two year down the road QB to start. It would be extremely foolish for Denver to be looking to trade the kid at this point, JMO.

 

If Chan Gailey really wanted him, here is a chance to get him cheap.

 

I agree that no one will really know what he can do as a starter until he has had 2-3 years in the league. However, I disagree on his having "tremendous potential". I think he is already an over-achiever who has already performed at the limit of his physical abilities and perhaps even a bit beyond those limits. He has managed to wring every drop of performance he has through hard work, will and determination. I just don't see any untapped reservoir of skills he will be reach after having more experience. I am sure he will get better in time just through experience and figuring out how to get the most out of what he has in the NFL game. At the same time however, I just feel that one of the reasons he was such a good college QB despite being a bit unorthodox is that he gave it all he had, every last bit of talent. He is easy to root for and I wish him the best but to the extent anyone can read the future, color me doubtful.

[DrDawkinstein]

I wish Buddy wouldve drafted Tebow at #9 last year. He has a ways to go, but the kid is willing to work, and its mostly just tweaking mechanics.

 

Haters gonna hate, though.

[Kelly the Dog]

No offense intended here: Tebow does not have a physical limitation; an awkward release is not a physical limitation. A physical limitation is having one arm, or missing a toe, or some type of defect. Tebow needs to re-work his release; that's not a physical limitation. If you don't think he's capable of developing a new habit, okay, I can accept that that's your opinion, but mechanics are a learned trait.

 

Now he's got multiple physical limitations? What are they? Again, I respect your opinion on this issue, but that sounds pretty ridiculous. I've never seen anyone assert that Tebow is anything other than a very gifted athlete. Seldom (if ever) do you see the phrases "gifted athlete" and "physical limitations" used in the same argument.

 

It's a semantic argument. His physical limitation or limitations is not mental, it is not time or experience, it is physical. It is the way he physically plays, and it cannot be taught or refined. Some people will say it can be, but it rarely if ever happens in this kind of wind-up delivery. I can't think of one instance where a QB wound up like he does, and then changed the delivery permanently so that never was an issue. There have been very successful QBs with a mini-wind up. John Elway for example. I have never seen an NFL QB have success with the wind-up that Tebow possesses. Even guys like Bernie Kosar, who wound up, got the ball out of their hands plenty quick enough (I'm not altogether sure Kosar could succeed these days though, when the players are so much quicker and faster, but it's very possible).

 

The plural of limitations was because the one issue he has causes several problems. It affects short passes, medium passes, long passes, accuracy, the amount of times he gets hit hard and potentially dangerous by defenders etc. So I said physical limitations because there are a few things IMO he cannot do consistently well in the NFL to succeed.

 

As far as the stats go, I think it's pretty self-evident, especially as far as QBs go, that your top four QBs stat wise are going to be good, and your bottom four stat wise are going to suck. I'm talking about the 80-90% that fall in the middle.

 

For the most part, I think stats are a very useful tool to evaluate a player, although not the end all. And I use them all the time to prove a point. But there are also some stats, and some players, that stats tell you little to nothing about them, especially without context.

[Thoner7]

Tebows throwing motion is a lot like Brett Favres, except Farve just let the ball dangle at his waist, where Tebow holds it up by his ear. That makes his release a little bit slower, but give him better ball security. They both have cannons which can help make up for the wind up. Its a lot like Montana's too.

 

Its funny this debate comes up four months after Cam Newton went #1 overall. And people think Tebow went too high in the draft?

Edited August 4, 2011 by Thoner7

[billsfreak]

Wow.

 

Watching you, Dick Drawn, and Harvey Lives being so patient and eloquent in your defense of something you like is touching.

 

WTF are you even talking about?