What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Tim Tebow - 8.17.21 Waived By Jacksonville (2 Viewers)

Good point about Dennis Dixon above. I wonder how many talented college QBs have never gotten the chance to do in the NFL what they are doing for Tebow.Also - trivia question: when was the last time an NFL QB completed just 2 passes, played a whole game, and won that game?I do not know the answer to that but it has to be at least pre-1950 and probably more like pre-1940.
Derek Anderson went 2-for-17 for 23 yards in a 2009 victory over Buffalo:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200910110buf.htm
Meaningless comparison.Do you also believe that Teblow will have a year where he passes for almost 4000 yards and 30 passing TDs (like Derek A.)?
 
Farveco is pretty much arguing a point that nobody else is making. Can't debate with a guy that doesn't even know the topic of the debate.
That's all you can come up with after I schooled ya with Matt Moore? :lmao: I'm not surprised however.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good point about Dennis Dixon above. I wonder how many talented college QBs have never gotten the chance to do in the NFL what they are doing for Tebow.

Also - trivia question: when was the last time an NFL QB completed just 2 passes, played a whole game, and won that game?

I do not know the answer to that but it has to be at least pre-1950 and probably more like pre-1940.
Derek Anderson went 2-for-17 for 23 yards in a 2009 victory over Buffalo:http://www.pro-footb...00910110buf.htm
Meaningless comparison.Do you also believe that Teblow will have a year where he passes for almost 4000 yards and 30 passing TDs (like Derek A.)?
I could be mistaken here, but I believe that Joe was literally just answering the trivia question that the earlier poster asked for an answer for. I don't think he was trying to make any point, if I read it correctly.
 
Good point about Dennis Dixon above. I wonder how many talented college QBs have never gotten the chance to do in the NFL what they are doing for Tebow.

Also - trivia question: when was the last time an NFL QB completed just 2 passes, played a whole game, and won that game?

I do not know the answer to that but it has to be at least pre-1950 and probably more like pre-1940.
Derek Anderson went 2-for-17 for 23 yards in a 2009 victory over Buffalo:http://www.pro-footb...00910110buf.htm
Meaningless comparison.Do you also believe that Teblow will have a year where he passes for almost 4000 yards and 30 passing TDs (like Derek A.)?
I could be mistaken here, but I believe that Joe was literally just answering the trivia question that the earlier poster asked for an answer for. I don't think he was trying to make any point, if I read it correctly.
My fault. Scrolled too fast on the iPhone.
 
Good point about Dennis Dixon above. I wonder how many talented college QBs have never gotten the chance to do in the NFL what they are doing for Tebow.

Also - trivia question: when was the last time an NFL QB completed just 2 passes, played a whole game, and won that game?

I do not know the answer to that but it has to be at least pre-1950 and probably more like pre-1940.
Derek Anderson went 2-for-17 for 23 yards in a 2009 victory over Buffalo:http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200910110buf.htm
Meaningless comparison.Do you also believe that Teblow will have a year where he passes for almost 4000 yards and 30 passing TDs (like Derek A.)?
I didn't post the stat because I thought it was meaningful. I posted it because someone asked a question.But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.

 
But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.
Anderson may be the only quarterback that comes to mind if someone were to ask me for an NFL QB who is LESS accurate then Tebow.
 
But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.
Anderson may be the only quarterback that comes to mind if someone were to ask me for an NFL QB who is LESS accurate then Tebow.
Anderson's 52.6% career completion percentage is lowest among active quarterbacks with 16+ career starts. Next up are Grossman (54.7%) and Sanchez (55.0%).Tebow is currently at 47.1%. No quarterback has completed less than 50% of his passes for more than 16 games since Ryan Leaf.
 
As a Denver fan I try not to get too worked up over Tebow. I couldn't care less who is our QB (within reason) as long as my team wins. And when I say "wins" I don't mean on a week to week basis with no thought to the future. I mean "wins" as an organization over the long term.

It's not looking good unless you are wearing your rose colored glasses nearly 100% of the time.

I hope Tebow learns to throw better. I really do. I'm a Broncos fan. I want us to win. I last posted about Tebow two or three weeks ago (in another thread) and then sat it out for a few weeks to see how he did. When people say "he just wins" I throw out their opinion immediately. That might apply to some people but not Tebow. First, it's too early in his career. Second, I've watched him live as well as on TV and on the internet in game replays. "Just wins" has not been proven by winning these last couple games. Orton won against Cincy, one of the better defenses in the league and now we know one of the better teams in the AFC. He then lost to other, worse teams. Tebow has gotten clobbered by some teams, to the point that it was embarassing to watch, and then won games where the coaching staff almost literally takes the game out of his hands as a passer. Can we beat the Raiders like that? Yes (although with Palmer heating up I'm not so sure anymore). Can we beat the Cheifs like that? Obviously (even though it got close). Can we beat the top half of the NFL with this offense? I don't think so.

I hope so. I really do. I hope I'm watching some revolution in the NFL. A new type of QB where it doesn't matter that his thrown balls look like a dead racoon carcass while in flight. A QB that runs this option we are using and as a team we keep pounding the ball so often, so consistantly, with both QB and RB and FB that when our QB does actually throw the ball it catches the defense off guard so badly that our WR has gotten the jump on them and he can attempt to catch the ball floating in the air. I hope we can keep winning without thowing out patterns to the sideline or any type of quick-release zip pattern that needs an almost instant read at the LOS along with a snap-throw. I hope we are seeing my Broncos creating a renaissance of ingenuity in the NFL and we are able to become a Super Bowl worthy team along the way. I really, really, really do.

I wouldn't bet the farm on it, though. It's a risky bet, at best. I remember in his final year at Florida they were trying to work on his throwing to help him in the upcoming draft. He had all last year to work on it. He's worked on it this year. Now, watch the game yesterday. It's the same throwing motion. Let's all be honest - his throw probably isn't going to change. It is what it is, as KG always says.

Either we change the NFL and the way the QB position is played by creating a new type of offense that will work with Tebow in it or we fail miserably and we move on. I'll get my hopes up when we can compete with good teams in the league - not just an Oakland team with a new QB-off-the-couch and a KC team that is vying for the cellar in a weak division. Hell, I don't even need to see us beat the good teams. Just compete. I want our QB to show me flashes. Watch Ponder in his first start. He had a few passes where you said "Wow, that was pretty good. There's potential." Watch Dalton and you'll see a few plays where you say "Man, now that's some great poise for a young QB. He not afraid to zip that ball in there and he made it happen." Watch a few of the other young guys, as well. The ones you consider potential "studs" that with the right team around them could win a Super Bowl. Right now I say similar things about Tebow but mostly when he's running the ball or throwing on a play that was created not only because of his running but also because of the three horrible passes he threw earlier in the game that helped to bait the safety a step or two towards the line - which allows our WR to get past him.

We need something exciting and new, something not seen in the NFL for a looong time to win with Tebow. I hope to god we find it. I really do. Cause I don't think Tebow's throwing is going to change if it hasn't changed in the last 3 years with a multitude of college and pro coaches working with him - in-season and off.

I don't judge the man. I just judge what he does on the field for my team. He's shown he can beat average to crappy teams with his feet and an occasional pass here and there. I'm happy that's the case (especially against those irritating Raiders and Cheifs). Now I wait to see how he does against a team that will make him pass - or can he just keep running even on the best Ds in the league? I don't know.

I just watch. And pray.
very :goodposting:
 
But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.
Anderson may be the only quarterback that comes to mind if someone were to ask me for an NFL QB who is LESS accurate then Tebow.
Anderson's 52.6% career completion percentage is lowest among active quarterbacks with 16+ career starts. Next up are Grossman (54.7%) and Sanchez (55.0%).Tebow is currently at 47.1%. No quarterback has completed less than 50% of his passes for more than 16 games since Ryan Leaf.
I think the far more interesting thing (and why Tebow is such a divisive figure in both the NFL and FF) is the fact that despite that poor completion %, two things are still true:1) He is a much bigger threat than any of those you listed to run effectively.

2) Despite his poor passing, his team continues to win with him running the offense.

The thing that is fascinating (or will be over the next few weeks...perhaps years), will be to see if this will actually "work". The league has had it's fair share of QBs that can run (Vick, etc.) - and of course good passers that are mobile (Young, Elway, CPepp, Cunningham, etc.) - but Tebow is unique in that he is probably a better pure runner than most, but a worse passer (of course, some would debate whether or not he is truly worse than the Falcon's version of Vick - who's passer rating with the Falcons was under 80 every year except 1 and whose current career passer rating is still lower than Tebow's). Tebow is more like a very good RB who can throw the ball fairly well (for an RB).

One thing that is also interesting about Tebow is that he is not throwing INTs. He currently is sporting a 7:1 TD to INT ration this season (and 12:4 for his career). For a "bad" passer, that is fairly remarkable. Now, I know someone is going to chime in and say something to the effect that he "so bad not even the defender is close enough to make a play" - but honestly - 7:1? Now, perhaps that a bit of an outlier given the fact that he has faced some pretty poor defenses - but something worth keeping an eye on.

I would suggest that if Tebow can continue to be an "effective" passer (i.e. keep the rating above 80, keep INTs to a minimum) the "experiment" might just work. Here's why:

Traditionally (which is a qualifier in and of itself), the formula for winning in the NFL has been something to the effect of "run the football, don't turn the ball over, control the clock and play good defense" (incidentally the first three help the 4th as a rested defense is a more effective defense). Tebow seemingly can take care of the first three - and his running seems to open up things in the passing game and for his RBs as well. I mean Moreno had 4 carries for 52 yards before leaving the game!

My point is simply that I think the reason Tebow is interesting - and yet divisive - is because he does not fit any of the traditional "molds" of what a QB should be...but is, for now, having some degree of success in the NFL. Is he a "flash in the pan"? Is he simply putting together a string of decent games against poor teams that will come crashing down against "good" defenses? Or is it possible that he is providing a different option (no pun intended) for QB skillset that can be effective at the NFL level?

 
But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.
Anderson may be the only quarterback that comes to mind if someone were to ask me for an NFL QB who is LESS accurate then Tebow.
Anderson's 52.6% career completion percentage is lowest among active quarterbacks with 16+ career starts. Next up are Grossman (54.7%) and Sanchez (55.0%).Tebow is currently at 47.1%. No quarterback has completed less than 50% of his passes for more than 16 games since Ryan Leaf.
I think the far more interesting thing (and why Tebow is such a divisive figure in both the NFL and FF) is the fact that despite that poor completion %, two things are still true:1) He is a much bigger threat than any of those you listed to run effectively.

2) Despite his poor passing, his team continues to win with him running the offense.

The thing that is fascinating (or will be over the next few weeks...perhaps years), will be to see if this will actually "work". The league has had it's fair share of QBs that can run (Vick, etc.) - and of course good passers that are mobile (Young, Elway, CPepp, Cunningham, etc.) - but Tebow is unique in that he is probably a better pure runner than most, but a worse passer (of course, some would debate whether or not he is truly worse than the Falcon's version of Vick - who's passer rating with the Falcons was under 80 every year except 1 and whose current career passer rating is still lower than Tebow's). Tebow is more like a very good RB who can throw the ball fairly well (for an RB).

One thing that is also interesting about Tebow is that he is not throwing INTs. He currently is sporting a 7:1 TD to INT ration this season (and 12:4 for his career). For a "bad" passer, that is fairly remarkable. Now, I know someone is going to chime in and say something to the effect that he "so bad not even the defender is close enough to make a play" - but honestly - 7:1? Now, perhaps that a bit of an outlier given the fact that he has faced some pretty poor defenses - but something worth keeping an eye on.

I would suggest that if Tebow can continue to be an "effective" passer (i.e. keep the rating above 80, keep INTs to a minimum) the "experiment" might just work. Here's why:

Traditionally (which is a qualifier in and of itself), the formula for winning in the NFL has been something to the effect of "run the football, don't turn the ball over, control the clock and play good defense" (incidentally the first three help the 4th as a rested defense is a more effective defense). Tebow seemingly can take care of the first three - and his running seems to open up things in the passing game and for his RBs as well. I mean Moreno had 4 carries for 52 yards before leaving the game!

My point is simply that I think the reason Tebow is interesting - and yet divisive - is because he does not fit any of the traditional "molds" of what a QB should be...but is, for now, having some degree of success in the NFL. Is he a "flash in the pan"? Is he simply putting together a string of decent games against poor teams that will come crashing down against "good" defenses? Or is it possible that he is providing a different option (no pun intended) for QB skillset that can be effective at the NFL level?
You actually have to throw the ball to be intercepted and it also has to be in bounds.
 
But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.
Anderson may be the only quarterback that comes to mind if someone were to ask me for an NFL QB who is LESS accurate then Tebow.
Anderson's 52.6% career completion percentage is lowest among active quarterbacks with 16+ career starts. Next up are Grossman (54.7%) and Sanchez (55.0%).Tebow is currently at 47.1%. No quarterback has completed less than 50% of his passes for more than 16 games since Ryan Leaf.
I think the far more interesting thing (and why Tebow is such a divisive figure in both the NFL and FF) is the fact that despite that poor completion %, two things are still true:1) He is a much bigger threat than any of those you listed to run effectively.

2) Despite his poor passing, his team continues to win with him running the offense.

The thing that is fascinating (or will be over the next few weeks...perhaps years), will be to see if this will actually "work". The league has had it's fair share of QBs that can run (Vick, etc.) - and of course good passers that are mobile (Young, Elway, CPepp, Cunningham, etc.) - but Tebow is unique in that he is probably a better pure runner than most, but a worse passer (of course, some would debate whether or not he is truly worse than the Falcon's version of Vick - who's passer rating with the Falcons was under 80 every year except 1 and whose current career passer rating is still lower than Tebow's). Tebow is more like a very good RB who can throw the ball fairly well (for an RB).

One thing that is also interesting about Tebow is that he is not throwing INTs. He currently is sporting a 7:1 TD to INT ration this season (and 12:4 for his career). For a "bad" passer, that is fairly remarkable. Now, I know someone is going to chime in and say something to the effect that he "so bad not even the defender is close enough to make a play" - but honestly - 7:1? Now, perhaps that a bit of an outlier given the fact that he has faced some pretty poor defenses - but something worth keeping an eye on.

I would suggest that if Tebow can continue to be an "effective" passer (i.e. keep the rating above 80, keep INTs to a minimum) the "experiment" might just work. Here's why:

Traditionally (which is a qualifier in and of itself), the formula for winning in the NFL has been something to the effect of "run the football, don't turn the ball over, control the clock and play good defense" (incidentally the first three help the 4th as a rested defense is a more effective defense). Tebow seemingly can take care of the first three - and his running seems to open up things in the passing game and for his RBs as well. I mean Moreno had 4 carries for 52 yards before leaving the game!

My point is simply that I think the reason Tebow is interesting - and yet divisive - is because he does not fit any of the traditional "molds" of what a QB should be...but is, for now, having some degree of success in the NFL. Is he a "flash in the pan"? Is he simply putting together a string of decent games against poor teams that will come crashing down against "good" defenses? Or is it possible that he is providing a different option (no pun intended) for QB skillset that can be effective at the NFL level?
You actually have to throw the ball to be intercepted and it also has to be in bounds.
:goodposting: :goodposting:
 
Tebow restricts the offense in a lot of ways, but he also opens up a lot of things in the offense. Would McGahee really have ran for 165 (most of it untouched) vs Oakland without Tebow under center? Highly unlikely.

 
The Tebowcat is a flash in the pan if he doesn't improve his ability to pass the ball. One thing I see time after time is it takes some defensive coordinators longer than it should to devise a gameplan to stop somehing new. Detroit figured it out quick. KC did not.

The wildcat was hailed by some as the next big innovation. It's dead. This option trash will meet the same fate. You can't just run the ball 50+ times and expect to win against the contenders (unless your D is stellar). You can expect to need a lot of body bags. It's a good thing they have a solid RB in Ball for this Thursday.

 
Tebow restricts the offense in a lot of ways, but he also opens up a lot of things in the offense. Would McGahee really have ran for 165 (most of it untouched) vs Oakland without Tebow under center? Highly unlikely.
I'll totally agree with that. IMO, it's the #1 reason why Chris Johnson dominated with Vince Young at the helm. Total unpredictability.
 
Tebow's passer rating of 81.7 is higher than Mark Sanchez, Phillip Rivers, Mike Vick, Colt McCoy, Kevin Kolb, Matt Cassel, Kyle Orton, Joe Flacco, Josh Freeman and Sam Bradford among others.

 
The wildcat was hailed by some as the next big innovation. It's dead. This option trash will meet the same fate.
If you insist on boring the pants off of everyone, at least type something original:
keep in mind that when Miami unveiled the wildcat in '08 (out of necessity), it took everyone by surprise and actually worked for damn near an entire season. But eventually, defensive coordinators learned how to stop it. Tebow's read-option will meet the same fate once it's on tape for several weeks, I'm afraid.
 
The Tebowcat is a flash in the pan if he doesn't improve his ability to pass the ball. One thing I see time after time is it takes some defensive coordinators longer than it should to devise a gameplan to stop somehing new. Detroit figured it out quick. KC did not.
If they ran it against Detroit you'd have a point.
 
But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.
Anderson may be the only quarterback that comes to mind if someone were to ask me for an NFL QB who is LESS accurate then Tebow.
Anderson's 52.6% career completion percentage is lowest among active quarterbacks with 16+ career starts. Next up are Grossman (54.7%) and Sanchez (55.0%).Tebow is currently at 47.1%. No quarterback has completed less than 50% of his passes for more than 16 games since Ryan Leaf.
I think the far more interesting thing (and why Tebow is such a divisive figure in both the NFL and FF) is the fact that despite that poor completion %, two things are still true:1) He is a much bigger threat than any of those you listed to run effectively.

2) Despite his poor passing, his team continues to win with him running the offense.

The thing that is fascinating (or will be over the next few weeks...perhaps years), will be to see if this will actually "work". The league has had it's fair share of QBs that can run (Vick, etc.) - and of course good passers that are mobile (Young, Elway, CPepp, Cunningham, etc.) - but Tebow is unique in that he is probably a better pure runner than most, but a worse passer (of course, some would debate whether or not he is truly worse than the Falcon's version of Vick - who's passer rating with the Falcons was under 80 every year except 1 and whose current career passer rating is still lower than Tebow's). Tebow is more like a very good RB who can throw the ball fairly well (for an RB).

One thing that is also interesting about Tebow is that he is not throwing INTs. He currently is sporting a 7:1 TD to INT ration this season (and 12:4 for his career). For a "bad" passer, that is fairly remarkable. Now, I know someone is going to chime in and say something to the effect that he "so bad not even the defender is close enough to make a play" - but honestly - 7:1? Now, perhaps that a bit of an outlier given the fact that he has faced some pretty poor defenses - but something worth keeping an eye on.

I would suggest that if Tebow can continue to be an "effective" passer (i.e. keep the rating above 80, keep INTs to a minimum) the "experiment" might just work. Here's why:

Traditionally (which is a qualifier in and of itself), the formula for winning in the NFL has been something to the effect of "run the football, don't turn the ball over, control the clock and play good defense" (incidentally the first three help the 4th as a rested defense is a more effective defense). Tebow seemingly can take care of the first three - and his running seems to open up things in the passing game and for his RBs as well. I mean Moreno had 4 carries for 52 yards before leaving the game!

My point is simply that I think the reason Tebow is interesting - and yet divisive - is because he does not fit any of the traditional "molds" of what a QB should be...but is, for now, having some degree of success in the NFL. Is he a "flash in the pan"? Is he simply putting together a string of decent games against poor teams that will come crashing down against "good" defenses? Or is it possible that he is providing a different option (no pun intended) for QB skillset that can be effective at the NFL level?
You actually have to throw the ball to be intercepted and it also has to be in bounds.
For those that are mathmatically challenged - ratios and INT% account for low number of attempts (that's why comparing overall totals isn't helpful - but looking at ratios and % is). Tebow has thrown 1 INT in 105 pass attempts this season - that's a .95% INT rate. Aaron Rodgers' INT% is 1.1%. Even Tebow's career INT% is only 2.1% - as a point of comparison Matt Ryan's career INT% is 2.5%, Rivers is 2.6% and Big Ben's is over 3%. Even the great Tom Brady's career INT% is 2.2%.

Am I saying that Tebow is a better passer than those QBs? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that he does not throw INTs - a key factor in winning QBs. Certainly, he won't pass for the type of numbers those QBs will - but most of them aren't averaging 80 rushing yards a start either.

 
I don't think they ran the zone read more than a couple of times against KC. KC sure had people standing around watching Tebow on several of the regular handoffs though.

 
The wildcat was hailed by some as the next big innovation. It's dead. This option trash will meet the same fate.
If you insist on boring the pants off of everyone, at least type something original:
keep in mind that when Miami unveiled the wildcat in '08 (out of necessity), it took everyone by surprise and actually worked for damn near an entire season. But eventually, defensive coordinators learned how to stop it. Tebow's read-option will meet the same fate once it's on tape for several weeks, I'm afraid.
How could i miss that post? :D At least you see the writing on the wall.Knowshow is no mo. ACL out for year. good thing he wasn't any good to begin with.
 
Am I saying that Tebow is a better passer than those QBs? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that he does not throw INTs - a key factor in winning QBs. Certainly, he won't pass for the type of numbers those QBs will - but most of them aren't averaging 80 rushing yards a start either.
in time he won't be either. Thus his int % will go up as he is forced to throw more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.
Anderson may be the only quarterback that comes to mind if someone were to ask me for an NFL QB who is LESS accurate then Tebow.
Anderson's 52.6% career completion percentage is lowest among active quarterbacks with 16+ career starts. Next up are Grossman (54.7%) and Sanchez (55.0%).Tebow is currently at 47.1%. No quarterback has completed less than 50% of his passes for more than 16 games since Ryan Leaf.
I think the far more interesting thing (and why Tebow is such a divisive figure in both the NFL and FF) is the fact that despite that poor completion %, two things are still true:1) He is a much bigger threat than any of those you listed to run effectively.

2) Despite his poor passing, his team continues to win with him running the offense.

The thing that is fascinating (or will be over the next few weeks...perhaps years), will be to see if this will actually "work". The league has had it's fair share of QBs that can run (Vick, etc.) - and of course good passers that are mobile (Young, Elway, CPepp, Cunningham, etc.) - but Tebow is unique in that he is probably a better pure runner than most, but a worse passer (of course, some would debate whether or not he is truly worse than the Falcon's version of Vick - who's passer rating with the Falcons was under 80 every year except 1 and whose current career passer rating is still lower than Tebow's). Tebow is more like a very good RB who can throw the ball fairly well (for an RB).

One thing that is also interesting about Tebow is that he is not throwing INTs. He currently is sporting a 7:1 TD to INT ration this season (and 12:4 for his career). For a "bad" passer, that is fairly remarkable. Now, I know someone is going to chime in and say something to the effect that he "so bad not even the defender is close enough to make a play" - but honestly - 7:1? Now, perhaps that a bit of an outlier given the fact that he has faced some pretty poor defenses - but something worth keeping an eye on.

I would suggest that if Tebow can continue to be an "effective" passer (i.e. keep the rating above 80, keep INTs to a minimum) the "experiment" might just work. Here's why:

Traditionally (which is a qualifier in and of itself), the formula for winning in the NFL has been something to the effect of "run the football, don't turn the ball over, control the clock and play good defense" (incidentally the first three help the 4th as a rested defense is a more effective defense). Tebow seemingly can take care of the first three - and his running seems to open up things in the passing game and for his RBs as well. I mean Moreno had 4 carries for 52 yards before leaving the game!

My point is simply that I think the reason Tebow is interesting - and yet divisive - is because he does not fit any of the traditional "molds" of what a QB should be...but is, for now, having some degree of success in the NFL. Is he a "flash in the pan"? Is he simply putting together a string of decent games against poor teams that will come crashing down against "good" defenses? Or is it possible that he is providing a different option (no pun intended) for QB skillset that can be effective at the NFL level?
You actually have to throw the ball to be intercepted and it also has to be in bounds.
For those that are mathmatically challenged - ratios and INT% account for low number of attempts (that's why comparing overall totals isn't helpful - but looking at ratios and % is). Tebow has thrown 1 INT in 105 pass attempts this season - that's a .95% INT rate. Aaron Rodgers' INT% is 1.1%. Even Tebow's career INT% is only 2.1% - as a point of comparison Matt Ryan's career INT% is 2.5%, Rivers is 2.6% and Big Ben's is over 3%. Even the great Tom Brady's career INT% is 2.2%.

Am I saying that Tebow is a better passer than those QBs? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that he does not throw INTs - a key factor in winning QBs. Certainly, he won't pass for the type of numbers those QBs will - but most of them aren't averaging 80 rushing yards a start either.
Yeah, I'll stay with my previous post. If you throw the ball 2 times in a half not much opprotunity for the defense to get an interception. Also the ratio/% takes into account his vast amount of chicken #### shovel and screen passes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tebow has thrown 1 INT in 105 pass attempts this season - that's a .95% INT rate. Aaron Rodgers' INT% is 1.1%. Even Tebow's career INT% is only 2.1% - as a point of comparison Matt Ryan's career INT% is 2.5%, Rivers is 2.6% and Big Ben's is over 3%. Even the great Tom Brady's career INT% is 2.2%.Am I saying that Tebow is a better passer than those QBs? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that he does not throw INTs - a key factor in winning QBs. Certainly, he won't pass for the type of numbers those QBs will - but most of them aren't averaging 80 rushing yards a start either.
Donovan McNabb has a 2.2% INT % also. You missed his stellar ratio. He kept his down like The Tebow has except McNabb threw the ball into the ground. The Tebowcat throws it into the stands.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.
Anderson may be the only quarterback that comes to mind if someone were to ask me for an NFL QB who is LESS accurate then Tebow.
Anderson's 52.6% career completion percentage is lowest among active quarterbacks with 16+ career starts. Next up are Grossman (54.7%) and Sanchez (55.0%).Tebow is currently at 47.1%. No quarterback has completed less than 50% of his passes for more than 16 games since Ryan Leaf.
I think the far more interesting thing (and why Tebow is such a divisive figure in both the NFL and FF) is the fact that despite that poor completion %, two things are still true:1) He is a much bigger threat than any of those you listed to run effectively.

2) Despite his poor passing, his team continues to win with him running the offense.

The thing that is fascinating (or will be over the next few weeks...perhaps years), will be to see if this will actually "work". The league has had it's fair share of QBs that can run (Vick, etc.) - and of course good passers that are mobile (Young, Elway, CPepp, Cunningham, etc.) - but Tebow is unique in that he is probably a better pure runner than most, but a worse passer (of course, some would debate whether or not he is truly worse than the Falcon's version of Vick - who's passer rating with the Falcons was under 80 every year except 1 and whose current career passer rating is still lower than Tebow's). Tebow is more like a very good RB who can throw the ball fairly well (for an RB).

One thing that is also interesting about Tebow is that he is not throwing INTs. He currently is sporting a 7:1 TD to INT ration this season (and 12:4 for his career). For a "bad" passer, that is fairly remarkable. Now, I know someone is going to chime in and say something to the effect that he "so bad not even the defender is close enough to make a play" - but honestly - 7:1? Now, perhaps that a bit of an outlier given the fact that he has faced some pretty poor defenses - but something worth keeping an eye on.

I would suggest that if Tebow can continue to be an "effective" passer (i.e. keep the rating above 80, keep INTs to a minimum) the "experiment" might just work. Here's why:

Traditionally (which is a qualifier in and of itself), the formula for winning in the NFL has been something to the effect of "run the football, don't turn the ball over, control the clock and play good defense" (incidentally the first three help the 4th as a rested defense is a more effective defense). Tebow seemingly can take care of the first three - and his running seems to open up things in the passing game and for his RBs as well. I mean Moreno had 4 carries for 52 yards before leaving the game!

My point is simply that I think the reason Tebow is interesting - and yet divisive - is because he does not fit any of the traditional "molds" of what a QB should be...but is, for now, having some degree of success in the NFL. Is he a "flash in the pan"? Is he simply putting together a string of decent games against poor teams that will come crashing down against "good" defenses? Or is it possible that he is providing a different option (no pun intended) for QB skillset that can be effective at the NFL level?
You actually have to throw the ball to be intercepted and it also has to be in bounds.
For those that are mathmatically challenged - ratios and INT% account for low number of attempts (that's why comparing overall totals isn't helpful - but looking at ratios and % is). Tebow has thrown 1 INT in 105 pass attempts this season - that's a .95% INT rate. Aaron Rodgers' INT% is 1.1%. Even Tebow's career INT% is only 2.1% - as a point of comparison Matt Ryan's career INT% is 2.5%, Rivers is 2.6% and Big Ben's is over 3%. Even the great Tom Brady's career INT% is 2.2%.

Am I saying that Tebow is a better passer than those QBs? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that he does not throw INTs - a key factor in winning QBs. Certainly, he won't pass for the type of numbers those QBs will - but most of them aren't averaging 80 rushing yards a start either.
Yeah, I'll stay with my previous post. If you throw the ball 2 times in a half not much opprotunity for the defense to get an interception. Also the ratio/% takes into account his vast amount of chicken #### shovel and screen passes.
You have to be kidding with this. He throws deep more than any other type of throw. Every team in the league throws screens and most of the better passing teams do it a lot. Brady sure did last night. But I guess it's chicken #### when Tebow does it.

 
'PlasmaDogPlasma said:
But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.
Anderson may be the only quarterback that comes to mind if someone were to ask me for an NFL QB who is LESS accurate then Tebow.
Anderson's 52.6% career completion percentage is lowest among active quarterbacks with 16+ career starts. Next up are Grossman (54.7%) and Sanchez (55.0%).Tebow is currently at 47.1%. No quarterback has completed less than 50% of his passes for more than 16 games since Ryan Leaf.
I think the far more interesting thing (and why Tebow is such a divisive figure in both the NFL and FF) is the fact that despite that poor completion %, two things are still true:1) He is a much bigger threat than any of those you listed to run effectively.

2) Despite his poor passing, his team continues to win with him running the offense.

The thing that is fascinating (or will be over the next few weeks...perhaps years), will be to see if this will actually "work". The league has had it's fair share of QBs that can run (Vick, etc.) - and of course good passers that are mobile (Young, Elway, CPepp, Cunningham, etc.) - but Tebow is unique in that he is probably a better pure runner than most, but a worse passer (of course, some would debate whether or not he is truly worse than the Falcon's version of Vick - who's passer rating with the Falcons was under 80 every year except 1 and whose current career passer rating is still lower than Tebow's). Tebow is more like a very good RB who can throw the ball fairly well (for an RB).

One thing that is also interesting about Tebow is that he is not throwing INTs. He currently is sporting a 7:1 TD to INT ration this season (and 12:4 for his career). For a "bad" passer, that is fairly remarkable. Now, I know someone is going to chime in and say something to the effect that he "so bad not even the defender is close enough to make a play" - but honestly - 7:1? Now, perhaps that a bit of an outlier given the fact that he has faced some pretty poor defenses - but something worth keeping an eye on.

I would suggest that if Tebow can continue to be an "effective" passer (i.e. keep the rating above 80, keep INTs to a minimum) the "experiment" might just work. Here's why:

Traditionally (which is a qualifier in and of itself), the formula for winning in the NFL has been something to the effect of "run the football, don't turn the ball over, control the clock and play good defense" (incidentally the first three help the 4th as a rested defense is a more effective defense). Tebow seemingly can take care of the first three - and his running seems to open up things in the passing game and for his RBs as well. I mean Moreno had 4 carries for 52 yards before leaving the game!

My point is simply that I think the reason Tebow is interesting - and yet divisive - is because he does not fit any of the traditional "molds" of what a QB should be...but is, for now, having some degree of success in the NFL. Is he a "flash in the pan"? Is he simply putting together a string of decent games against poor teams that will come crashing down against "good" defenses? Or is it possible that he is providing a different option (no pun intended) for QB skillset that can be effective at the NFL level?
You actually have to throw the ball to be intercepted and it also has to be in bounds.
For those that are mathmatically challenged - ratios and INT% account for low number of attempts (that's why comparing overall totals isn't helpful - but looking at ratios and % is). Tebow has thrown 1 INT in 105 pass attempts this season - that's a .95% INT rate. Aaron Rodgers' INT% is 1.1%. Even Tebow's career INT% is only 2.1% - as a point of comparison Matt Ryan's career INT% is 2.5%, Rivers is 2.6% and Big Ben's is over 3%. Even the great Tom Brady's career INT% is 2.2%.

Am I saying that Tebow is a better passer than those QBs? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that he does not throw INTs - a key factor in winning QBs. Certainly, he won't pass for the type of numbers those QBs will - but most of them aren't averaging 80 rushing yards a start either.
Yeah, I'll stay with my previous post. If you throw the ball 2 times in a half not much opprotunity for the defense to get an interception.
Do you just not understand percentages and ratios?
Yep go check my edited post. Do you understand if you have 5 bullets instead of 1 in a 6 round chamber and are playing russian roulette you have a better chance of blowing your head off.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Tebowcat is a flash in the pan if he doesn't improve his ability to pass the ball. One thing I see time after time is it takes some defensive coordinators longer than it should to devise a gameplan to stop somehing new. Detroit figured it out quick. KC did not.

The wildcat was hailed by some as the next big innovation. It's dead. This option trash will meet the same fate. You can't just run the ball 50+ times and expect to win against the contenders (unless your D is stellar). You can expect to need a lot of body bags. It's a good thing they have a solid RB in Ball for this Thursday.
I heard Antonio Pierce today on the radio talking about how the d-linemen are responding so poorly to Tebow at the snap and he said that he personally could not even begin to talk about how to stop an option play.Few or none will remember this guy but quite a few years back the Saints had a QB named John Fourcade. He was a backup, a local guy (very local) who had played at Ole Miss and had been offered a scholarship by Gene Stallings at Alabama. Anyway the Saints starter (probably Hebert) got hurt and Fourcade came in for the final 3 games of the year; he won improbable victories against superior teams, posted something like 10 total TD's and 3 INT's in 3 games, he ran all over the place, literally did not know plays and had the defense reacting like their head had been cut off. The Saints [9-7] nearly made the playoffs going 3-0 with a mediocre team. Next year, the Saints and especially their fans were so wowed by Fourcade they cut Hebert loose and named Fourcade the starter. With a year to prepare and enough film on the guy he was absolutely destroyed in the opening 5 games of the next season, eventually he was benched, went 1-4, and the Saints over-spent trading for Steve Walsh. Basically a big waste of time and a disaster.

Last year, Mike Vick comes back, teams seemed to have forgotten how to defend him, he goes wild, he has an incredibly successful year. Same thing, the Eagles get rid of the "starter" (such as Kolb was), opponents had a year to prepare their packages and gameplans.... and not nearly the same success for Vick.

I've said this before, I am greatly enjoying the Tebow games and am looking forward to the Jets game greatly; short term from a FF and Broncos perspective this may continue to be great. But if he is the man next year it may not work out so well. But for now, 2011, I am still buying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tebow has thrown 1 INT in 105 pass attempts this season - that's a .95% INT rate. Aaron Rodgers' INT% is 1.1%. Even Tebow's career INT% is only 2.1% - as a point of comparison Matt Ryan's career INT% is 2.5%, Rivers is 2.6% and Big Ben's is over 3%. Even the great Tom Brady's career INT% is 2.2%.Am I saying that Tebow is a better passer than those QBs? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that he does not throw INTs - a key factor in winning QBs. Certainly, he won't pass for the type of numbers those QBs will - but most of them aren't averaging 80 rushing yards a start either.
Donovan McNabb has a 2.2% INT % also. You missed his stellar ratio.
Donovan McNabb was a starter in the league for 12+ seasons - and considered a good QB until recently. I'm not really sure what your point is here - that Tebow will start for Denver for the next 12 seasons? If you're trying to support my point, thanks, I guess. :shrug:
 
'PlasmaDogPlasma said:
But now that you mention it.........I do think that it is a somewhat interesting comparison, because Anderson was also a one-dimensional player who was successful for a brief period of time. But once the rest of the league figured out Anderson's game, the success came to a grinding halt.
Anderson may be the only quarterback that comes to mind if someone were to ask me for an NFL QB who is LESS accurate then Tebow.
Anderson's 52.6% career completion percentage is lowest among active quarterbacks with 16+ career starts. Next up are Grossman (54.7%) and Sanchez (55.0%).Tebow is currently at 47.1%. No quarterback has completed less than 50% of his passes for more than 16 games since Ryan Leaf.
I think the far more interesting thing (and why Tebow is such a divisive figure in both the NFL and FF) is the fact that despite that poor completion %, two things are still true:1) He is a much bigger threat than any of those you listed to run effectively.

2) Despite his poor passing, his team continues to win with him running the offense.

The thing that is fascinating (or will be over the next few weeks...perhaps years), will be to see if this will actually "work". The league has had it's fair share of QBs that can run (Vick, etc.) - and of course good passers that are mobile (Young, Elway, CPepp, Cunningham, etc.) - but Tebow is unique in that he is probably a better pure runner than most, but a worse passer (of course, some would debate whether or not he is truly worse than the Falcon's version of Vick - who's passer rating with the Falcons was under 80 every year except 1 and whose current career passer rating is still lower than Tebow's). Tebow is more like a very good RB who can throw the ball fairly well (for an RB).

One thing that is also interesting about Tebow is that he is not throwing INTs. He currently is sporting a 7:1 TD to INT ration this season (and 12:4 for his career). For a "bad" passer, that is fairly remarkable. Now, I know someone is going to chime in and say something to the effect that he "so bad not even the defender is close enough to make a play" - but honestly - 7:1? Now, perhaps that a bit of an outlier given the fact that he has faced some pretty poor defenses - but something worth keeping an eye on.

I would suggest that if Tebow can continue to be an "effective" passer (i.e. keep the rating above 80, keep INTs to a minimum) the "experiment" might just work. Here's why:

Traditionally (which is a qualifier in and of itself), the formula for winning in the NFL has been something to the effect of "run the football, don't turn the ball over, control the clock and play good defense" (incidentally the first three help the 4th as a rested defense is a more effective defense). Tebow seemingly can take care of the first three - and his running seems to open up things in the passing game and for his RBs as well. I mean Moreno had 4 carries for 52 yards before leaving the game!

My point is simply that I think the reason Tebow is interesting - and yet divisive - is because he does not fit any of the traditional "molds" of what a QB should be...but is, for now, having some degree of success in the NFL. Is he a "flash in the pan"? Is he simply putting together a string of decent games against poor teams that will come crashing down against "good" defenses? Or is it possible that he is providing a different option (no pun intended) for QB skillset that can be effective at the NFL level?
You actually have to throw the ball to be intercepted and it also has to be in bounds.
For those that are mathmatically challenged - ratios and INT% account for low number of attempts (that's why comparing overall totals isn't helpful - but looking at ratios and % is). Tebow has thrown 1 INT in 105 pass attempts this season - that's a .95% INT rate. Aaron Rodgers' INT% is 1.1%. Even Tebow's career INT% is only 2.1% - as a point of comparison Matt Ryan's career INT% is 2.5%, Rivers is 2.6% and Big Ben's is over 3%. Even the great Tom Brady's career INT% is 2.2%.

Am I saying that Tebow is a better passer than those QBs? Of course not. What I am suggesting is that he does not throw INTs - a key factor in winning QBs. Certainly, he won't pass for the type of numbers those QBs will - but most of them aren't averaging 80 rushing yards a start either.
Yeah, I'll stay with my previous post. If you throw the ball 2 times in a half not much opprotunity for the defense to get an interception.
Do you just not understand percentages and ratios?
Yep go check my edited post. Do you understand if you have 5 bullets instead of 1 in a 6 round chamber and are playing russian roulette you have a better chance of blowing your head off.
Exactly. So if I'm going to have a QB running my offense, I'd rather have the QB who throws a pick less often per 100 throws (which is what a % is) - whether it takes him 16 games to get to 100 throws or 4. Math really isn't that hard. There's a lot of ways to manipulate stats to help your argument - manipulating them to help the other point is not typically one of them.For someone who allegedly disagrees, you sure are drumming up some excellent support. Keep the excellence coming. :thumbup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Tebowcat is a flash in the pan if he doesn't improve his ability to pass the ball. One thing I see time after time is it takes some defensive coordinators longer than it should to devise a gameplan to stop somehing new. Detroit figured it out quick. KC did not.

The wildcat was hailed by some as the next big innovation. It's dead. This option trash will meet the same fate. You can't just run the ball 50+ times and expect to win against the contenders (unless your D is stellar). You can expect to need a lot of body bags. It's a good thing they have a solid RB in Ball for this Thursday.
I heard Antonio Pierce today on the radio talking about how the d-linemen are responding so poorly to Tebow at the snap and he said that he personally could not even begin to talk about how to stop an option play.Few or none will remember this guy but quite a few years back the Saints had a QB named John Fourcade. He was a backup, a local guy (very local) who had played at Ole Miss and had been offered a scholarship by Gene Stallings at Alabama. Anyway the Saints starter (probably Hebert) got hurt and Fourcade came in for the final 3 games of the year; he won improbable victories against superior teams, posted something like 10 total TD's and 3 INT's in 3 games, he ran all over the place, literally did not know plays and had the defense reacting like their head had been cut off. The Saints [9-7] nearly made the playoffs going 3-0 with a mediocre team. Next year, the Saints and especially their fans were so wowed by Fourcade they cut Hebert loose and named Fourcade the starter. With a year to prepare and enough film on the guy he was absolutely destroyed in the opening 5 games of the next season, eventually he was benched, went 1-4, and the Saints over-spent trading for Steve Walsh. Basically a big waste of time and a disaster.

Last year, Mike Vick comes back, teams seemed to have forgotten how to defend him, he goes wild, he has an incredibly successful year. Same thing, the Eagles get rid of the "starter" (such as Kolb was), opponents had a year to prepare their packages and gameplans.... and not nearly the same success for Vick.

I've said this before, I am greatly enjoying the Tebow games and am looking forward to the Jets game greatly; short term from a FF and Broncos perspective this may continue to be great. But if he is the man next year it may not work out so well. But for now, 2011, I am still buying.
Though I did own an Herbert Starting Lineup growing up, I do not know anything about Fourcade. Is it safe to assume he wasn't the most dominant spread option quarterback in FBS history?
 
'shnikies said:
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'FavreCo said:
The Tebowcat is a flash in the pan if he doesn't improve his ability to pass the ball. One thing I see time after time is it takes some defensive coordinators longer than it should to devise a gameplan to stop somehing new. Detroit figured it out quick. KC did not.

The wildcat was hailed by some as the next big innovation. It's dead. This option trash will meet the same fate. You can't just run the ball 50+ times and expect to win against the contenders (unless your D is stellar). You can expect to need a lot of body bags. It's a good thing they have a solid RB in Ball for this Thursday.
I heard Antonio Pierce today on the radio talking about how the d-linemen are responding so poorly to Tebow at the snap and he said that he personally could not even begin to talk about how to stop an option play.Few or none will remember this guy but quite a few years back the Saints had a QB named John Fourcade. He was a backup, a local guy (very local) who had played at Ole Miss and had been offered a scholarship by Gene Stallings at Alabama. Anyway the Saints starter (probably Hebert) got hurt and Fourcade came in for the final 3 games of the year; he won improbable victories against superior teams, posted something like 10 total TD's and 3 INT's in 3 games, he ran all over the place, literally did not know plays and had the defense reacting like their head had been cut off. The Saints [9-7] nearly made the playoffs going 3-0 with a mediocre team. Next year, the Saints and especially their fans were so wowed by Fourcade they cut Hebert loose and named Fourcade the starter. With a year to prepare and enough film on the guy he was absolutely destroyed in the opening 5 games of the next season, eventually he was benched, went 1-4, and the Saints over-spent trading for Steve Walsh. Basically a big waste of time and a disaster.

Last year, Mike Vick comes back, teams seemed to have forgotten how to defend him, he goes wild, he has an incredibly successful year. Same thing, the Eagles get rid of the "starter" (such as Kolb was), opponents had a year to prepare their packages and gameplans.... and not nearly the same success for Vick.

I've said this before, I am greatly enjoying the Tebow games and am looking forward to the Jets game greatly; short term from a FF and Broncos perspective this may continue to be great. But if he is the man next year it may not work out so well. But for now, 2011, I am still buying.
Though I did own an Herbert Starting Lineup growing up, I do not know anything about Fourcade. Is it safe to assume he wasn't the most dominant spread option quarterback in FBS history?
Ha, yes, this would be correct. I am thinking it would be fair to make that: Tebow was one of the most dominant college players ever, period. All I'm saying is that if he starts next year teams may very well be far better prepared for him. Right now the defensive linemen underreacting/overreacting to him is almost funny, and that reminds me of Fourcade. That Detroit has one of the best lines in the NFL maybe somewhat explains their better success against him.

 
'shnikies said:
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'FavreCo said:
The Tebowcat is a flash in the pan if he doesn't improve his ability to pass the ball. One thing I see time after time is it takes some defensive coordinators longer than it should to devise a gameplan to stop somehing new. Detroit figured it out quick. KC did not.

The wildcat was hailed by some as the next big innovation. It's dead. This option trash will meet the same fate. You can't just run the ball 50+ times and expect to win against the contenders (unless your D is stellar). You can expect to need a lot of body bags. It's a good thing they have a solid RB in Ball for this Thursday.
I heard Antonio Pierce today on the radio talking about how the d-linemen are responding so poorly to Tebow at the snap and he said that he personally could not even begin to talk about how to stop an option play.Few or none will remember this guy but quite a few years back the Saints had a QB named John Fourcade. He was a backup, a local guy (very local) who had played at Ole Miss and had been offered a scholarship by Gene Stallings at Alabama. Anyway the Saints starter (probably Hebert) got hurt and Fourcade came in for the final 3 games of the year; he won improbable victories against superior teams, posted something like 10 total TD's and 3 INT's in 3 games, he ran all over the place, literally did not know plays and had the defense reacting like their head had been cut off. The Saints [9-7] nearly made the playoffs going 3-0 with a mediocre team. Next year, the Saints and especially their fans were so wowed by Fourcade they cut Hebert loose and named Fourcade the starter. With a year to prepare and enough film on the guy he was absolutely destroyed in the opening 5 games of the next season, eventually he was benched, went 1-4, and the Saints over-spent trading for Steve Walsh. Basically a big waste of time and a disaster.

Last year, Mike Vick comes back, teams seemed to have forgotten how to defend him, he goes wild, he has an incredibly successful year. Same thing, the Eagles get rid of the "starter" (such as Kolb was), opponents had a year to prepare their packages and gameplans.... and not nearly the same success for Vick.

I've said this before, I am greatly enjoying the Tebow games and am looking forward to the Jets game greatly; short term from a FF and Broncos perspective this may continue to be great. But if he is the man next year it may not work out so well. But for now, 2011, I am still buying.
Though I did own an Herbert Starting Lineup growing up, I do not know anything about Fourcade. Is it safe to assume he wasn't the most dominant spread option quarterback in FBS history?
Ha, yes, this would be correct. I am thinking it would be fair to make that: Tebow was one of the most dominant college players ever, period. All I'm saying is that if he starts next year teams may very well be far better prepared for him. Right now the defensive linemen underreacting/overreacting to him is almost funny, and that reminds me of Fourcade. That Detroit has one of the best lines in the NFL maybe somewhat explains their better success against him.
They didn't run the read option against the Lions.
 
'shnikies said:
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'FavreCo said:
The Tebowcat is a flash in the pan if he doesn't improve his ability to pass the ball. One thing I see time after time is it takes some defensive coordinators longer than it should to devise a gameplan to stop somehing new. Detroit figured it out quick. KC did not.

The wildcat was hailed by some as the next big innovation. It's dead. This option trash will meet the same fate. You can't just run the ball 50+ times and expect to win against the contenders (unless your D is stellar). You can expect to need a lot of body bags. It's a good thing they have a solid RB in Ball for this Thursday.
I heard Antonio Pierce today on the radio talking about how the d-linemen are responding so poorly to Tebow at the snap and he said that he personally could not even begin to talk about how to stop an option play.Few or none will remember this guy but quite a few years back the Saints had a QB named John Fourcade. He was a backup, a local guy (very local) who had played at Ole Miss and had been offered a scholarship by Gene Stallings at Alabama. Anyway the Saints starter (probably Hebert) got hurt and Fourcade came in for the final 3 games of the year; he won improbable victories against superior teams, posted something like 10 total TD's and 3 INT's in 3 games, he ran all over the place, literally did not know plays and had the defense reacting like their head had been cut off. The Saints [9-7] nearly made the playoffs going 3-0 with a mediocre team. Next year, the Saints and especially their fans were so wowed by Fourcade they cut Hebert loose and named Fourcade the starter. With a year to prepare and enough film on the guy he was absolutely destroyed in the opening 5 games of the next season, eventually he was benched, went 1-4, and the Saints over-spent trading for Steve Walsh. Basically a big waste of time and a disaster.

Last year, Mike Vick comes back, teams seemed to have forgotten how to defend him, he goes wild, he has an incredibly successful year. Same thing, the Eagles get rid of the "starter" (such as Kolb was), opponents had a year to prepare their packages and gameplans.... and not nearly the same success for Vick.

I've said this before, I am greatly enjoying the Tebow games and am looking forward to the Jets game greatly; short term from a FF and Broncos perspective this may continue to be great. But if he is the man next year it may not work out so well. But for now, 2011, I am still buying.
Though I did own an Herbert Starting Lineup growing up, I do not know anything about Fourcade. Is it safe to assume he wasn't the most dominant spread option quarterback in FBS history?
Ha, yes, this would be correct. I am thinking it would be fair to make that: Tebow was one of the most dominant college players ever, period. All I'm saying is that if he starts next year teams may very well be far better prepared for him. Right now the defensive linemen underreacting/overreacting to him is almost funny, and that reminds me of Fourcade. That Detroit has one of the best lines in the NFL maybe somewhat explains their better success against him.
They didn't run the read option against the Lions.
Good point; ok what if a team gets ahead of the Broncos, say by 10-14 points in teh 2nd half?

Do they start to pass or just keep running?

 
'shnikies said:
'SaintsInDome2006 said:
'FavreCo said:
The Tebowcat is a flash in the pan if he doesn't improve his ability to pass the ball. One thing I see time after time is it takes some defensive coordinators longer than it should to devise a gameplan to stop somehing new. Detroit figured it out quick. KC did not.

The wildcat was hailed by some as the next big innovation. It's dead. This option trash will meet the same fate. You can't just run the ball 50+ times and expect to win against the contenders (unless your D is stellar). You can expect to need a lot of body bags. It's a good thing they have a solid RB in Ball for this Thursday.
I heard Antonio Pierce today on the radio talking about how the d-linemen are responding so poorly to Tebow at the snap and he said that he personally could not even begin to talk about how to stop an option play.Few or none will remember this guy but quite a few years back the Saints had a QB named John Fourcade. He was a backup, a local guy (very local) who had played at Ole Miss and had been offered a scholarship by Gene Stallings at Alabama. Anyway the Saints starter (probably Hebert) got hurt and Fourcade came in for the final 3 games of the year; he won improbable victories against superior teams, posted something like 10 total TD's and 3 INT's in 3 games, he ran all over the place, literally did not know plays and had the defense reacting like their head had been cut off. The Saints [9-7] nearly made the playoffs going 3-0 with a mediocre team. Next year, the Saints and especially their fans were so wowed by Fourcade they cut Hebert loose and named Fourcade the starter. With a year to prepare and enough film on the guy he was absolutely destroyed in the opening 5 games of the next season, eventually he was benched, went 1-4, and the Saints over-spent trading for Steve Walsh. Basically a big waste of time and a disaster.

Last year, Mike Vick comes back, teams seemed to have forgotten how to defend him, he goes wild, he has an incredibly successful year. Same thing, the Eagles get rid of the "starter" (such as Kolb was), opponents had a year to prepare their packages and gameplans.... and not nearly the same success for Vick.

I've said this before, I am greatly enjoying the Tebow games and am looking forward to the Jets game greatly; short term from a FF and Broncos perspective this may continue to be great. But if he is the man next year it may not work out so well. But for now, 2011, I am still buying.
Though I did own an Herbert Starting Lineup growing up, I do not know anything about Fourcade. Is it safe to assume he wasn't the most dominant spread option quarterback in FBS history?
Ha, yes, this would be correct. I am thinking it would be fair to make that: Tebow was one of the most dominant college players ever, period. All I'm saying is that if he starts next year teams may very well be far better prepared for him. Right now the defensive linemen underreacting/overreacting to him is almost funny, and that reminds me of Fourcade. That Detroit has one of the best lines in the NFL maybe somewhat explains their better success against him.
They didn't run the read option against the Lions.
Good point; ok what if a team gets ahead of the Broncos, say by 10-14 points in teh 2nd half?

Do they start to pass or just keep running?
They'll pass. They passed against the Raiders. Tebow threw the ball 21 times.
 
Obviously Tebow had put up pretty decent fantasy points the last few weeks, here's some facts (based on my league):

Outperformed regularly by Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Newton & Schaub

In 2 of the last 4 weeks, he outperformed:

Romo, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Manning, Stafford

Ryan, Manning & Stafford only had 3 starts in that time due to a bye

Outperformed Rivers all 3 times (SD had a bye)

It's not a perfect science to compare this way but over the last 4 weeks, he ranks about 8 behind:

Brees

Rodgers

Brady

Newton

Schaub

Romo

Roethlisberger

(not necessarily in that order)

 
Obviously Tebow had put up pretty decent fantasy points the last few weeks, here's some facts (based on my league):Outperformed regularly by Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Newton & SchaubIn 2 of the last 4 weeks, he outperformed:Romo, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Manning, StaffordRyan, Manning & Stafford only had 3 starts in that time due to a byeOutperformed Rivers all 3 times (SD had a bye)It's not a perfect science to compare this way but over the last 4 weeks, he ranks about 8 behind:BreesRodgersBradyNewtonSchaubRomoRoethlisberger(not necessarily in that order)
In my standard scoring league (6 pts/TD, 1 pt/25Pyrds, 1pt/10Ryrds):Since week 5:Tebow has more rushing yards than Mike Vick (that surprised me); TT has 2 rush TDs while Vick has none (also surprising).He has more total points than my actual starter Stafford; both have had their bye.TT is No. 8 in overall scoring, including Schaub who is now out. He falls between Brady and Romo.He has only 2 turnovers, only Rodgers and Romo have that few (1).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase has a pretty interesting take on Tebow:

...

We can’t ignore Tebow’s running success any more than we can ignore most quarterbacks’ passing prowess. Every time Tebow runs, he is, in essence, completing a pass to himself. If we convert all of Tebow’s runs to completions, and tack on his rushing yards and touchdowns to his passing totals, how do things look?

Against Oakland, his numbers would translate to 23/34 for 242 yards, 2 touchdowns and no interceptions. Against Kansas City, he would have been 11/17 for 112 yards and 2 touchdowns. No, he’s not Drew Brees. But over the last two games — 34 completions and rushes on 51 total attempts, for 343 net yards, 4 touchdowns and zero interceptions — he has been very effective. In those two games, using such conversions, he’d have a 66.7 percent completion rate, a 6.7 yards-per-attempt average, and a 7.9 ANY/A average. That’s effective quarterbacking, without even considering the positive effect Tebow’s presence has on non-Tebow running plays.

...
As the old saying goes, when you throw the ball, three things can happen...and two of them are bad. I'd maintain that as long as Tebow can maintain 6 or 7 yards per carry, that's just as effective, if not moreso, than a traditional short passing offense.*note: this discussion is irrelevant to fantasy ball...this is related to the question of "can Tebow be an effective QB in the NFL, and if not, will he be eventually be benched?" I'd agree that if Tebow does not progress as a passer, and if his rushing is kept to below 4 yards/carry, he will not be a starter for long.

 
Chase has a pretty interesting take on Tebow:

...

We can’t ignore Tebow’s running success any more than we can ignore most quarterbacks’ passing prowess. Every time Tebow runs, he is, in essence, completing a pass to himself. If we convert all of Tebow’s runs to completions, and tack on his rushing yards and touchdowns to his passing totals, how do things look?

Against Oakland, his numbers would translate to 23/34 for 242 yards, 2 touchdowns and no interceptions. Against Kansas City, he would have been 11/17 for 112 yards and 2 touchdowns. No, he’s not Drew Brees. But over the last two games — 34 completions and rushes on 51 total attempts, for 343 net yards, 4 touchdowns and zero interceptions — he has been very effective. In those two games, using such conversions, he’d have a 66.7 percent completion rate, a 6.7 yards-per-attempt average, and a 7.9 ANY/A average. That’s effective quarterbacking, without even considering the positive effect Tebow’s presence has on non-Tebow running plays.

...
As the old saying goes, when you throw the ball, three things can happen...and two of them are bad. I'd maintain that as long as Tebow can maintain 6 or 7 yards per carry, that's just as effective, if not moreso, than a traditional short passing offense.*note: this discussion is irrelevant to fantasy ball...this is related to the question of "can Tebow be an effective QB in the NFL, and if not, will he be eventually be benched?" I'd agree that if Tebow does not progress as a passer, and if his rushing is kept to below 4 yards/carry, he will not be a starter for long.
I'll disagree here (and hope I'm wrong). The old NFL axioms don't apply to todays game. If you're not building to beat the Packers, Pats, Steelers, and Saints, you're likely headed down a dead end.
 
'BassNBrew said:
'moleculo said:
Chase has a pretty interesting take on Tebow:

...

We can’t ignore Tebow’s running success any more than we can ignore most quarterbacks’ passing prowess. Every time Tebow runs, he is, in essence, completing a pass to himself. If we convert all of Tebow’s runs to completions, and tack on his rushing yards and touchdowns to his passing totals, how do things look?

Against Oakland, his numbers would translate to 23/34 for 242 yards, 2 touchdowns and no interceptions. Against Kansas City, he would have been 11/17 for 112 yards and 2 touchdowns. No, he’s not Drew Brees. But over the last two games — 34 completions and rushes on 51 total attempts, for 343 net yards, 4 touchdowns and zero interceptions — he has been very effective. In those two games, using such conversions, he’d have a 66.7 percent completion rate, a 6.7 yards-per-attempt average, and a 7.9 ANY/A average. That’s effective quarterbacking, without even considering the positive effect Tebow’s presence has on non-Tebow running plays.

...
As the old saying goes, when you throw the ball, three things can happen...and two of them are bad. I'd maintain that as long as Tebow can maintain 6 or 7 yards per carry, that's just as effective, if not moreso, than a traditional short passing offense.*note: this discussion is irrelevant to fantasy ball...this is related to the question of "can Tebow be an effective QB in the NFL, and if not, will he be eventually be benched?" I'd agree that if Tebow does not progress as a passer, and if his rushing is kept to below 4 yards/carry, he will not be a starter for long.
I'll disagree here (and hope I'm wrong). The old NFL axioms don't apply to todays game. If you're not building to beat the Packers, Pats, Steelers, and Saints, you're likely headed down a dead end.
I'm not sure that controlling the clock via the run, limiting turnovers (as has already been stated - Tebow running is safer than throwing - and Tebow's INT% is one of the lowest in the game right now) and playing solid defense is NOT building to beat the Packers, Pats, Steelers and Saints. In fact, a running game (which can include a running QB) is the BEST way to beat a high-powered offense like the Saints and Packers. Bill Parcells and the Giants did it to the Bills high powered offenses in the Superbowl. A high-powered offense can't score if they're not on the field.

My point is simply that Tebow running the style of offense he is and "building to beat the Packers, Pats, Steelers and Saints" are not mutually exclusive.

 
Ok, if Tebow is such a good runner why not have Orton and Tebow on the field at the same time. Why not roll out a 2TE set with 2QB? You could call it the ZOMGTEB0W set or something?

What could possibly go wrong?

 
Ok, if Tebow is such a good runner why not have Orton and Tebow on the field at the same time. Why not roll out a 2TE set with 2QB? You could call it the ZOMGTEB0W set or something?What could possibly go wrong?
Orton throws an interception?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top