I have not been easy on Mr. Tim Tebow, the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos. I gave him kudos for his performance against the Minnesota Vikings a couple weeks ago and have given him praise every now and again for his play, but overall, have not been very impressed with the quarterback's play and have been rather pessimistic of his long-term value for a team. Given that, I've also said it's too early to conclude on the matter. Just as I've been saying with Carolina Panthers' rookie starting quarterback, Cam Newton, I need to see more from the guy before concluding on if I believe he will be a long-term success in the NFL. It's going to take more than a season to persuade me. I see more room for optimism thus far with Newton than I do with Tebow, but again, I'm not going to conclude on the matter, with either quarterback, just yet.
I just read an article written by one Jason Cole of Yahoo Sports. That article can be read here - http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AmLWy2PNf3IgxYDaYmOyJdY5nYcB?slug=jc-cole_winners_losers_tim_tebow_broncos_patriots_121811
Cole writes about, and rightly so, that it's all too common for people whom perhaps believe a certain way, to wait for that one moment where they can look back at those whom they disagree with, and say, "See? I told you so!" It doesn't matter if this occasion is simply an aberration, an outlier in a series of 15 events. All it takes is that one moment to make them feel as if they were right all along.
Where Cole slips up is when he attempts to defend Tebow and the Broncos' loss to the New England Patriots yesterday.
Cole writes, "Guess what? Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees probably wouldn't have been good enough (to beat the Patriots yesterday), either. When your team has three more turnovers than the opposition and your offensive line has you running for your life, the game isn't easy. You tend to lose much more than you win."
I'm sorry, but Mr. Cole, your argument here is not valid. It cannot be proven. It's all hypothetical mumbo jumbo, as I like to call it. It is true that the Broncos turned the ball over 3 more times than the Patriots (one by way of a Tim Tebow fumble), but who are we to say that the Green Bay Packers or New Orleans Saints would also be -3 in turnovers against these same Patriots? We can't. How are we to state with any certainty that the Packers' and Saints' offensive lines wouldn't hold up better against the Patriots' front 7 than the Broncos? Again, we can't. At this point in time, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees are the top two quarterbacks in the NFL numbers wise (Tom Brady may have an argument, though). At this point in time, we cannot compare Tebow with the likes of Rodgers or Brees. Cole's reasoning here is the epitome of fallacy.
Cole then goes on to write, "The problem with talking about anything Tebow is there's rarely no middle ground. You're either for him or against him and even if you're not, people on one side or another believe you are..."
Again, while it may seem this way at times, I don't believe it to be true. Black-and-white thinking is the easy way to go. Yes or no. For or against. Good or evil. However, that's not how things usually work. The truth typically lies somewhere between the two extremes. Have I personally been hard on Tebow? Yes. Does this mean I can't stand the guy or hold something against him? No, of course not. Amongst all the kool-aid drinkers, I like to provide a dose of reality. Tebow has brought some excitement late in games and given reason for people in Denver to be excited. However, he has not been the main reason for the Broncos' success as I've been quick to point out. The foundation of the Broncos' recent success has been their defense, as in 6 of their 9 games with Tebow at the helm, the Broncos have allowed an average of just 14.2 points per game, which would rank them 2nd in the league behind only San Francisco (14.0 avg). In these games, they've averaged to score just 15.2 points per, which would rank them 27th in the league (out of 32 teams). The special teams have come up big for the Broncos, from Eddie Royal's punt return for a touchdown against the Raiders to Matt Prater's 59- and 51-yard field goals against the Chicago Bears. The running game has been very solid. Tebow has played a role there, but so have Willis McGahee, Knowshon Moreno (before he got hurt), Lance Ball, etc. This doesn't make me Anti-Tebow as Mr. Cole would seem to believe. I just try to give a well-rounded view of the situation.
I remember former Washington Redskins' quarterback Joe Theismann once saying when things go well, the quarterback receives too much credit and when things go poorly, he receives too much blame. I completely agree with that and Tim Tebow is a prime example of that. Like with the numbers I mentioned above, it seems rather obvious that Tebow received far too much praise during the Broncos' winning streak. However, he's also received too much blame in their losses, yesterday's included. It's just one game. Aaron Rodgers had an off-game yesterday against the Kansas City Chiefs. That does not mean he's finished as a quarterback. Kyle Orton of the Chiefs, in his first start with the team, had a pretty good day. That doesn't mean he's the long-term solution for Kansas City. It's all about consistency and longevity. While Rodgers had an off-game yesterday, it was his first such game of the season. In 13 of 14 games, he's played extraordinarily well. He led his team to a Super Bowl victory last year. He has been consistently great for the Green Bay Packers these past two years. How long will he be able to continue this high-level of play? That remains to be seen, but given the resume he's building, barring injury, I'd say the chances of that happening are pretty good. Numbers wise, Tebow has not been very efficient this season. Sadly, he has been fairly consistent, albeit not the kind of consistent his coaches would like to see. What he needs to do is improve his play, maintain that level of play on a fairly regular basis and elongate that high level of play for multiple seasons. The wins he "led" earlier this season didn't prove to me that he could do that. On the other hand, the loss yesterday didn't prove to me he couldn't. It's time to not take this black-and-white route of thinking with Tebow and just be realistic about things. Tebow did not lead the team for four quarters in their wins and did not deserve as much credit as he received for those victories. He also did not fail the team in their losses and doesn't deserve as much blame as he has received there either.
I just read an article written by one Jason Cole of Yahoo Sports. That article can be read here - http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AmLWy2PNf3IgxYDaYmOyJdY5nYcB?slug=jc-cole_winners_losers_tim_tebow_broncos_patriots_121811
Cole writes about, and rightly so, that it's all too common for people whom perhaps believe a certain way, to wait for that one moment where they can look back at those whom they disagree with, and say, "See? I told you so!" It doesn't matter if this occasion is simply an aberration, an outlier in a series of 15 events. All it takes is that one moment to make them feel as if they were right all along.
Where Cole slips up is when he attempts to defend Tebow and the Broncos' loss to the New England Patriots yesterday.
Cole writes, "Guess what? Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees probably wouldn't have been good enough (to beat the Patriots yesterday), either. When your team has three more turnovers than the opposition and your offensive line has you running for your life, the game isn't easy. You tend to lose much more than you win."
I'm sorry, but Mr. Cole, your argument here is not valid. It cannot be proven. It's all hypothetical mumbo jumbo, as I like to call it. It is true that the Broncos turned the ball over 3 more times than the Patriots (one by way of a Tim Tebow fumble), but who are we to say that the Green Bay Packers or New Orleans Saints would also be -3 in turnovers against these same Patriots? We can't. How are we to state with any certainty that the Packers' and Saints' offensive lines wouldn't hold up better against the Patriots' front 7 than the Broncos? Again, we can't. At this point in time, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees are the top two quarterbacks in the NFL numbers wise (Tom Brady may have an argument, though). At this point in time, we cannot compare Tebow with the likes of Rodgers or Brees. Cole's reasoning here is the epitome of fallacy.
Cole then goes on to write, "The problem with talking about anything Tebow is there's rarely no middle ground. You're either for him or against him and even if you're not, people on one side or another believe you are..."
Again, while it may seem this way at times, I don't believe it to be true. Black-and-white thinking is the easy way to go. Yes or no. For or against. Good or evil. However, that's not how things usually work. The truth typically lies somewhere between the two extremes. Have I personally been hard on Tebow? Yes. Does this mean I can't stand the guy or hold something against him? No, of course not. Amongst all the kool-aid drinkers, I like to provide a dose of reality. Tebow has brought some excitement late in games and given reason for people in Denver to be excited. However, he has not been the main reason for the Broncos' success as I've been quick to point out. The foundation of the Broncos' recent success has been their defense, as in 6 of their 9 games with Tebow at the helm, the Broncos have allowed an average of just 14.2 points per game, which would rank them 2nd in the league behind only San Francisco (14.0 avg). In these games, they've averaged to score just 15.2 points per, which would rank them 27th in the league (out of 32 teams). The special teams have come up big for the Broncos, from Eddie Royal's punt return for a touchdown against the Raiders to Matt Prater's 59- and 51-yard field goals against the Chicago Bears. The running game has been very solid. Tebow has played a role there, but so have Willis McGahee, Knowshon Moreno (before he got hurt), Lance Ball, etc. This doesn't make me Anti-Tebow as Mr. Cole would seem to believe. I just try to give a well-rounded view of the situation.
I remember former Washington Redskins' quarterback Joe Theismann once saying when things go well, the quarterback receives too much credit and when things go poorly, he receives too much blame. I completely agree with that and Tim Tebow is a prime example of that. Like with the numbers I mentioned above, it seems rather obvious that Tebow received far too much praise during the Broncos' winning streak. However, he's also received too much blame in their losses, yesterday's included. It's just one game. Aaron Rodgers had an off-game yesterday against the Kansas City Chiefs. That does not mean he's finished as a quarterback. Kyle Orton of the Chiefs, in his first start with the team, had a pretty good day. That doesn't mean he's the long-term solution for Kansas City. It's all about consistency and longevity. While Rodgers had an off-game yesterday, it was his first such game of the season. In 13 of 14 games, he's played extraordinarily well. He led his team to a Super Bowl victory last year. He has been consistently great for the Green Bay Packers these past two years. How long will he be able to continue this high-level of play? That remains to be seen, but given the resume he's building, barring injury, I'd say the chances of that happening are pretty good. Numbers wise, Tebow has not been very efficient this season. Sadly, he has been fairly consistent, albeit not the kind of consistent his coaches would like to see. What he needs to do is improve his play, maintain that level of play on a fairly regular basis and elongate that high level of play for multiple seasons. The wins he "led" earlier this season didn't prove to me that he could do that. On the other hand, the loss yesterday didn't prove to me he couldn't. It's time to not take this black-and-white route of thinking with Tebow and just be realistic about things. Tebow did not lead the team for four quarters in their wins and did not deserve as much credit as he received for those victories. He also did not fail the team in their losses and doesn't deserve as much blame as he has received there either.
Comments
Post a Comment