I say "if not for Tebow the Broncos score 21 points."

 

Which you have no way to back up.

 

Other than to bash Tebow, because you don't like him, what's the purpose of this thread?

 

Please oh wise one, tell us why the Broncos couldn't win to save their life with Orton as QB, but are 3-1 with Tebow?

Kind of a strange debate going on here. I don't know how you even begin to speculate if a team would score with different players. If we stay within reality,

A. Denver did win a divisional road game against a team that was ahead of them in the standings.

B. Tim Tebow did run and throw for a TD.

3. Denver is in trouble with Tebow at the helm.

Which you have no way to back up.

 

Other than to bash Tebow, because you don't like him, what's the purpose of this thread?

 

Please oh wise one, tell us why the Broncos couldn't win to save their life with Orton as QB, but are 3-1 with Tebow?

 

First, if you look back at historical posts by me about Tebow you will see the tired defense of "you don't like him" is incorrect. I'm a big fan of his. The NFL needs more Tim Tebows.

 

Secondly, (probably fifthly by now) my original post was not to condemn Tebow as a QB even though the thread has evolved into that. You're studying to be a CPA,right? CPAs need to be able to sift through piles of data and get to the true issue. Re-read my first post and you'll see what the point is. Once you've figured that out you will see that the Orton comparison is truly useless.

Your boy Cowherd just backed me up.............

Your boy Cowherd just backed me up.............

 

Backed you up how? That using W/L to judge a QBs performance is wise?

Know Thy Self. And for the record, I never said it was wise. I just don't think you can discount wins and losses as easily as you can.

^Here's the bottomline Clyde. Football is a team sport, the only thing that matters is wins & losses. Currently, Tebow is winning. I doubt his team cares if he throws the ball for 10 yards or 400 yards as long as they win.

 

So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? They're winning with Tebow at QB, and they weren't with Orton, it's as simple as that.

^ This is a useless thread really. Because too many points prove and disprove the same theory. Some people are winners, some aren't. Tebow wins games. The Broncos are winning more with him starting, then they were when he wasn't. That is fact. The rest is simply opinion and fodder for debate.

 

Tebow has won more in 6 games than Orton in 18!

 

Remember Orton started something like 6 and 0 during his first 6 games with Denver three years ago. Did that mean he was a really good QB? Or just had a good stretch of games where the overall team played well? I am not sure of the ranking but I don't believe the defenses they have played are that good. I mean since Tebow has started they have won games, so you have to give him credit. However I don't think it proves that he will consistently win in the NFL.

^Here's the bottomline Clyde. Football is a team sport, the only thing that matters is wins & losses. Currently, Tebow is winning. I doubt his team cares if he throws the ball for 10 yards or 400 yards as long as they win.

 

So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make? They're winning with Tebow at QB, and they weren't with Orton, it's as simple as that.

 

You just made my point.

Boy, I can remember these arguments as far back as Terry Bradshaw and I'm sure they were around before that.

As to the why Tebow but not Orton question.

 

Games Orton started:

 

Oak, Cin, @Tenn, @GB, SD

 

Tebow:

 

@Mia, @Det, Oak, @KC

 

Can we all agree that Miami and KC are probably the two worst teams in the NFL or at least bottom 5? You don't think that has something to do with it?

Boy, I can remember these arguments as far back as Terry Bradshaw and I'm sure they were around before that.

 

Sidebar: I watched "A Football Life" about Al Davis. Al takes credit for Bradshaw leading the Steelers. He says the Raiders played Pittsburgh on a Monday night and Joe Gilliam started. He claims Bradshaw came to him after the game and said for Al to trade for him to get him out of Pittsburgh. Al said he couldn't but he says he was good friends with Chuck Noll and told Chuck that Bradshaw should be the guy. Bradshaw was soon named the starter and the rest is history.

You just made my point.

 

You're saying they're winning despite Tebow. I'm saying they're obviously winning with Tebow, because they looked like the worst team in the league with Orton. He's doing what is necessary to win. He isn't turning the ball over, so he's playing a very big role in them winning. Look at Alex Smith, he's doing pretty much nothing statistically, but he's not turning it over, and managing the game. I'd say what those two are doing is very similar except Smith is needed to pass more, and is doing so efficiently.

Know Thy Self. And for the record, I never said it was wise. I just don't think you can discount wins and losses as easily as you can.

 

He is correct. Fox knows what he has which is a limited QB. He played to that.

 

The only thing I'm discounting in regards to W/L is the amount of the award that goes to the QB.

 

Think about it. Fox was down 2 backs and he STILL wouldn't let his starting QB throw the ball. What does that tell you? He was going to win with backup backs and, more importantly, his defense.

You're saying they're winning despite Tebow. I'm saying they're obviously winning with Tebow, because they looked like the worst team in the league with Orton. He's doing what is necessary to win. He isn't turning the ball over, so he's playing a very big role in them winning. Look at Alex Smith, he's doing pretty much nothing statistically, but he's not turning it over, and managing the game. I'd say what those two are doing is very similar except Smith is needed to pass more, and is doing so efficiently.

 

The only way one can say they're "winning WITH Tebow" is by adding "because they don't let him screw it up." Can you really plan on being a good team using that plan?