PDA

View Full Version : 58% pass completion - would that work



lgenf
11-07-2011, 12:21 PM
I'm not hanging off the nuts, so just relax and asnswer the question



I know again yesterday was a 50% or sub 50% (technically) 10/21 day from Tebow in the passing dept.

And all morning on both the board and on TV I keep hearing you can't win with a performance like that from your QB, actually let's make that MORE GOODER.

YOU CAN'T WIN CONSISTENTLY

now I get that people will just sit on their numbers and say what they want to say, but in a 10/21 performance, the difference in sub 50% and almost 58% is ...................

2 CATCHES

now I watched the game on a laptop and some of the stream was not great, but I know there was a screen pass over the middle that was dropped, I thought another opportunity was the LONG throw down the right sideline to (Royal I think) that was an incredible throw wiht the coverage given, but Royal (or whoever) could only get 1 foot down - otherwise it would have been a SICK throw and SICK catch.

I KNOW THIS ALSO - there were still some throws from Tebow that were absolutely off target, some with wide open WRs

but if anyone has the gamefilm and is going to look back at it or has the game DVR'd and wants to see it, were there any other CLOSE DROPS?

if so, would that 58% completion number WORK?

I mean, it seems that is all anyone is saying today about THE ENTIRE DENVER BRONCOS TEAM - that they are 1 dimensional, can't come from behind, not going to win with only 50% completion, etc etc

and in fairness, I am speaking about the national media cause my local guys are going ape shit over the FINS today finally putting one in the W column.

this is an honest question, no nut hanging, no Tebow fan appreciation thread

Thnikkaman
11-07-2011, 12:34 PM
I would like to see 60% pass completion if Timmeh continues to run 50+ yards a game. If the defense knows that 3 out of 5 passes will be caught, that opens up the running game a bit more, and makes us dangerous IMO.

claymore
11-07-2011, 12:38 PM
I would like to see a 50% 3rd down completion rate too.

Northman
11-07-2011, 12:41 PM
I would have to go back and research the pass percentage of the top flight/HOF/SB winning QB's and see what the average is. Off the top of my head i would say 58% wont cut it. While he will win some games i dont think those numbers will be enough to win championships. But like i said, i would have to go look at the numbers as i think they are at least 60% or higher.

slim
11-07-2011, 12:41 PM
I could live with 55% from TT, at least in the short-term.

Dreadnought
11-07-2011, 12:42 PM
I want 7.5 YPA or more, preferably 8.0 YPA. He can do that via 50%, 60% or what have you. I'd be happy with that. He is coming up short as of now, but I loved yesterday that he hit 2 deep crossing patterns in stride, both of which resulted in scores. Orton didn't hit guys in stride all that often - a 6 yard curl is comparatively easy to complete, but almost always results at best in a six yard gain. Its especially easy to complete on 3rd and ten, another Orton specialty :D

wayninja
11-07-2011, 12:43 PM
People get too hung up on that particular stat. Without context, completion percentage is meaningless.

For example, you could handily win with a 20% completion percentage if all 20% are touchdown passes. Conversely, you could handily lose if you have an 80% completion percentage, but 20% of your passes are interceptions.

I know that's not likely, but splitting hairs on a few percentages just doesn't mean a whole lot.

A higher number is almost always better, sure, but it also doesn't necessarily really mean much in terms of wins/losses.

I don't care if he completes 48% of passes consistently if we can score over 30pts per game.

Mike
11-07-2011, 12:43 PM
Right now I will settle for what I saw in the second half. He looked a lot more comfortable. I think with that comfort level, progression with the foot work, and the understanding/practice with the other players the accuracy will get better.

Lots of room for improvement, but much better than the previous two games. I am not going to get hung up on the numbers, I just want to see more of what I saw in the second half and see the coaches build up from there.

Northman
11-07-2011, 12:45 PM
I don't care if he completes 48% of passes consistently if we can score over 30pts per game.

Unfortuantely thats going to be the tricky part.

Poet
11-07-2011, 12:47 PM
I would have to go back and research the pass percentage of the top flight/HOF/SB winning QB's and see what the average is. Off the top of my head i would say 58% wont cut it. While he will win some games i dont think those numbers will be enough to win championships. But like i said, i would have to go look at the numbers as i think they are at least 60% or higher.

It's an era thing. 58% in the old days would be like 70% now.

Also, it's fair to point out that if the standards are that of a hall of fame quarterback, that's really, really high.

vandammage13
11-07-2011, 12:48 PM
58% would work for Tebow with his style of play.

He doesn't need to be surgical and hit at a 65% rate..(would be nice but it doesn't need to be that high if he's able to make an occasional play down the field with his arm while still running for 60+ yards a game.

I really think Tebow can develop into a dangerous weapon if he can become just average in the passing game...The guy brings so many other things to the table that make gameplanning difficult.

I like the belly-read play...At first Oak was keying in on McGahee, but after Tebow burned them on a couple of keepers they had to respect his threat of running...This is what opened up the big plays for McGahee.

I would like to see the medium to deep ball incorporated more in the belly-read plays. If defenses have to keep dedicating extra bodies to account for both Tebow and McGahee, that should open up the passing game off of the belly-read playaction...Tebow keeps it, fakes the run and hits them deep.

TXBRONC
11-07-2011, 12:50 PM
I want 7.5 YPA or more, preferably 8.0 YPA. He can do that via 50%, 60% or what have you. I'd be happy with that. He is coming up short as of now, but I loved yesterday that he hit 2 deep crossing patterns in stride, both of which resulted in scores. Orton didn't hit guys in stride all that often - a 6 yard curl is comparatively easy to complete, but almost always results at best in a six yard gain. Its especially easy to complete on 3rd and ten, another Orton specialty :D

Well Dread Elway doesn't seem to think a 50% completion will get the job done consistently. He didn't say he had to complete 60% of his passes but my guess would be that he and Fox would think if quarterback completes anywhere from 57% on up that they can probably win consistently.

Nomad
11-07-2011, 12:50 PM
Right now I will settle for what I saw in the second half. He looked a lot more comfortable. I think with that comfort level, progression with the foot work, and the understanding/practice with the other players the accuracy will get better.

Lots of room for improvement, but much better than the previous two games. I am not going to get hung up on the numbers, I just want to see more of what I saw in the second half and see the coaches build up from there.

Agreed!

Just think.....not sure exact years the forward pass turned the NFL around but 70+ yrs ago, yesterday's performance would have been an All Pro performance by Tebow!

Northman
11-07-2011, 12:51 PM
It's an era thing. 58% in the old days would be like 70% now.

Also, it's fair to point out that if the standards are that of a hall of fame quarterback, that's really, really high.

Well, thats because 9/10 of the QB's who win championships or even make the SB on a regular basis are HOF'rs. I mean, while i might enjoy winning a SB with Tebow i dont want it too be a one and done kind of deal. I want a QB who can consistently get us in position to be in the SB and play at a very high level. In other words i dont want a trent dilfer but a John Elway, Tom Brady, Joe Montana, etc. That really should be every teams goal when it comes to the QB position.

vandammage13
11-07-2011, 12:54 PM
58% would work for Tebow with his style of play.

He doesn't need to be surgical and hit at a 65% rate..(would be nice but it doesn't need to be that high if he's able to make an occasional play down the field with his arm while still running for 60+ yards a game.

I really think Tebow can develop into a dangerous weapon if he can become just average in the passing game...The guy brings so many other things to the table that make gameplanning difficult.

I like the belly-read play...At first Oak was keying in on McGahee, but after Tebow burned them on a couple of keepers they had to respect his threat of running...This is what opened up the big plays for McGahee.

I would like to see the medium to deep ball incorporated more in the belly-read plays. If defenses have to keep dedicating extra bodies to account for both Tebow and McGahee, that should open up the passing game off of the belly-read playaction...Tebow keeps it, fakes the run and hits them deep.

Dread...how the hell are you editing my posts???

*EDIT*---OK I see you fixed it...I was confused there for a sec.

Dreadnought
11-07-2011, 12:54 PM
58% would work for Tebow with his style of play.

He doesn't need to be surgical and hit at a 65% rate..(would be nice but it doesn't need to be that high if he's able to make an occasional play down the field with his arm while still running for 60+ yards a game.

I really think Tebow can develop into a dangerous weapon if he can become just average in the passing game...The guy brings so many other things to the table that make gameplanning difficult.

I like the belly-read play...At first Oak was keying in on McGahee, but after Tebow burned them on a couple of keepers they had to respect his threat of running...This is what opened up the big plays for McGahee.

I would like to see the medium to deep ball incorporated more in the belly-read plays. If defenses have to keep dedicating extra bodies to account for both Tebow and McGahee, that should open up the passing game off of the belly-read playaction...Tebow keeps it, fakes the run and hits them deep.




If Tebow can hit those passes consistently, that sort triple option is almost literally undefendable. The defense cannot be in enough places or cover that much field.

wayninja
11-07-2011, 12:55 PM
58% would work for Tebow with his style of play.

He doesn't need to be surgical and hit at a 65% rate..(would be nice but it doesn't need to be that high if he's able to make an occasional play down the field with his arm while still running for 60+ yards a game.

I really think Tebow can develop into a dangerous weapon if he can become just average in the passing game...The guy brings so many other things to the table that make gameplanning difficult.

I like the belly-read play...At first Oak was keying in on McGahee, but after Tebow burned them on a couple of keepers they had to respect his threat of running...This is what opened up the big plays for McGahee.

I would like to see the medium to deep ball incorporated more in the belly-read plays. If defenses have to keep dedicating extra bodies to account for both Tebow and McGahee, that should open up the passing game off of the belly-read playaction...Tebow keeps it, fakes the run and hits them deep.

If Tebow can hit those passes consistently, that sort triple option is almost literally undefendable. The defense cannot be in enough places or cover that much field.

I agree completely. At the very least being good at that triple option will force Defenses to stop with the constant pressure that the Lions were so successful with and give Tebow more time. Seems to me that the longer a play goes the more likely Tebow is to do something good.

I've also notice that as games progress Tebow seems to get better. Like he starts out really jittery and calms down over the course of the game. If he can come out cool and collected, completion percentage should spike. Does someone have the numbers to break down percentage by half?

shank
11-07-2011, 12:56 PM
i am pretty surprised that after 2 years of orton, anyone here gives two ****s and a rusty nickle about the stat line. the number means nothing to me.

Tned
11-07-2011, 12:57 PM
I would have to go back and research the pass percentage of the top flight/HOF/SB winning QB's and see what the average is. Off the top of my head i would say 58% wont cut it. While he will win some games i dont think those numbers will be enough to win championships. But like i said, i would have to go look at the numbers as i think they are at least 60% or higher.

Right now, very few quality starting QBs are below 60% and most of the good ones are closer to 65%.

IMO, as a young guy, if he can be in the 55%+ area while he's still young and learning, while adding some plays with his feet, it would be fine.

Long term, he needs to be in the 60%+ range.

vandammage13
11-07-2011, 01:00 PM
I agree completely. At the very least being good at that triple option will force Defenses to stop with the constant pressure that the Lions were so successful with and give Tebow more time. Seems to me that the longer a play goes the more likely Tebow is to do something good.

I've also notice that as games progress Tebow seems to get better. Like he starts out really jittery and calms down over the course of the game. If he can come out cool and collected, completion percentage should spike. Does someone have the numbers to break down percentage by half?

I think it has also taken a little while for the coaching staff to adjust the playcalling to Tebow's strengths...

I guess in hindsight you can't expect to change the entire offensive scheme mid-season in just one week...Normally your scheme is established in Traning Camp and ran the duration of the season. (I know many of the players have been quoted as saying the offense hasn't changed...but c'mon...anyone watching knows better).

I think adapting the offense to Tebow is a continuous process, and I think we will see more things each week as the entire offense grows more comfortable running this style.

...I would like to see Tebow slide more on the runs like he started to do in the 4th quarter...Sometimes its not worth getting those extra few yards...If he can learn to do that then I think he'll be fine.

Tned
11-07-2011, 01:05 PM
Dread...how the hell are you editing my posts???

*EDIT*---OK I see you fixed it...I was confused there for a sec.

Amazing it doesn't happen more. Mods have the edit buttong next to the quote button on every post. If you are in a hurry, you can click the edit button when you mean to click the quote button.

Dirk
11-07-2011, 01:06 PM
I know different era and all...but Elway had a career 56.9% completion. Just sayin.


I believe it all comes down to who they play and what works against them.

vandammage13
11-07-2011, 01:07 PM
Amazing it doesn't happen more. Mods have the edit buttong next to the quote button on every post. If you are in a hurry, you can click the edit button when you mean to click the quote button.

Yeah I figured that's how it worked..

Northman
11-07-2011, 01:07 PM
Right now, very few quality starting QBs are below 60% and most of the good ones are closer to 65%.

IMO, as a young guy, if he can be in the 55%+ area while he's still young and learning, while adding some plays with his feet, it would be fine.

Long term, he needs to be in the 60%+ range.

And thats what im getting at. Looking at the percentages of the modern era QB's to be successful in terms of reaching the SB and having success it needs to be in that range. But perhaps the good news for Tebow is since he is a bit more of a scrambler maybe he can afford to be a little lower. When looking at Elway's percentages against guys like Aikman and Montana he wasnt nearly as good with is passing. But, we all know he was a playmaker who could scramble at times and make plays and got to 5 SB's. So, perhaps Tebow has that factor going in his favor. But just off the surface it would take a much more improved percentage for Tebow to reach a high level in the modern era of pro football.

Terry Bradshaw- 51%
Joe Namath- 50%
Len Dawson- 57%

Troy Aikman- 61%
Joe Montana- 63%
John Elway- 57%

Peyton Manning- 64%
Tom Brady- 63%
Ben Roethlisberger- 63%
Drew Brees- 65%
Aaron Rodgers- 65%

Northman
11-07-2011, 01:08 PM
i am pretty surprised that after 2 years of orton, anyone here gives two ****s and a rusty nickle about the stat line. the number means nothing to me.

While stats are not the be all end all they do have their merit in certain discussions/situations.

Poet
11-07-2011, 01:11 PM
Stats always have merit.

lgenf
11-07-2011, 01:13 PM
Peyton Manning- 64%
Tom Brady- 63%
Ben Roethlisberger- 63%
Drew Brees- 65%
Aaron Rodgers- 65%

these guys are pretty surgical by todays standards, but I wonder what they looked like on their 6th start?

or better yet, I wonder what their first year looke like?

I know they are all good/great QBs now, but what did they look like as rookies?

something I heard funny from Deon last night on NFLN was look, Tebow is in his 6th start and is 3-3, now Peyton Manning as a rookie SET THE INT RECORD, and I'm not saying Tebow is Manning, but let's wait and see what he does when he knows what he's doing back there, cause Manning wasn't Manning his first year either

slim
11-07-2011, 01:13 PM
And thats what im getting at. Looking at the percentages of the modern era QB's to be successful in terms of reaching the SB and having success it needs to be in that range. But perhaps the good news for Tebow is since he is a bit more of a scrambler maybe he can afford to be a little lower. When looking at Elway's percentages against guys like Aikman and Montana he wasnt nearly as good with is passing. But, we all know he was a playmaker who could scramble at times and make plays and got to 5 SB's. So, perhaps Tebow has that factor going in his favor. But just off the surface it would take a much more improved percentage for Tebow to reach a high level in the modern era of pro football.

Terry Bradshaw- 51%
Joe Namath- 50%
Len Dawson- 57%

Troy Aikman- 61%
Joe Montana- 63%
John Elway- 57%

Peyton Manning- 64%
Tom Brady- 63%
Ben Roethlisberger- 63%
Drew Brees- 65%
Aaron Rodgers- 65%

But those are career numbers.

Aikman was around 53% when he was a rookie...so was Matt Stafford.

Eli Manning was <50% as a rookie....so was Vick.

Some young QBs struggle with it. It's just part of the maturation process.

Tned
11-07-2011, 01:14 PM
And thats what im getting at. Looking at the percentages of the modern era QB's to be successful in terms of reaching the SB and having success it needs to be in that range. But perhaps the good news for Tebow is since he is a bit more of a scrambler maybe he can afford to be a little lower. When looking at Elway's percentages against guys like Aikman and Montana he wasnt nearly as good with is passing. But, we all know he was a playmaker who could scramble at times and make plays and got to 5 SB's. So, perhaps Tebow has that factor going in his favor. But just off the surface it would take a much more improved percentage for Tebow to reach a high level in the modern era of pro football.

Terry Bradshaw- 51%
Joe Namath- 50%
Len Dawson- 57%

Troy Aikman- 61%
Joe Montana- 63%
John Elway- 57%

Peyton Manning- 64%
Tom Brady- 63%
Ben Roethlisberger- 63%
Drew Brees- 65%
Aaron Rodgers- 65%

Yep, basically my thoughts as well. I think that his mobility could allow him to have a 'little' lower passing percentage ~60% and still be successful, but for that to work it means that he has to pick up some 3rd or 4th downs with his legs, and also get some big plays on broken plays.

That's one of the reasons I like the YPA number. No one stat tells the whole story, and I'm not saying YPA does, but if he's completion percentage is down, but his YPA is the same as say a Rodgers or Brees, that means he's doing more with his completions than they are, which in my mind makes up for it.

Along with that, he also needs to be up there with 3rd down conversions and such.

Dreadnought
11-07-2011, 01:15 PM
Yeah I figured that's how it worked..

If you were more prone to flaming and insulting other posters you would be familiar with our amazing Mod powers. You were unfamiliar as you haven't been calling other guys ******* douchebags and such like tomfoolery. That is not true for every poster here :D

slim
11-07-2011, 01:17 PM
If you were more prone to flaming and insulting other posters you would be familiar with our amazing Mod powers. You were unfamiliar as you haven't been calling other guys ******* douchebags and such like tomfoolery. That is not true for every poster here :D

Shut it....******* douchebag.

:welcome:

Northman
11-07-2011, 01:17 PM
these guys are pretty surgical by todays standards, but I wonder what they looked like on their 6th start?

or better yet, I wonder what their first year looke like?

I know they are all good/great QBs now, but what did they look like as rookies?

something I heard funny from Deon last night on NFLN was look, Tebow is in his 6th start and is 3-3, now Peyton Manning as a rookie SET THE INT RECORD, and I'm not saying Tebow is Manning, but let's wait and see what he does when he knows what he's doing back there, cause Manning wasn't Manning his first year either

I agree totally however your question was can Tebow succeed at 58%. So either you need to clarify what you mean by that. Do you mean 58% in just his first year? or 58% in his career? If we are going by career my point still stands that he needs to get over the 60% mark.

Dreadnought
11-07-2011, 01:18 PM
Shut it....******* douchebag.

:welcome:

Howz about we trade you to the Mane for Dream, Slimgator? How d'ya like them apples?

Northman
11-07-2011, 01:18 PM
But those are career numbers.

Aikman was around 53% when he was a rookie...so was Matt Stafford.

Eli Manning was <50% as a rookie....so was Vick.

Some young QBs struggle with it. It's just part of the maturation process.

Agreed, but see my last post.

slim
11-07-2011, 01:21 PM
Agreed, but see my last post.

Yeah, I guess we were talking about different things.

I agree that at some point he needs to be around 60%.

lgenf
11-07-2011, 01:24 PM
I agree totally however your question was can Tebow succeed at 58%. So either you need to clarify what you mean by that. Do you mean 58% in just his first year? or 58% in his career? If we are going by career my point still stands that he needs to get over the 60% mark.

I guess I am speaking of right now

kind of like this:

If Tebow was completing 58% of passes, not throwing a crap load of INTs, and still running the way he is

would that suffice?

what are people looking for him to do, what is the magic combo where people say, oh, yeah, I guess.........well.......you see he did that thing........oh damn it I just give up.

I don't think anyone in the media is every going to give him the props he deserves after stating much of their professional opinions on the fact that he shouldn't play QB in the NFL, but they seeming to have less and less to hang their hat on.

I mean HE IS A ROOKIE by his start count, and all I want to see is him get better each week, which I think he is doing, but we played Detroit in the middle of these 3 games, so take that for what its worth

Tned
11-07-2011, 01:27 PM
I agree totally however your question was can Tebow succeed at 58%. So either you need to clarify what you mean by that. Do you mean 58% in just his first year? or 58% in his career? If we are going by career my point still stands that he needs to get over the 60% mark.

I'm not as concerned about the completion percentage as I am about some other things like conversion rates (3rd down, RZ, etc.).

What I do fell strongly about is that he can't continue with 10 or so rushing attempts a game. I like the occasional naked boot run/throw option that if the field is open he can take for a 10-40 yard gain, and of course the QB draw now and then in the RZ or with a 3rd and 3 or so. However, it's not smart to keep running him between the tackles, especially when the defense is geared up and ready for it.

So, if they eliminate most of the in between the tackle runs, use his mobility mostly as a pass play extender, and even with a sub 60% he's got a good YPA, good 3rd down conversion, good RZ conversion, good 1st downs per game rate, then the lower percentage would be ok.

The problem is that the lower your completion percentage the more big plays you need.

Now, to put things in perspective in terms of a game, vs. the season, which I think is what the OP was really getting at. If a QB has 30 pass attempts, the difference between 60% and 65% is 1.5 completions. At 45 pass attempts that 5% difference is a little over 2 completions a game.

So, the reality is that while we have gotten used to these gaudy completion percentages, in many cases made up at least in part with a lot of screens and short yardage plays, it is a gauge not a requirement for success.

cuzz4169
11-07-2011, 01:32 PM
Who cares about the #'s he's 3-3 with a bad team. Let him develop he should continue to get better as he plays. Guys are looking for way to much out of a qb everyone believed wouldn't be ready to play for 2-3 years.

lgenf
11-07-2011, 01:36 PM
Now, to put things in perspective in terms of a game, vs. the season, which I think is what the OP was really getting at. If a QB has 30 pass attempts, the difference between 60% and 65% is 1.5 completions. At 45 pass attempts that 5% difference is a little over 2 completions a game.

So, the reality is that while we have gotten used to these gaudy completion percentages, in many cases made up at least in part with a lot of screens and short yardage plays, it is a gauge not a requirement for success.

exactly T

if everyone just wants to see a 58-62% completion

then that is like 2 or 3 more catches, that doesn't seem to much to get Tebow to, but I don't think it is the KEY for wins the way others (including Elway) are talking about

what I think is FUNNY - in Elway's comments today after the game on the VIC and GARY or G and V show, I think Elway said "I don't THINK you can win only at 50%"

I gotta go back and read the Posts comments

Northman
11-07-2011, 01:37 PM
I guess I am speaking of right now

kind of like this:

If Tebow was completing 58% of passes, not throwing a crap load of INTs, and still running the way he is

would that suffice?

what are people looking for him to do, what is the magic combo where people say, oh, yeah, I guess.........well.......you see he did that thing........oh damn it I just give up.

I don't think anyone in the media is every going to give him the props he deserves after stating much of their professional opinions on the fact that he shouldn't play QB in the NFL, but they seeming to have less and less to hang their hat on.

I mean HE IS A ROOKIE by his start count, and all I want to see is him get better each week, which I think he is doing, but we played Detroit in the middle of these 3 games, so take that for what its worth


Well for me, as he learns this year it will suffice. Obviously, i want to see some growth before the end of the year. However, with him still throwing in that range we saw that he will need more help like he got yesterday from McGahee, the defense, and ST's. Now, every QB needs those to succeed anyway but some rely on it more than others. So for now, in terms of winning ballgames Tim can get away with it so as long as there is help there.

But,, as far as growth from his position and in the longterm process he will need to improve. Now, like i pointed out to Tned if Tebow can utilize his ability with his legs more than the other QB's in the league than great. He may be able to get away with being in the 60% range instead of 63-65% range. My only concern there is the more running he does the more chances he takes of getting hurt because he is just going to get hit more.

The thing about the Detroit game is that he still faced a physical team in Oakland and found a way to make things happen. But he definitely needs to protect the ball like he did yesterday. In the games that we lost this year turnovers were a major player in those losses. So if he can take care of the ball than he's already ahead of the game. From here on out its just a matter if he can improve and get more comfortable throwing from the pocket.

lgenf
11-07-2011, 01:41 PM
The thing about the Detroit game is that he still faced a physical team in Oakland and found a way to make things happen.

North the BIG difference I saw yesterday is that, Yes Oakland was still physical, BUT and this is a BIG BUTT!!!

Oakland had to bring the house, or at least 2 guys, LB and DB combo to get that pressure, rather Detroit can get it with only their front 4

when Oakland was killing us early in the game or in the first half of the game in general, they were bringing 7 or 8

Detroit didn't need to do that, so Detroit still had folks in coverage.

Northman
11-07-2011, 01:41 PM
I'm not as concerned about the completion percentage as I am about some other things like conversion rates (3rd down, RZ, etc.).

What I do fell strongly about is that he can't continue with 10 or so rushing attempts a game. I like the occasional naked boot run/throw option that if the field is open he can take for a 10-40 yard gain, and of course the QB draw now and then in the RZ or with a 3rd and 3 or so. However, it's not smart to keep running him between the tackles, especially when the defense is geared up and ready for it.

So, if they eliminate most of the in between the tackle runs, use his mobility mostly as a pass play extender, and even with a sub 60% he's got a good YPA, good 3rd down conversion, good RZ conversion, good 1st downs per game rate, then the lower percentage would be ok.

The problem is that the lower your completion percentage the more big plays you need.

Now, to put things in perspective in terms of a game, vs. the season, which I think is what the OP was really getting at. If a QB has 30 pass attempts, the difference between 60% and 65% is 1.5 completions. At 45 pass attempts that 5% difference is a little over 2 completions a game.

So, the reality is that while we have gotten used to these gaudy completion percentages, in many cases made up at least in part with a lot of screens and short yardage plays, it is a gauge not a requirement for success.


And thats the key there for me, i dont think at this time he will be able to get away with that week in and week out. Overall this team plays inconsistent and i dont believe we are going to get that kind of performance out of the rest of the team every week. So i think at some point Tim is going to have to raise his play as a passer more to alleviate some of that when we struggle running the ball or give up bad field position. Its a work in progress but im not sold right now that his percentage is going to cut it in the long run. Like anything else, if we become to predictable on offense and teams get film on Tebow they will start to take away the things he does best, especially the really good teams.

Tned
11-07-2011, 01:43 PM
exactly T

if everyone just wants to see a 58-62% completion

then that is like 2 or 3 more catches, that doesn't seem to much to get Tebow to, but I don't think it is the KEY for wins the way others (including Elway) are talking about

what I think is FUNNY - in Elway's comments today after the game on the VIC and GARY or G and V show, I think Elway said "I don't THINK you can win only at 50%"

I gotta go back and read the Posts comments

That's the problem with completion percentages. Elway kind of touched on it. He said when you throw to covered receivers, you are going to have balls batted away and stuff like that, but the key is that when you have open receivers that you hit them.

Right now, Tebow is missing open receivers. In some cases, wide open receivers. Now, this game, he was much better, but he still had the throw to a wide open Julius Thomas where he threw it 6-10 feet over his head. He overthrew Decker in the endzone (that wasn't as bad, because Decker was covered and you had to get it out in front of him.

It's missing the open receivers that he needs to improve on. That will result in a higher completion percentage, but more important, result in more 3rd down conversions and more first downs and scores.

Tned
11-07-2011, 01:47 PM
And thats the key there for me, i dont think at this time he will be able to get away with that week in and week out. Overall this team plays inconsistent and i dont believe we are going to get that kind of performance out of the rest of the team every week. So i think at some point Tim is going to have to raise his play as a passer more to alleviate some of that when we struggle running the ball or give up bad field position. Its a work in progress but im not sold right now that his percentage is going to cut it in the long run. Like anything else, if we become to predictable on offense and teams get film on Tebow they will start to take away the things he does best, especially the really good teams.

Definitely won't cut it at >50%.

The other thing we shouldn't ignore with his low completion percentage is that it is the main reason that Miami, Detroit and Oakland blitzed like crazy. His passing has to improve or the Broncos will keep seeing those blitz heavy defensive game plans.

Northman
11-07-2011, 01:50 PM
North the BIG difference I saw yesterday is that, Yes Oakland was still physical, BUT and this is a BIG BUTT!!!

Oakland had to bring the house, or at least 2 guys, LB and DB combo to get that pressure, rather Detroit can get it with only their front 4

when Oakland was killing us early in the game or in the first half of the game in general, they were bringing 7 or 8

Detroit didn't need to do that, so Detroit still had folks in coverage.

Actually, Detroit did blitz plenty mate. I think one of the bigger differences was how we ran the ball. McGahee was clearly missed vs the Lions.

Poet
11-07-2011, 01:52 PM
You keep saying that it's just 2 or 3 more catches. It's also two or three BETTER throws.

It's using the audible to get a better matchup, it's better pocket awareness to extend the play, it's a lot of things.

vandammage13
11-07-2011, 01:55 PM
You keep saying that it's just 2 or 3 more catches. It's also two or three BETTER throws.

It's using the audible to get a better matchup, it's better pocket awareness to extend the play, it's a lot of things.

Ill trade 100+ yards rushing and a W for 2 or 3 terrible throws that fall harmlessly to the ground.

Tned
11-07-2011, 01:57 PM
Actually, Detroit did blitz plenty mate. I think one of the bigger differences was how we ran the ball. McGahee was clearly missed vs the Lions.

I have no idea what the breakdown was, but Fox talked about how Detroit, unlike all of their film from this year, blitzed the Broncos regularly. He talked about how that surprised them and they weren't prepared for it, or something like that.

I know there were quite a few times they ran zero blitzes, where they blitzed everyone except for their defenders in one on one coverage in the secondary.

G_Money
11-07-2011, 01:58 PM
Tebow doesn't have to be at 65% like the other guys. Reason? Tim's QB runs function as short completed passes (or in some cases, long completed passes).

10-of-21, 124 yards, plus 12 carries for 118 yards = 22 of 33 for 242 yards of QB centered plays. 66%. If Tim threw for 242 yards on 22 of 33 we'd think he's doing great.

Tim needs to have at least a mid-50s completion percentage and limit his turnovers. He's not gonna run for 100+ yards every game (so the completion % needs to be higher) but the threat of that kind of running can wreak havoc on opposing defenses, and it allows running QBs to still be very effective even with a slightly lower completion percentage because the percentage of plays enacted by the QB is being effective at a higher rate.

It can also destroy your offense if you insist on putting the ball on the ground while you're out and about. If QB runs count as 100% completed short passes, then QB fumbles are every bit the killer that INTs are, worse in some ways because they're not being picked off 40 yards downfield.

Michael Vick’s problem in Atlanta was not his mid-50s completion percentage, it was his turnover rate.

2004 – 16 fumbles (led the league), 12 picks
2005 – 11 fumbles, 13 picks
2006 – 9 fumbles, 13 picks

If 250 pound Tebow can hold onto the ball when he runs, like 205 pound Mike Vick couldn’t, then those runs mean more.

Peyton Manning or Drew Bledsoe or Dan Marino needs to have a really high completion rate because he's not gonna make plays with his feet. John Elway or Randall Cunningham or Steve McNair can have a lower completion percentage and still be successful because of the extra efficency of their scrambling/rollout/bootleg/designed run game.

And the reason that Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the game is that he has BOTH the accuracy AND the legs. Hence the drool-factor on Andrew Luck.

Tim is never gonna be completing massive percentages game in and game out. If he can get up to about 60% he's gonna be a star (legitimately, for the in-game part of his fame), and at 55% he can make a positive difference, IMO.

If he's playing in the right offense with a good OL and dangerous running threats, as well as receivers who can catch the occasional errant ball...look the eff out.

Again, assuming his completion percentage climbs a bit and he keeps turnovers to a minimum.

~G

Poet
11-07-2011, 01:58 PM
Ill trade 100+ yards rushing and a W for 2 or 3 terrible throws that fall harmlessly to the ground.

Over the course of a career...he won't last very long.

Rushing needs to be what puts him over the top as a player, not the mainstay.

BeefStew25
11-07-2011, 02:02 PM
Yesterday he overthrew Fells again. Pretty much the same route he missed in Miami. I went to get the brass knuckles to beat my wife.

He then throws a beautiful ball for a TD.

He tortures my soul.

vandammage13
11-07-2011, 02:03 PM
Over the course of a career...he won't last very long.

Rushing needs to be what puts him over the top as a player, not the mainstay.

Of course you are ignoring the possibility that he could improve on the passing side....

I agree, running shouldn't be the mainstay, but it can help him get by early in his career IF he can learn to be a servicable passer by year 3 or 4.

I believe with a commitment from the FO and Coaching staff that TT can develop these skills if given the time...meanwhile he can continue to make plays with his feet until he learns the NFL game.

Tned
11-07-2011, 02:04 PM
Great breakdown and great points, G.


Yesterday he overthrew Fells again. Pretty much the same route he missed in Miami. I went to get the brass knuckles to beat my wife.

He then throws a beautiful ball for a TD.

He tortures my soul.

Yea, when he threw that one 10' over Thomas' head (not fells), I'm thinking, WTH, not again.

claymore
11-07-2011, 02:05 PM
Yesterday he overthrew Fells again. Pretty much the same route he missed in Miami. I went to get the brass knuckles to beat my wife.

He then throws a beautiful ball for a TD.

He tortures my soul.

Thats where Im at. As soon as I start chanting "Tebow Sucks, Tebow Sucks.." He does something that makes me high five my wife or kids or whatever.

BeefStew25
11-07-2011, 02:06 PM
Great breakdown and great points, G.



Yea, when he threw that one 10' over Thomas' head (not fells), I'm thinking, WTH, not again.

Oh. Thomas. Sorry. They look alike.

Which was ironic, as O.com field has dugouts also.

Dreadnought
11-07-2011, 02:09 PM
Thats where Im at. As soon as I start chanting "Tebow Sucks, Tebow Sucks.." He does something that makes me high five my wife or kids or whatever.

Sure as Hell more interesting than watching Kyle Orton play QB, eh what? Not that "interesting" always means "good" in this case - but there is just that chance that the kid could be special.

BeefStew25
11-07-2011, 02:10 PM
My son (3) and I wrestled each other with joy after Royals punt return. Which needs to happen, as he is buddies with some budding Dolphin fans.

slim
11-07-2011, 02:22 PM
My son (3) and I wrestled each other with joy after Royals punt return. Which needs to happen, as he is buddies with some budding Dolphin fans.

We did the same at my house.

My son (2.5) has never really seen me that happy while watching a football game. He wasn't sure what to think.

BeefStew25
11-07-2011, 02:23 PM
We did the same at my house.

My son (2.5) has never really seen me that happy while watching a football game. He wasn't sure what to think.

I was whooping it up and he looked at me like my syphilis finally got to my brain stem.

He went to school this morning saying 'Eddie Royal'.

slim
11-07-2011, 02:25 PM
I was whooping it up and he looked at me like my syphilis finally got to my brain stem.

He went to school this morning saying 'Eddie Royal'.

I finally got mine to say "Go Broncos" yesterday.

I think my chipper mood helped that along.

BeefStew25
11-07-2011, 02:28 PM
I finally got mine to say "Go Broncos" yesterday.

I think my chipper mood helped that along.

I taught mine to say, "Mom, dad needs a hummer."

G_Money
11-07-2011, 02:29 PM
I taught mine to say, "Mom, dad needs a hummer."

When he says that does she give one to the mailman as requested?

~G

BeefStew25
11-07-2011, 02:31 PM
When he says that does she give one to the mailman as requested?

~G

We have a mail chick. So, that would be awesome.

BroncoJoe
11-07-2011, 02:31 PM
All my kids hate the Raiders, Chiefs and Chargers. It's a family hate affair.

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 02:34 PM
I would have to go back and research the pass percentage of the top flight/HOF/SB winning QB's and see what the average is. Off the top of my head i would say 58% wont cut it. While he will win some games i dont think those numbers will be enough to win championships. But like i said, i would have to go look at the numbers as i think they are at least 60% or higher.

Different eras but here are a few similar qbs from a geration ago.

Staubach 57%

Bradshaw 52%

Tarkenton 57%

Plunkett low 50s

Cunningham mid 50s

Northman
11-07-2011, 02:36 PM
Different eras but here are a few similar qbs from a geration ago.

Staubach 57%

Bradshaw 52%

Tarkenton 57%

Plunkett low 50s

Cunningham mid 50s

Yea, i went and looked it up already but thanks. Unfortuantely, its a different age and in order to succeed at a high level it has to be 60% or better. Tebow could get there but time will tell.

GEM
11-07-2011, 02:37 PM
I have no idea what the breakdown was, but Fox talked about how Detroit, unlike all of their film from this year, blitzed the Broncos regularly. He talked about how that surprised them and they weren't prepared for it, or something like that.

I know there were quite a few times they ran zero blitzes, where they blitzed everyone except for their defenders in one on one coverage in the secondary.

The Detroit defenders said it themselves. "We knew all we had to do was bring pressure on Tebow..."

G_Money
11-07-2011, 02:39 PM
I want to see the Chiefs bring the house against Tebow and see if our playcalling and his reads have improved in 2 weeks.

~G

lgenf
11-07-2011, 02:41 PM
I want to see the Chiefs bring the house against Tebow and see if our playcalling and his reads have improved in 2 weeks.

~G

I think timing, familarity etc are all starting to take hold, and I think with this win, our overall team mentality is improving

like our guys are finally buying in

Mike
11-07-2011, 02:44 PM
We did the same at my house.

My son (2.5) has never really seen me that happy while watching a football game. He wasn't sure what to think.

My daughter looked at me and then my wife and was like "mama what is going on with dad?" It was at that moment that I realized how long it had been since I got excited during a Broncos game.

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 02:46 PM
My daughter looked at me and then my wife and was like "mama what is going on with dad?" It was at that moment that I realized how long it had been since I got excited during a Broncos game.

True story. Same thing with my daughter (2 1/2 as well) yesterday. I think she thought I was pissed at first lol

LordTrychon
11-07-2011, 02:47 PM
My daughter looked at me and then my wife and was like "mama what is going on with dad?" It was at that moment that I realized how long it had been since I got excited during a Broncos game.

"Luv Dem Broncos"

Mike
11-07-2011, 02:48 PM
"Luv Dem Broncos"

LDB baby. :beer:

BeefStew25
11-07-2011, 02:48 PM
I have a feeling at the Bears game, BDB and I are going to do the reverse wheelbarrell.

claymore
11-07-2011, 02:48 PM
Sure as Hell more interesting than watching Kyle Orton play QB, eh what? Not that "interesting" always means "good" in this case - but there is just that chance that the kid could be special.

Tebow being mediocre is my greatest fear. If he is mediocre he will get another year or 2. I want him to be Great, or look like he did against detroit.

BeefStew25
11-07-2011, 02:50 PM
Tebow being mediocre is my greatest fear. If he is mediocre he will get another year or 2. I want him to be Great, or look like he did against detroit.

He doesn't need to be a HOFer. I want the same production out of him that Seattle got out of Hasselbeck for years.

Above average, but can makes plays.

Poet
11-07-2011, 02:51 PM
Tebow being mediocre is my greatest fear. If he is mediocre he will get another year or 2. I want him to be Great, or look like he did against detroit.

You just need that next chapter to start.

claymore
11-07-2011, 02:51 PM
He doesn't need to be a HOFer. I want the same production out of him that Seattle got out of Hasselbeck for years.

Above average, but can makes plays.

If he makes Chuncky soup commercials I will be happy. :D

G_Money
11-07-2011, 02:54 PM
The thing that pisses me off about Tebow is that he has IT, that thing that Elway had and Brister, Griese, Plummer, Orton et al do not.

He steps on the field and electricity runs through the crowd, the players, my living room...

And then he can go suck for 55 minutes :tsk:, but when he steps on the field with a game to win, it all amps up again.

I've seen winning teams that are as boring as drying paste - I prefer the pulse of life in my teams. And I've watched Elway WILL crappy teams to victory even after several quarters of crappiness himself.

Tebow has that will, and that life in his game.

If he had Elway's other gifts I would kick anyone who suggested drafting another QB next year hard in the nuts (and not just because they ask me to like you do, Beef).

I would dearly love for him to get to that 55, 60% completion mark consistently by the end of the year, improve his skills enough to earn another year's look, and see if that close game magic and incomparable aura can be housed in a competent QB's body.

Because I damn well miss it in Elway's.

It's still a long shot...but man, could that be sweet.

~G

Ziggy
11-07-2011, 02:55 PM
I'd love to see Tebow put in a call to Steve Young and spend the summer being mentored by him. If he can improve his footwork and reads, it would go a long way in making up for the elongated throwing motion, which I don't know that he'll ever be able to change in the heat of battle. Young had many of the same struggles early on in his career and turned himself into an elite pocket passer.

As far as completion % goes, comparing Tebow's to the QB's of the older era is apples to oranges. The rules back then favored the defenses. They could pretty much mug a receiver all the way down the field without getting called. Now they call holding or interference over the slightest bit of contact. The increase in passing yardage as a whole over the last decade is no coincidence.

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 02:56 PM
The thing that pisses me off about Tebow is that he has IT, that thing that Elway had and Brister, Griese, Plummer, Orton et al do not.

He steps on the field and electricity runs through the crowd, the players, my living room...

And then he can go suck for 55 minutes :tsk:, but when he steps on the field with a game to win, it all amps up again.

I've seen winning teams that are as boring as drying paste - I prefer the pulse of life in my teams. And I've watched Elway WILL crappy teams to victory even after several quarters of crappiness himself.

Tebow has that will, and that life in his game.

If he had Elway's other gifts I would kick anyone who suggested drafting another QB next year hard in the nuts (and not just because they ask me to like you do, Beef).

I would dearly love for him to get to that 55, 60% completion mark consistently by the end of the year, improve his skills enough to earn another year's look, and see if that close game magic and incomparable aura can be housed in a competent QB's body.

Because I damn well miss it in Elway's.

It's still a long shot...but man, could that be sweet.

~G

A few of the balls he threw yesterday looked very nice. I just wish I really believed in GAse as a QB coach. That's the stuff that can be refined

Northman
11-07-2011, 03:15 PM
He doesn't need to be a HOFer. I want the same production out of him that Seattle got out of Hasselbeck for years.

Above average, but can makes plays.

Really?

wayninja
11-07-2011, 03:19 PM
Really?

No, I'd prefer him to launch 60 yard bombs that he runs down the field to catch, play lockdown corner next to Champ on D and then return punts on special teams.

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 03:22 PM
Really?

if he puts up Hasselbeck numbers with his athletic ability I'd be more than fine with it.

catfish
11-07-2011, 03:29 PM
I want 7.5 YPA or more, preferably 8.0 YPA. He can do that via 50%, 60% or what have you. I'd be happy with that. He is coming up short as of now, but I loved yesterday that he hit 2 deep crossing patterns in stride, both of which resulted in scores. Orton didn't hit guys in stride all that often - a 6 yard curl is comparatively easy to complete, but almost always results at best in a six yard gain. Its especially easy to complete on 3rd and ten, another Orton specialty :D

this is actually a really good point, YPA takes into account completion % but also figures in quality of attempt(to a greater extent than pure comp%)

Northman
11-07-2011, 03:39 PM
if he puts up Hasselbeck numbers with his athletic ability I'd be more than fine with it.


I guess so if we had a all world defense to go with it. I dont know, i want to make multiple SB's so i guess my dream of a QB is at a higher level. I want a true FQB like we had when we went to 5 SB's.

Poet
11-07-2011, 03:49 PM
I don't think you're going to get that same scenario with a first ballot hof QB raping a shitty conference and then getting sodomized by dramatically stronger teams from the NFC while having said QB finally getting a studly team and winning two SB's.

I love run-on sentences.

Northman
11-07-2011, 03:52 PM
I don't think you're going to get that same scenario with a first ballot hof QB raping a shitty conference and then getting sodomized by dramatically stronger teams from the NFC while having said QB finally getting a studly team and winning two SB's.

I love run-on sentences.


I dont know. Playing against guys like Moon, Fouts, Kelly, and Marino i wouldnt really constitute as shitty competition. The thing is, during that 13 year stretch the NFC was just worlds better vs the AFC anyway. But ****, i would still take a guy like Manning, Big Ben or Brady over Hasslebeck.

Lancane
11-07-2011, 04:02 PM
Hell...he doesn't have to be that albeit perfect passer like Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers. seriously, I'd be content if he looked more like Ben Roethlisberger or Mark Sanchez, but alas he does not...not yet at least. I'm willing to see how it plays out. I would love to see him bring his completion percentage up for the rest of the season, I would say anything above 54.0 percent would be ideal, his overall yardage needs to come up as well by about a hundred yards a game IMHO to even be considered a capable starter at season's end. Biggest issue I have at this time is his accuracy and release, hopefully both improve game to game.

I agree with Claymore, I want him either to be the next franchise quarterback or our next big bust, but not in the middle...not mediocre, where this whole argument is dragged out for seasons on end until it changes once again.

Poet
11-07-2011, 04:05 PM
I dont know. Playing against guys like Moon, Fouts, Kelly, and Marino i wouldnt really constitute as shitty competition. The thing is, during that 13 year stretch the NFC was just worlds better vs the AFC anyway. But ****, i would still take a guy like Manning, Big Ben or Brady over Hasslebeck.

The NFC ran the NFL.

Hasslebeck has actually had a really strong career. I don't think that Big Ben's name should be in the conversation with Manning or Brady. Big Ben has two rings, but out of his three SB games he's been bad in two of them.

You can take all kinds of quarterbacks into a SB and win.

I'll put it to you this way, you make the argument that Elway is the best quarterback of all time and that you want a guy who can get you to the SB. I make the argument that Elway is one of the best of all time.

Do you really feel that you need the best QB of all time as you standard for what you want on your team?

Or, do you feel that you need my standard as being of the best of all-time as what you need on your team?

Because I know that Big Ben is not one of the all-time greats and Tom Brady never won a ring when he was an elite passing top three QB. Rodgers didn't win his ring as being one of the best but maybe he's on that route right now.

Brees is a stud and he won a ring. I see him as a potential HoFer but he's probably never going to be remembered as one of the absolute best.

To me, you need a franchise quarterback. To me, that means he's your guy, you're not looking to replace him and you feel like you can win it all with him. By that definition, even the good guys on the lesser tier like Flacco or Matt Ryan fit the criteria.

Hasslebeck made a SB and his team was in it until the end against a red-hot Pittsburgh that rolled over three potent offenses to get there.

In his prime and healthy he was very good. It just took a lot of developing to get into his prime and he did not have much durability. That was his problem.

Tned
11-07-2011, 04:12 PM
I wasn't sure where to put this, and didn't want to start another thread, so I'll stick it in here, since this has turned into a general Tebow thread.

This was from Royal's presser this morning:


On throws QB Tim Tebow is comfortable making:

“I kind of noticed with a lot of quarterbacks, there are certain throws that he’s comfortable with and he’ll make, but with Tim, it’s almost like every route, even if it’s drawn up as a decoy route, it’s not a decoy route, because he’s going to look all over the field. He’s going to keep the play alive, so even if you’re the decoy on this play, you might end up as the main guy and end up catching a touchdown, kind of like what happened to me.”

I'm not sure if it was a compliment or not, if it means that Tebow get's spastic during the play, or if it means he's scanning the field well, going through his progressions.

Regardless, I thought it was an interesting quote. Sounds like Royal wasn't intended to be a receiving option on that TD pass.

G_Money
11-07-2011, 04:13 PM
I guess so if we had a all world defense to go with it. I dont know, i want to make multiple SB's so i guess my dream of a QB is at a higher level. I want a true FQB like we had when we went to 5 SB's.

I guess the question is whether Hasselbeck would have won titles with the Steelers, Packers, Patriots, etc.

Hasselbeck on the Bears would have won a title that year over Manning, IMO. He was a couple of cheap calls from beating the Steelers with an inferior team.

Can we get a great defense here to backup a decent QB, or do we need one of the greatest to ever play in order to have a chance?

Roethlisberger has 2 rings and 3 SBs. He's on his way to being a HOF QB without necessarily being the first guy that comes to mind for being a "franchise" level QB.

Build the right team and they'll help the QB out. John had no business being in 3 of those SBs, he was just too stubborn to admit it in the AFC playoffs. Once the Broncos fixed their talent level all sorts of good things started to happen, including a pair of rings.

Putting it all on the QB's back is a crutch. Aaron Rodgers may be great, but the Pack had/have a great defense too. Relying just on the QB to make it happen is how John got crushed in 3 Super Bowls and why Peyton Manning only has one ring and his team is winless without him.

Build the team the right way, and you'd be surprised at who could be a franchise QB, IMO.

Sometimes it's easier to get an Andrew Luck than to build a whole team, but that doesn't make it the only way, or even the best way. And if you can't get Andrew Luck/John Elway and wind up with a lesser light, you'd still better be able to build that team because a Bernie Kosar sort of franchise QB won't carry the team by himself.

~G

G_Money
11-07-2011, 04:17 PM
I wasn't sure where to put this, and didn't want to start another thread, so I'll stick it in here, since this has turned into a general Tebow thread.

This was from Royal's presser this morning:


On throws QB Tim Tebow is comfortable making:

“I kind of noticed with a lot of quarterbacks, there are certain throws that he’s comfortable with and he’ll make, but with Tim, it’s almost like every route, even if it’s drawn up as a decoy route, it’s not a decoy route, because he’s going to look all over the field. He’s going to keep the play alive, so even if you’re the decoy on this play, you might end up as the main guy and end up catching a touchdown, kind of like what happened to me.”

I'm not sure if it was a compliment or not, if it means that Tebow get's spastic during the play, or if it means he's scanning the field well, going through his progressions.

Regardless, I thought it was an interesting quote. Sounds like Royal wasn't intended to be a receiving option on that TD pass.

I thought it meant, "we are used to quitting on routes as decoys because we're not used to having plays extended, and now we know not to do that."

Which can only help as the team figures out how to play with Tebow behind center.

~G

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 04:34 PM
I guess the question is whether Hasselbeck would have won titles with the Steelers, Packers, Patriots, etc.

Hasselbeck on the Bears would have won a title that year over Manning, IMO. He was a couple of cheap calls from beating the Steelers with an inferior team.

Can we get a great defense here to backup a decent QB, or do we need one of the greatest to ever play in order to have a chance?

Roethlisberger has 2 rings and 3 SBs. He's on his way to being a HOF QB without necessarily being the first guy that comes to mind for being a "franchise" level QB.

Build the right team and they'll help the QB out. John had no business being in 3 of those SBs, he was just too stubborn to admit it in the AFC playoffs. Once the Broncos fixed their talent level all sorts of good things started to happen, including a pair of rings.

Putting it all on the QB's back is a crutch. Aaron Rodgers may be great, but the Pack had/have a great defense too. Relying just on the QB to make it happen is how John got crushed in 3 Super Bowls and why Peyton Manning only has one ring and his team is winless without him.

Build the team the right way, and you'd be surprised at who could be a franchise QB, IMO.

Sometimes it's easier to get an Andrew Luck than to build a whole team, but that doesn't make it the only way, or even the best way. And if you can't get Andrew Luck/John Elway and wind up with a lesser light, you'd still better be able to build that team because a Bernie Kosar sort of franchise QB won't carry the team by himself.

~G

And ultimately what Im saying is that if you are able to convert Tebow to an above avg qb and then factor in his running ability (all while drastically reducing his number of runs per game) then you've got the formula for a winner in my estimation.

Northman
11-07-2011, 04:35 PM
Hasslebeck has actually had a really strong career. I don't think that Big Ben's name should be in the conversation with Manning or Brady. Big Ben has two rings, but out of his three SB games he's been bad in two of them.

Big Ben isnt average, he's lead his team to 3 SB's. How he has played in them is irrelevant. I can go ALL across the board and say how guys like Montana, Elway, Aikman, Kelly, etc had great surrounding talent when they won theirs. Its common sense thats its a team game. However, what cant be denied is the actual position itself and what that QB can do on a regular basis.


You can take all kinds of quarterbacks into a SB and win.

Sure, we've seen the Dilfer's, Johnsons, Gannons, even Hassleback get there. But the question then becomes how much of it was them and how much of it was the surrounding talent?


I'll put it to you this way, you make the argument that Elway is the best quarterback of all time and that you want a guy who can get you to the SB. I make the argument that Elway is one of the best of all time.

Do you really feel that you need the best QB of all time as you standard for what you want on your team?

Its not about whether said QB is the "best of alltime". Its whether he is a FQB. Going by SB history you need to have FQB a majority of the time to win SB's. Thats not opinion, that is just the fact of history. Im already on record as saying that winning one SB with Tebow at the helm would be great. Who wouldnt enjoy winning another SB again. But as a fan i want to win MANY SB's or at the very least have the "opportunity" to win many.


Because I know that Big Ben is not one of the all-time greats and Tom Brady never won a ring when he was an elite passing top three QB. Rodgers didn't win his ring as being one of the best but maybe he's on that route right now.

Brees is a stud and he won a ring. I see him as a potential HoFer but he's probably never going to be remembered as one of the absolute best.

To be truthful King, im not sure why your stuck on "the greatest of alltime". Ive pointed out that you need to have a HOF QB to win in this league on a consistent basis and to have the opportunity to win SB's. Hasslebeck is nowwhere near being a HOF QB. He's not even in the same league as the guys i mentioned.


To me, you need a franchise quarterback. To me, that means he's your guy, you're not looking to replace him and you feel like you can win it all with him.

Exactly. So why did Seattle get rid of him? He's got to be better than Jackson and Whitehurst right? lol


By that definition, even the good guys on the lesser tier like Flacco or Matt Ryan fit the criteria.

Perhaps, but neither has taken it to another level yet to be considered as such although both franchises "hope" that is the case with them both.


Hasslebeck made a SB and his team was in it until the end against a red-hot Pittsburgh that rolled over three potent offenses to get there.

In his prime and healthy he was very good. It just took a lot of developing to get into his prime and he did not have much durability. That was his problem.

Hasslebeck was ok, i would never say he was a FQB. Thats just silly. He made one SB which is a nice part of his resume but if i wanted to leave my standared at that i would just settle for a guy like Jake Plummer.

Sorry broham. In the NFL there are two types of QBs. Those that have "it" and those who dont. Big Ben may not be the prettiest of QB's in the NFL but he makes plays more times than he doesnt. And thats what separates the upper eschalon gunslingers to the lower eschalon guys like Hasslebeck. Hasslebeck can never carry a team when he is needed too. The guy i want as the QB of my football team needs to be a playmaker when it matters most and rise above adversity when the rest of it crumbles around him.

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 04:39 PM
Big Ben isnt average, he's lead his team to 3 SB's. How he has played in them is irrelevant. I can go ALL across the board and say how guys like Montana, Elway, Aikman, Kelly, etc had great surrounding talent when they won theirs. Its common sense thats its a team game. However, what cant be denied is the actual position itself and what that QB can do on a regular basis.



Sure, we've seen the Dilfer's, Johnsons, Gannons, even Hassleback get there. But the question then becomes how much of it was them and how much of it was the surrounding talent?



Its not about whether said QB is the "best of alltime". Its whether he is a FQB. Going by SB history you need to have FQB a majority of the time to win SB's. Thats not opinion, that is just the fact of history. Im already on record as saying that winning one SB with Tebow at the helm would be great. Who wouldnt enjoy winning another SB again. But as a fan i want to win MANY SB's or at the very least have the "opportunity" to win many.



To be truthful King, im not sure why your stuck on "the greatest of alltime". Ive pointed out that you need to have a HOF QB to win in this league on a consistent basis and to have the opportunity to win SB's. Hasslebeck is nowwhere near being a HOF QB. He's not even in the same league as the guys i mentioned.



Exactly. So why did Seattle get rid of him? He's got to be better than Jackson and Whitehurst right? lol



Perhaps, but neither has taken it to another level yet to be considered as such although both franchises "hope" that is the case with them both.



Hasslebeck was ok, i would never say he was a FQB. Thats just silly. He made one SB which is a nice part of his resume but if i wanted to leave my standared at that i would just settle for a guy like Jake Plummer.

Sorry broham. In the NFL there are two types of QBs. Those that have "it" and those who dont. Big Ben may not be the prettiest of QB's in the NFL but he makes plays more times than he doesnt. And thats what separates the upper eschalon gunslingers to the lower eschalon guys like Hasslebeck. Hasslebeck can never carry a team when he is needed too. The guy i want as the QB of my football team needs to be a playmaker when it matters most and rise above adversity when the rest of it crumbles around him.

what's an eschalon?

but in all seriousness...did you and I flip on this issue?

Northman
11-07-2011, 04:39 PM
I guess the question is whether Hasselbeck would have won titles with the Steelers, Packers, Patriots, etc.



And thus that is the difference between you and i here. I dont believe Hasslebeck was that kind of QB. If it really was just simply saying guys like Rodgers, Elway, Brady, and Manning were a product of the system around them than there would be no need for a HOF to begin with. Ill say it again, for as much shit that Big Ben gets for not being the prettiest of passers i see more playmaking ability out of him than i ever have out Hasslebeck. If it truly was just about surrounding talent than EVERY QB to come out of college would be a SB champion.

Cugel
11-07-2011, 04:45 PM
this is an honest question, no nut hanging, no Tebow fan appreciation thread

Fine. Here it is. The rule is: "In today's NFL if you can't hit at LEAST 60% of your passes you can't be an NFL starting QB. Period." Mark Schlereth on 104.3 The Fan.

I honestly don't know how much Tebow advanced his case with the one guy who counts -- John Elway. Elway wants a pocket passing QB to compete with Aaron Rogers, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady. If you get to the playoffs and you are facing one of those guys what chance to do you have if your QB is Tim Tebow?

The idea is that to beat a Manning or Brady you have to have a Brady or Manning yourself. And that means an elite pocket passing QB.

And that's what Elway is going to try and get in next year's draft.

So, great, the Broncos won rushing the ball for 300 yards up the middle of the Raiders defense. But, how often are you going to be able to do that?

Long term this is a passing league and you need to be able to throw the ball downfield. With an elite pocket passing QB.

So, really nothing has changed. Tebow's passes still looked very wobbly at times.

People keep saying "they won so who cares?"

Answer: Elway does. He cares more about whether he believes Tebow will ever become an elite pocket passer than whether the Broncos win a few games. The Tebow fans might care, but that doesn't mean Broncos management views the situation the same. :ranger:

Northman
11-07-2011, 04:46 PM
what's an eschalon?

but in all seriousness...did you and I flip on this issue?

What do you mean flip? Explain.

Poet
11-07-2011, 04:47 PM
Big Ben isnt average, he's lead his team to 3 SB's. How he has played in them is irrelevant. I can go ALL across the board and say how guys like Montana, Elway, Aikman, Kelly, etc had great surrounding talent when they won theirs. Its common sense thats its a team game. However, what cant be denied is the actual position itself and what that QB can do on a regular basis.

How did he lead them to the first one when he averaged 16 passing throws a game and almost all of them were shorter routes?

He did not lead them to the first one and it's strange to me that the standard is getting there and not how you play when you're there.



Sure, we've seen the Dilfer's, Johnsons, Gannons, even Hassleback get there. But the question then becomes how much of it was them and how much of it was the surrounding talent?

My point is that if your standard is being one of the best quarterbacks of all time you're never going to be happy. That standard is ridiculous.




Its not about whether said QB is the "best of alltime".
But you wrote something like that you wanted a QB and would not be happy unless you had a QB like the one that you had when you reached all five SB's?




Its whether he is a FQB. Going by SB history you need to have FQB a majority of the time to win SB's. Thats not opinion, that is just the fact of history. Im already on record as saying that winning one SB with Tebow at the helm would be great. Who wouldnt enjoy winning another SB again. But as a fan i want to win MANY SB's or at the very least have the "opportunity" to win many. [



[QUOTE]To be truthful King, im not sure why your stuck on "the greatest of alltime".

Because you wrote that. That's why I'm stuck on it because you basically said you wouldn't be happy unless that's what you had.




Exactly. So why did Seattle get rid of him? He's got to be better than Jackson and Whitehurst right? lol

The ironic thing is if they kept him they'd have had a shot at the division. Look at his actual overall career. It's good, it's really good. He's not a Hall of Famer, but you're really giving him no credit at all.



Hasslebeck was ok, i would never say he was a FQB. Thats just silly. He made one SB which is a nice part of his resume but if i wanted to leave my standared at that i would just settle for a guy like Jake Plummer.

From 2003 to 2008 it's pretty clear he was a 'franchise quarterback' by the standards of most.


Sorry broham. In the NFL there are two types of QBs. Those that have "it" and those who dont. Big Ben may not be the prettiest of QB's in the NFL but he makes plays more times than he doesnt. And thats what separates the upper eschalon gunslingers to the lower eschalon guys like Hasslebeck. Hasslebeck can never carry a team when he is needed too. The guy i want as the QB of my football team needs to be a playmaker when it matters most and rise above adversity when the rest of it crumbles around him.

If by having it you mean more often than not he's on the team with the league's best defense then sure, he has it. But if he has it, why has he been garbage in two SB's?

I think he's a 'franchise quarterback'. I don't think he's an elite quarterback. An elite quarterback is the guy who walks off the field and everyone goes "he's the reason why they won today."

That is not Roethlisberger at all. He makes a lot of big plays, both good and bad.

Poet
11-07-2011, 04:52 PM
I also want to point out that as usual I could have just copied what G Money said and been better off.

I also love Northman like I love watching the Steelers lose.

Cugel
11-07-2011, 04:52 PM
Sure, we've seen the Dilfer's, Johnsons, Gannons, even Hassleback get there. But the question then becomes how much of it was them and how much of it was the surrounding talent?

Are we still having the same idiotic argument about whether you need a great QB to win the SB? The answer of every NFL GM and owner is "you do." :rolleyes:

Only FANS make that kind of argument anymore. There's not one NFL GM who would accept the fan argument that you don't need an elite passing QB to win the SB. :ranger:

The Ravens had the #1 scoring defense in modern NFL history and they won ONE SB with Trent Dilfer. The Bucs had the #3 scoring defense in modern NFL history and they won ONE SB with Brad Johnson. So, every couple of decades a team might win once with one of those guys. But, how many SBs would the Ravens have won if they had Kurt Warner? Or a Drew Brees or Tom Brady? They might well have rivaled the Steel Curtain dynasty.

The Raiders and SeaTurkeys lost the SB so Gannon and Hasslebeck don't count. They had pretty good years when they got their teams to the SB but couldn't win.

You can sometimes get to the SB with Rex Grossman and a great defense but you can't win very often and the Bears didn't.

Anyone who makes the argument that you don't need an elite QB to win SBs is flat wrong! And yes, Ben Roethlisberger is an elite passing QB in this league. He can make all the throws. He's just that good.

Same argument was made about Eli Manning after he had a poor season last year. Well, he's an elite QB just as he's proving this season. He was an elite QB in 2007 when they won the SB and he outplayed Brady in that game. It wasn't JUST their defense. Eli had to lead them back from a deficit in the 4th quarter to win and he did. He made great throws under maximum pressure in the big game.

That equals elite QB.

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 04:52 PM
What do you mean flip? Explain.

I mean early in the season you were arguing the merits of Tebow ( I think, I may be wrong) and I was saying I wanted to see Orton with a revamped defense and a running game.

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 04:54 PM
Are we still having the same idiotic argument about whether you need a great QB to win the SB? The answer of every NFL GM and owner is "you do." :rolleyes:

Only FANS make that kind of argument anymore. There's not one NFL GM who would accept the fan argument that you don't need an elite passing QB to win the SB. :ranger:

The Ravens had the #1 scoring defense in modern NFL history and they won ONE SB with Trent Dilfer. The Bucs had the #3 scoring defense in modern NFL history and they won ONE SB with Brad Johnson. So, every couple of decades a team might win once with one of those guys. But, how many SBs would the Ravens have won if they had Kurt Warner? Or a Drew Brees or Tom Brady? They might well have rivaled the Steel Curtain dynasty.

The Raiders and SeaTurkeys lost the SB so Gannon and Hasslebeck don't count. They had pretty good years when they got their teams to the SB but couldn't win.

But overall Hasselbeck as King stated was a very good qb for 6 years. I don't think anyone is stating that we'd settle for a middle of the pack guy but for 6 years Matt wasn't. He was one of the best in the NFC.

Northman
11-07-2011, 04:58 PM
How did he lead them to the first one when he averaged 16 passing throws a game and almost all of them were shorter routes?

He did not lead them to the first one and it's strange to me that the standard is getting there and not how you play when you're there.




My point is that if your standard is being one of the best quarterbacks of all time you're never going to be happy. That standard is ridiculous.




But you wrote something like that you wanted a QB and would not be happy unless you had a QB like the one that you had when you reached all five SB's?



[QUOTE] Its whether he is a FQB. Going by SB history you need to have FQB a majority of the time to win SB's. Thats not opinion, that is just the fact of history. Im already on record as saying that winning one SB with Tebow at the helm would be great. Who wouldnt enjoy winning another SB again. But as a fan i want to win MANY SB's or at the very least have the "opportunity" to win many.





Because you wrote that. That's why I'm stuck on it because you basically said you wouldn't be happy unless that's what you had.





The ironic thing is if they kept him they'd have had a shot at the division. Look at his actual overall career. It's good, it's really good. He's not a Hall of Famer, but you're really giving him no credit at all.




From 2003 to 2008 it's pretty clear he was a 'franchise quarterback' by the standards of most.



If by having it you mean more often than not he's on the team with the league's best defense then sure, he has it. But if he has it, why has he been garbage in two SB's?

I think he's a 'franchise quarterback'. I don't think he's an elite quarterback. An elite quarterback is the guy who walks off the field and everyone goes "he's the reason why they won today."

That is not Roethlisberger at all. He makes a lot of big plays, both good and bad.

We certainly agree to disagree here.

Northman
11-07-2011, 05:02 PM
I mean early in the season you were arguing the merits of Tebow ( I think, I may be wrong) and I was saying I wanted to see Orton with a revamped defense and a running game.


I still argue the merits of Tebow whether pro or con. I think people believe that just because i look at the QB position a certain way that im saying Tebow wont be that. NO ONE knows if he will be that im only stating what he needs to improve upon. I never even said that Hasslebeck is a scrub yet some on here want to claim i did. All i ever said is that he wasnt a HOF. Totally different things. :lol:

Slick
11-07-2011, 05:02 PM
We all want the next John Elway. That's a problem.

TXBRONC
11-07-2011, 05:02 PM
Howz about we trade you to the Mane for Dream, Slimgator? How d'ya like them apples?

Hell I would take a $5 dollar gift card from K-Mart for him.

TXBRONC
11-07-2011, 05:04 PM
We all want the next John Elway. That's a problem.

I don't think having high stardards is a bad thing but being impatient is problematic.

Cugel
11-07-2011, 05:07 PM
We all want the next John Elway. That's a problem.

That's not the problem. That's the only solution. Of course, it's not likely that they will get the next Elway. Or the next Peyton Manning or Tom Brady either. Andrew Luck was the only prospect of the last 10 years who has been compared to Elway and he's going to the Colts. With 3 wins the Broncos are officially dead in the "Suck For Luck" derby. Even the Dolphins probably are out of the race now.

But, they can hope to get a Drew Brees or Aaron Rogers or possibly a Ben Roethlisberger or Eli Manning caliber QB. And you can certainly win the SB with one of those guys. And that's what Elway hopes to do.

Slick
11-07-2011, 05:09 PM
Why has Tom Brady stopped winning Superbowls?

Cugel
11-07-2011, 05:10 PM
I still argue the merits of Tebow whether pro or con. I think people believe that just because i look at the QB position a certain way that im saying Tebow wont be that. NO ONE knows if he will be that im only stating what he needs to improve upon. I never even said that Hasslebeck is a scrub yet some on here want to claim i did. All i ever said is that he wasnt a HOF. Totally different things. :lol:

I'll flatly say what you won't. :ranger:

Unless Tebow dramatically improves his passing ability before the end of the season from what it is now Elway is going to draft a QB in 2012 and get rid of Tebow. And NO, winning a couple of games is not going to change anything as far as Tebow's evaluation is concerned.

Regardless of whether Fox is willing to use an option style offense this season, Elway is NOT going to commit to that long term.

Poet
11-07-2011, 05:12 PM
Why has Tom Brady stopped winning Superbowls?

Or playoff games.

HORSEPOWER 56
11-07-2011, 05:13 PM
I don't care about stats. I just don't. Completion % least of all. I can throw 3, 3 yard passes for 100% completion percentage or check down all the time (like Sam Bradford did last year) and look great on paper without actually moving the football or keeping the offense on the field.

The only damned stat that means shit in this league is wins, period, end of story. Tim could go 3/50 as long as those three passes are TDs or set up TDs and he doesn't turn the ball over and most importantly, we win, I could give a flying **** about any of his other stats.

Who gives a shit, really? Did anybody dissect Elway's completion % for his career, especially when he was young? Terry Bradshaw's? Jim Kelly's?

Everyone keeps saying it's a passing league and you have to have a +60% passer to be successful and THAT'S BULLSHIT. Your passes just have to count. I'd rather have a QB who is hits 1/3 of his passes but that 1 out of 3 gets a first down then some dink and dunk BS passing game that can't do anything but rack up useless stats. Orton is a round a 60% passer. He sucks monkey balls because the 40% of the passes he doesn't make happen when it counts most (when behind, in the redzone, etc).

Interesting tidbit. The Broncos scored 38 points vs the Raiders yesterday and none of them came in the redzone. NONE. That means we were hitting big plays when we needed to. Our redzone % was ZERO yesterday. How's that for a stat? Stats are for losers and fantasy geeks and for retard analysts on TV who don't watch the games to throw around like they know something. It's garbage.

Win the Broncos more games than they lose, and you've got the job, Tim. **** the haters and stats mongers...

Northman
11-07-2011, 05:19 PM
I'll flatly say what you won't. :ranger:

Unless Tebow dramatically improves his passing ability before the end of the season from what it is now Elway is going to draft a QB in 2012 and get rid of Tebow. And NO, winning a couple of games is not going to change anything as far as Tebow's evaluation is concerned.

Regardless of whether Fox is willing to use an option style offense this season, Elway is NOT going to commit to that long term.

Actually, im not saying that at all. Maybe Elway drafts a new QB, maybe he doesnt. Maybe Tebow improves a lot maybe he doesnt. While i agree that in the long run he needs to improve a lot in the passing game its still too early to make that determination.

Poet
11-07-2011, 05:20 PM
I don't care about stats. I just don't. Completion % least of all. I can throw 3, 3 yard passes for 100% completion percentage or check down all the time (like Sam Bradford did last year) and look great on paper without actually moving the football or keeping the offense on the field.

The only damned stat that means shit in this league is wins, period, end of story. Tim could go 3/50 as long as those three passes are TDs or set up TDs and he doesn't turn the ball over and most importantly, we win, I could give a flying **** about any of his other stats.

Who gives a shit, really? Did anybody dissect Elway's completion % for his career, especially when he was young? Terry Bradshaw's? Jim Kelly's?

Everyone keeps saying it's a passing league and you have to have a +60% passer to be successful and THAT'S BULLSHIT. Your passes just have to count. I'd rather have a QB who is hits 1/3 of his passes but that 1 out of 3 gets a first down then some dink and dunk BS passing game that can't do anything but rack up useless stats. Orton is a round a 60% passer. He sucks monkey balls because the 40% of the passes he doesn't make happen when it counts most (when behind, in the redzone, etc).

Interesting tidbit. The Broncos scored 38 points vs the Raiders yesterday and none of them came in the redzone. NONE. That means we were hitting big plays when we needed to. Our redzone % was ZERO yesterday. How's that for a stat? Stats are for losers and fantasy geeks and for retard analysts on TV who don't watch the games to throw around like they know something. It's garbage.

Win the Broncos more games than they lose, and you've got the job, Tim. **** the haters and stats mongers...

So do you actually think Terry Bradshaw is one of the best quarterbacks of all-time?

G_Money
11-07-2011, 05:20 PM
And thus that is the difference between you and i here. I dont believe Hasslebeck was that kind of QB. If it really was just simply saying guys like Rodgers, Elway, Brady, and Manning were a product of the system around them than there would be no need for a HOF to begin with. Ill say it again, for as much shit that Big Ben gets for not being the prettiest of passers i see more playmaking ability out of him than i ever have out Hasslebeck. If it truly was just about surrounding talent than EVERY QB to come out of college would be a SB champion.

It's obviously not JUST about the supporting cast, but the difference between HOF and not-HOF is sometimes little more than rings. For the first-tier guys it’s usually a no-brainer (Dan Marino is in without the bling, obviously). For others?

Troy Aikman – 61.5% Comp rate, 81.6 QB rating, 7.0 Y/A, 11.4 Y/C, 1.17 TD-to-INT ratio, 199.6 YPG, 1.57 sacks-per-game (et al)
Steve McNair – 60.1% Comp rate, 82.8 QB rating, 6.8 Y/A, 11.5 Y/C, 1.47 TD-to-INT ratio, 194.4 YPG, 1.58 sacks-per-game

And McNair ran for 3500+ yards and 37 TDs to boot. :wow:

Troy was a first ballot HOFer.

Anybody think McNair is gonna make the HOF on the first ballot? :coffee: Maybe I’m wrong, and he will. If he’d won that Super Bowl, a lot of voters would change their minds, apparently…but as of a couple of years ago he was “nowhere close” (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-07-13-mcnair-hall-of-fame_N.htm) to getting in because he didn’t have the ring, which makes his numbers not measure up.

At QB, rings matter.

BTW, Hasselbeck – 60.3% comp rate, 82.7 QB rating, 6.9 Y/A, 11.5 Y/C, 1.41 TD-to INT ratio, 177.5 YPG, 1.80 sacks-per-game

Personally, I’d take an Aikman/McNair/Hasselbeck level of quarterbacking and think we could win a Super Bowl with that - whether that’s from Tebow or someone else.

It’s not next-Elway-or-bust. There IS a level that Tebow (or the next guy) has to reach, and IMO it's McNair's level.

But it doesn't have to happen THIS year - we just need to believe that it will happen. Tim's got to lay some groundwork for that belief as we go forward.

~G

Northman
11-07-2011, 05:22 PM
Why has Tom Brady stopped winning Superbowls?

I give up. Why?

wayninja
11-07-2011, 05:25 PM
I'll flatly say what you won't. :ranger:

Unless Tebow dramatically improves his passing ability before the end of the season from what it is now Elway is going to draft a QB in 2012 and get rid of Tebow. And NO, winning a couple of games is not going to change anything as far as Tebow's evaluation is concerned.

Regardless of whether Fox is willing to use an option style offense this season, Elway is NOT going to commit to that long term.

And I'll flatly say that if we, by some miracle, end up winning the division, it's very unlikely Elway forces a QB change no matter how much/little Tebow improves.

HORSEPOWER 56
11-07-2011, 05:30 PM
So do you actually think Terry Bradshaw is one of the best quarterbacks of all-time?

Of course not, and that's my point. How many games did Bradshaw win? How many times to sorry-assed Terry Bradshaw who really wasn't that good of a QB, come back and win big games? Plenty. He'd screw up, turn the ball over, throw bad passes, while the defense kept the games close, then he'd magically wake up in the 4th quarter and start hitting deep passes to Swan and Stallworth for a comeback win.

He's a HOFer and seen by many to be a "great" QB because of his WINS, not because of some bullshit completion % or YPA...

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 05:34 PM
I would like to see a 50% 3rd down completion rate too.
what? 15-25% isnt good enuf for you?

BUT THEY WON!

:laugh:

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Poet
11-07-2011, 05:35 PM
Of course not, and that's my point. How many games did Bradshaw win? How many times to sorry-assed Terry Bradshaw who really wasn't that good of a QB, come back and win big games? Plenty. He'd screw up, turn the ball over, throw bad passes, while the defense kept the games close, then he'd magically wake up in the 4th quarter and start hitting deep passes to Swan and Stallworth for a comeback win.

He's a HOFer and seen by many to be a "great" QB because of his WINS, not because of some bullshit completion % or YPA...

My point is that the guys with the stats are usually the guys who are the best at their position.

I don't care about your wins, it doesn't mean anything from a standpoint of how good you are.

Tom Brady right now is one of the best passing quarterbacks ever, era be damned. He shits all over the old Tom Brady and laughs him off the field.

The better, drastically better version of Tom Brady isn't winning playoff games, let alone SB's because his defense is shit awful and the defense has to focus only on him.

Peyton Manning has way less playoff wins and SB's than Bradshaw, who ******* cares?

There are always exceptions. I like Schaub a lot as a player, and statistcally he kills a lot of guys. He usually beats up on another QB I like (just as a QB) Jay Cutler, but I'll swear up and down Cutler is the superior QB.

I'm so sick and tired of winning being the standard of individuals. I hate extremes, and the extreme stat guys are just as bad as the extreme 'he has to be a winner' guys, but at least the stat guys have more credibility because it's something that can be proved and the QB relies on his offense to help his stats and then the TEAM for winning.

I want numbers in context. CONTEXT! ******* CONTEXT!

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 05:37 PM
Right now I will settle for what I saw in the second half. He looked a lot more comfortable. I think with that comfort level, progression with the foot work, and the understanding/practice with the other players the accuracy will get better.

Lots of room for improvement, but much better than the previous two games. I am not going to get hung up on the numbers, I just want to see more of what I saw in the second half and see the coaches build up from there.

Would be nice if he could start a game like he finishes them. THERE's a thought.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Slick
11-07-2011, 05:39 PM
I give up. Why?


Probably because Tedy Bruschi stopped making key interceptions late in games to close them out.

Maybe because Troy Brown stopped getting punt return touchdowns in key situations.

I mean it's not like all of the sudden Tom Brady sucks. Shouldn't Peyton have multiple rings?


It's really, really hard to win Superbowls. One stud QB isn't going to win them all by himself. See Denver in 86, 88, and 89.

What we need is a good team and a good QB. I just think our standards are way too high in Denver.

Hell, I think Jake Plummer could have won a Superbowl in 2005 if we didn't have such a soft team that year. Our loses were to the physical teams in that season if I remember correctly.

Softskull
11-07-2011, 05:40 PM
It's obviously not JUST about the supporting cast, but the difference between HOF and not-HOF is sometimes little more than rings. For the first-tier guys it’s usually a no-brainer (Dan Marino is in without the bling, obviously). For others?

Troy Aikman – 61.5% Comp rate, 81.6 QB rating, 7.0 Y/A, 11.4 Y/C, 1.17 TD-to-INT ratio, 199.6 YPG, 1.57 sacks-per-game (et al)
Steve McNair – 60.1% Comp rate, 82.8 QB rating, 6.8 Y/A, 11.5 Y/C, 1.47 TD-to-INT ratio, 194.4 YPG, 1.58 sacks-per-game

And McNair ran for 3500+ yards and 37 TDs to boot. :wow:

Troy was a first ballot HOFer.

Anybody think McNair is gonna make the HOF on the first ballot? :coffee: Maybe I’m wrong, and he will. If he’d won that Super Bowl, a lot of voters would change their minds, apparently…but as of a couple of years ago he was “nowhere close” (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-07-13-mcnair-hall-of-fame_N.htm) to getting in because he didn’t have the ring, which makes his numbers not measure up.

At QB, rings matter.

BTW, Hasselbeck – 60.3% comp rate, 82.7 QB rating, 6.9 Y/A, 11.5 Y/C, 1.41 TD-to INT ratio, 177.5 YPG, 1.80 sacks-per-game

Personally, I’d take an Aikman/McNair/Hasselbeck level of quarterbacking and think we could win a Super Bowl with that - whether that’s from Tebow or someone else.

It’s not next-Elway-or-bust. There IS a level that Tebow (or the next guy) has to reach, and IMO it's McNair's level.

But it doesn't have to happen THIS year - we just need to believe that it will happen. Tim's got to lay some groundwork for that belief as we go forward.

~G

I think we had one. A little salt for my still festering wound.

Cutler

61.3% comp rate, 84.3 QB rating, 7.2 Y/A, 11.8 Y/C, 1.33 TD-to INT ratio, 235 YPG, 2.1 sacks-per-game

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 05:40 PM
58% would work for Tebow with his style of play.

He doesn't need to be surgical and hit at a 65% rate..(would be nice but it doesn't need to be that high if he's able to make an occasional play down the field with his arm while still running for 60+ yards a game.

I really think Tebow can develop into a dangerous weapon if he can become just average in the passing game...The guy brings so many other things to the table that make gameplanning difficult.

I like the belly-read play...At first Oak was keying in on McGahee, but after Tebow burned them on a couple of keepers they had to respect his threat of running...This is what opened up the big plays for McGahee.

I would like to see the medium to deep ball incorporated more in the belly-read plays. If defenses have to keep dedicating extra bodies to account for both Tebow and McGahee, that should open up the passing game off of the belly-read playaction...Tebow keeps it, fakes the run and hits them deep.
"Belly-read"? You mean the zone read? Sorry, somebody already beat you to the naming. :lol:

I'm still waiting for one of his jump passes!

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

catfish
11-07-2011, 05:42 PM
My point is that the guys with the stats are usually the guys who are the best at their position.

I don't care about your wins, it doesn't mean anything from a standpoint of how good you are.

Tom Brady right now is one of the best passing quarterbacks ever, era be damned. He shits all over the old Tom Brady and laughs him off the field.

The better, drastically better version of Tom Brady isn't winning playoff games, let alone SB's because his defense is shit awful and the defense has to focus only on him.

Peyton Manning has way less playoff wins and SB's than Bradshaw, who ******* cares?

There are always exceptions. I like Schaub a lot as a player, and statistcally he kills a lot of guys. He usually beats up on another QB I like (just as a QB) Jay Cutler, but I'll swear up and down Cutler is the superior QB.

I'm so sick and tired of winning being the standard of individuals. I hate extremes, and the extreme stat guys are just as bad as the extreme 'he has to be a winner' guys, but at least the stat guys have more credibility because it's something that can be proved and the QB relies on his offense to help his stats and then the TEAM for winning.

I want numbers in context. CONTEXT! ******* CONTEXT!

I think the Tebow homers argument is that the current QB stats don't paint an accurate picture of the value he brings to the team. I'm not talking the generic "he makes the whole team play better" I mean more like "how much did denver Rush for against the Raiders in week one" an arguement can be made for better playcalling etc, but would you say that Tebow played no part in the dominance of the run game?

Northman
11-07-2011, 05:44 PM
Probably because Tedy Bruschi stopped making key interceptions late in games to close them out.

Maybe because Troy Brown stopped getting punt return touchdowns in key situations.

I mean it's not like all of the sudden Tom Brady sucks. Shouldn't Peyton have multiple rings?


It's really, really hard to win Superbowls. One stud QB isn't going to win them all by himself. See Denver in 86, 88, and 89.

What we need is a good team and a good QB. I just think our standards are way too high in Denver.

Hell, I think Jake Plummer could have won a Superbowl in 2005 if we didn't have such a soft team that year. Our loses were to the physical teams in that season if I remember correctly.


So your of the thought that Qb really doesnt matter as long as you have a great team around him? Its ok if you truly feel that way i just dont happen to agree with that mantra.

Poet
11-07-2011, 05:45 PM
I think the Tebow homers argument is that the current QB stats don't paint an accurate picture of the value he brings to the team. I'm not talking the generic "he makes the whole team play better" I mean more like "how much did denver Rush for against the Raiders in week one" an arguement can be made for better playcalling etc, but would you say that Tebow played no part in the dominance of the run game?

I guess what I can respond to this is that I like Tebow as a person, I like his skillset and I think he can be a good quarterback. I think he can be a good pocket passer with adjustments.

I think his running can be a very, very important aspect of any team he's on.

I just think that in order for him to be effective right NOW he has to run a lot and long term that will shred his body up and shorten his career.

It has to change.

I think I answered your question?

BeefStew25
11-07-2011, 05:47 PM
I guess so if we had a all world defense to go with it. I dont know, i want to make multiple SB's so i guess my dream of a QB is at a higher level. I want a true FQB like we had when we went to 5 SB's.

Once in a generation talent? Okay. Hey, I have a bridge to sell you.

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 05:48 PM
Well Dread Elway doesn't seem to think a 50% completion will get the job done consistently. He didn't say he had to complete 60% of his passes but my guess would be that he and Fox would think if quarterback completes anywhere from 57% on up that they can probably win consistently.
Pretty sure elway has made it publicly known a qb needs to be around 60%, tx.

Just an observation, and if I'm wrong, please say so. But it sure does look like people are "dumbing down" their expectations of our qb.

Expectations sure are lowering around here.

I guess if 50-55% completion rates are acceptable, then their's really no need to draft a qb. TT/BQ should be able to accomplish that low feat. 21st century NFL football be damned. :rolleyes:

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

catfish
11-07-2011, 05:50 PM
I guess what I can respond to this is that I like Tebow as a person, I like his skillset and I think he can be a good quarterback. I think he can be a good pocket passer with adjustments.

I think his running can be a very, very important aspect of any team he's on.

I just think that in order for him to be effective right NOW he has to run a lot and long term that will shred his body up and shorten his career.

It has to change.

I think I answered your question?

I would agree with everything in that statement

Northman
11-07-2011, 05:50 PM
It's obviously not JUST about the supporting cast, but the difference between HOF and not-HOF is sometimes little more than rings. For the first-tier guys it’s usually a no-brainer (Dan Marino is in without the bling, obviously). For others?

Troy Aikman – 61.5% Comp rate, 81.6 QB rating, 7.0 Y/A, 11.4 Y/C, 1.17 TD-to-INT ratio, 199.6 YPG, 1.57 sacks-per-game (et al)
Steve McNair – 60.1% Comp rate, 82.8 QB rating, 6.8 Y/A, 11.5 Y/C, 1.47 TD-to-INT ratio, 194.4 YPG, 1.58 sacks-per-game

And McNair ran for 3500+ yards and 37 TDs to boot. :wow:

Troy was a first ballot HOFer.

Anybody think McNair is gonna make the HOF on the first ballot? :coffee: Maybe I’m wrong, and he will. If he’d won that Super Bowl, a lot of voters would change their minds, apparently…but as of a couple of years ago he was “nowhere close” (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2009-07-13-mcnair-hall-of-fame_N.htm) to getting in because he didn’t have the ring, which makes his numbers not measure up.

At QB, rings matter.

BTW, Hasselbeck – 60.3% comp rate, 82.7 QB rating, 6.9 Y/A, 11.5 Y/C, 1.41 TD-to INT ratio, 177.5 YPG, 1.80 sacks-per-game

Personally, I’d take an Aikman/McNair/Hasselbeck level of quarterbacking and think we could win a Super Bowl with that - whether that’s from Tebow or someone else.

It’s not next-Elway-or-bust. There IS a level that Tebow (or the next guy) has to reach, and IMO it's McNair's level.

But it doesn't have to happen THIS year - we just need to believe that it will happen. Tim's got to lay some groundwork for that belief as we go forward.

~G

My only issue with this is that again, one out of the three you mentioned managed to lead his team to 3 SB's while the other two went only to one. McNair came to Bmore and was unable to get them back, Hasslebeck the same thing and then the new coach comes in and doesnt think he is worth keeping and would rather take a risk with Jackson and Whitehurst. While it will be great if Tebow reaches a McNair level what exactly does that mean in the long run? Just one SB appearance?

Again, im trying to look at it from a more long term angle. One SB is great, but having a chance at 4-5 in a career is way better for me. Its not about Tebow being the next Elway for me, its about him being that kind of ELITE player to get us back to that kind of greatness. If he can do it great, but in this era of football (and i know HP is blowing steam out of his skull now) the odds say you have to be a consistent passer around 60-65% in completion rating to be that kind of guy. Wins are great for sure. Jake Plummer was a winner in Denver but it never transpired to anything beyond regular season wins. As a fan you just have to want more than that in the long run.

Tned
11-07-2011, 05:53 PM
I think we had one. A little salt for my still festering wound.

Cutler

61.3% comp rate, 84.3 QB rating, 7.2 Y/A, 11.8 Y/C, 1.33 TD-to INT ratio, 235 YPG, 2.1 sacks-per-game

37 TDs vs. 4 INTs in the redzone as a Bronco.

Mike
11-07-2011, 05:53 PM
Would be nice if he could start a game like he finishes them. THERE's a thought.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

If I have to choose I would rather have a QB that finishes to be honest. Would be great if he can put a complete game together though.

Would also be nice if some fans realize that he is a young and developing QB and would give him a chance instead of acting like my 5 year old daughter who wants everything and wants it now.

catfish
11-07-2011, 05:54 PM
Pretty sure elway has made it publicly known a qb needs to be around 60%, tx.

Just an observation, and if I'm wrong, please say so. But it sure does look like people are "dumbing down" their expectations of our qb.

Expectations sure are lowering around here.

I guess if 50-55% completion rates are acceptable, then their's really no need to draft a qb. TT/BQ should be able to accomplish that low feat. 21st century NFL football be damned. :rolleyes:

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

my problem with the completion percentage is there is no context. DO you prefer a QB hitting 61% for a 5.0 YPA or a QB hitting 55% for a 8.0 YPA. Granted Tebow's YPA is low, and I'm not saying he will or should be here next year, but looking at completion % as the be all end all of stats is a bit silly

Slick
11-07-2011, 05:56 PM
So your of the thought that Qb really doesnt matter as long as you have a great team around him? Its ok if you truly feel that way i just dont happen to agree with that mantra.

No North.

We absolutely need a good QB, we also need a good team to go with him.

While guys like Peyton and Tom give their team a chance to win every year, their salaries don't necessarily help their team put the surrounding cast around them to complete the task.

Trying to get this back on topic... if Tebow could be the Rothlesburger type of QB and we had a sound defense and running game to go along with him, we'd be in the hunt every year too. That would be a much easier way to win the multiple superbowls we all want IMHO.

Look at the Colts without Peyton. I seriously doubt the Steelers would be as bad as the Colts without Ben. Obviously there's more than one way to win a Supebowl, but more likely than not, it's because of a solid all around team, not one guy.

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 05:56 PM
That's not the problem. That's the only solution. Of course, it's not likely that they will get the next Elway. Or the next Peyton Manning or Tom Brady either. Andrew Luck was the only prospect of the last 10 years who has been compared to Elway and he's going to the Colts. With 3 wins the Broncos are officially dead in the "Suck For Luck" derby. Even the Dolphins probably are out of the race now.

But, they can hope to get a Drew Brees or Aaron Rogers or possibly a Ben Roethlisberger or Eli Manning caliber QB. And you can certainly win the SB with one of those guys. And that's what Elway hopes to do.

Aaron Rogers and Brees are what we should aspire to. They are easily the two best in the game right now and neither was drafted in the top half of the first

Tned
11-07-2011, 05:58 PM
I think the Tebow homers argument is that the current QB stats don't paint an accurate picture of the value he brings to the team. I'm not talking the generic "he makes the whole team play better" I mean more like "how much did denver Rush for against the Raiders in week one" an arguement can be made for better playcalling etc, but would you say that Tebow played no part in the dominance of the run game?

Erich Schubert of the Broncos posted this a little while ago:


RT @schube13: The Broncos' 833 rushing yards over thier last 4 games represent the 6th-highest total for a 4-game stretch in team history

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 06:01 PM
exactly T

if everyone just wants to see a 58-62% completion

then that is like 2 or 3 more catches, that doesn't seem to much to get Tebow to, but I don't think it is the KEY for wins the way others (including Elway) are talking about

what I think is FUNNY - in Elway's comments today after the game on the VIC and GARY or G and V show, I think Elway said "I don't THINK you can win only at 50%"

I gotta go back and read the Posts comments
Well, theoretically you can't. Most passes occur on 3rd downs if memory serves. So if youre not being successful (or playing Oak), youre more likely going to lose games.

TOP/3rd down% are important determinants in who wins/loses, imo.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Poet
11-07-2011, 06:01 PM
So your of the thought that Qb really doesnt matter as long as you have a great team around him? Its ok if you truly feel that way i just dont happen to agree with that mantra.

Well, when Brady was winning his rings his defense got the most turnovers in the NFL and got clutch ones and they won low-scoring games.

HORSEPOWER 56
11-07-2011, 06:02 PM
I guess what I can respond to this is that I like Tebow as a person, I like his skillset and I think he can be a good quarterback. I think he can be a good pocket passer with adjustments.

I think his running can be a very, very important aspect of any team he's on.

I just think that in order for him to be effective right NOW he has to run a lot and long term that will shred his body up and shorten his career.

It has to change.

I think I answered your question?

People keep saying that... that him running will shorten his career. How many big hits did he take while running yesterday? Almost none. The worst shot he took while running was the late hit out of bounds that was flagged and could happen to any QB who scrambles out of bounds. Now, how many just straight up knock-out shots did he take while trying pass the ball? A shit ton. The Raiders were intentionally going high and trying to kill him. How many of those shots can any QB be expected to take?

If it makes people feel better, take his rushing yards and just add them to his passing numbers and pretend that the total yards he accounted for were just passing yards from the pocket and he showed great footwork and throwing motion... For all the stats guys, if you just pretend his rushing yards were additional passing yards he'd look like a probowler in the "stats column".

If Tebow runs for 50+ yards a game and never has to lower the shoulder or take on big guys because he ducks out of bounds (which he actually does quite often) then why is it such a big deal? Tebow is NOT Michael 6', 200lb Vick who does take those big shots while running. Cam Newton doesn't have a problem doing it and nobody is criticizing him for running a lot. Nobody is saying, "Cam will have a short career if he keeps running". Instead "Cam's a special athlete who can use his legs when things break down or to keep the defense honest". What's really the difference?

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 06:09 PM
I wasn't sure where to put this, and didn't want to start another thread, so I'll stick it in here, since this has turned into a general Tebow thread.

This was from Royal's presser this morning:


On throws QB Tim Tebow is comfortable making:

“I kind of noticed with a lot of quarterbacks, there are certain throws that he’s comfortable with and he’ll make, but with Tim, it’s almost like every route, even if it’s drawn up as a decoy route, it’s not a decoy route, because he’s going to look all over the field. He’s going to keep the play alive, so even if you’re the decoy on this play, you might end up as the main guy and end up catching a touchdown, kind of like what happened to me.”

I'm not sure if it was a compliment or not, if it means that Tebow get's spastic during the play, or if it means he's scanning the field well, going through his progressions.

Regardless, I thought it was an interesting quote. Sounds like Royal wasn't intended to be a receiving option on that TD pass.
Honestly, on his TD to decker, i thought he was throwing to moreno and overthrew him, as he was wwide oppen on his crossing route to the endzone.
Frankly, both wouldve been td's.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 06:13 PM
I thought it meant, "we are used to quitting on routes as decoys because we're not used to having plays extended, and now we know not to do that."

Which can only help as the team figures out how to play with Tebow behind center.

~G

With scrambling qb's, ala elway/vick/plummer, they give wr's extra time to work free. That was what made elway so dangerous.
Now if TT could hit the wide open receivers.........

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
11-07-2011, 06:16 PM
Well, when Brady was winning his rings his defense got the most turnovers in the NFL and got clutch ones and they won low-scoring games.

Ok, and again you think that if you put Jake Plummer on that team he does the same thing? No way in hell.

Poet
11-07-2011, 06:23 PM
Ok, and again you think that if you put Jake Plummer on that team he does the same thing? No way in hell.

Depends on which Patriots team. It's a bad style matchup though. I believe Plummer on the 2005 Steelers team would have been a beating.

Tned
11-07-2011, 06:36 PM
Honestly, on his TD to decker, i thought he was throwing to moreno and overthrew him, as he was wwide oppen on his crossing route to the endzone.
Frankly, both wouldve been td's.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I assume you're joking about him throwing at Moreno, or just thought that at first glance. He was clearly throwing to Decker.

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 06:41 PM
Why has Tom Brady stopped winning Superbowls?

Hes got a hot woman and quit cutting his hair?

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 06:54 PM
If I have to choose I would rather have a QB that finishes to be honest. Would be great if he can put a complete game together though.

Would also be nice if some fans realize that he is a young and developing QB and would give him a chance instead of acting like my 5 year old daughter who wants everything and wants it now.
Yes, and that was ortons mantra. But this team(when not playing Oak/Mia), isnt a come-from-behind team.

It was good to see an early lead...but then he goes into his usual 1st half funk.

Anyhoo, he needs to be more consistant.....in a good way.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 06:55 PM
my problem with the completion percentage is there is no context. DO you prefer a QB hitting 61% for a 5.0 YPA or a QB hitting 55% for a 8.0 YPA. Granted Tebow's YPA is low, and I'm not saying he will or should be here next year, but looking at completion % as the be all end all of stats is a bit silly

Why the stipulations? Cant he have both?

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 06:59 PM
No North.

We absolutely need a good QB, we also need a good team to go with him.

While guys like Peyton and Tom give their team a chance to win every year, their salaries don't necessarily help their team put the surrounding cast around them to complete the task.

Trying to get this back on topic... if Tebow could be the Rothlesburger type of QB and we had a sound defense and running game to go along with him, we'd be in the hunt every year too. That would be a much easier way to win the multiple superbowls we all want IMHO.

Look at the Colts without Peyton. I seriously doubt the Steelers would be as bad as the Colts without Ben. Obviously there's more than one way to win a Supebowl, but more likely than not, it's because of a solid all around team, not one guy.
Exactly. 3-1 to start the season last yr without the raper.

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 07:01 PM
Aaron Rogers and Brees are what we should aspire to. They are easily the two best in the game right now and neither was drafted in the top half of the first

Well hell, just wait for brady in the 6th then.

My point, of course, is every yr is different.
sometimes draft status only means expectations and contract $$.
Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 07:10 PM
I assume you're joking about him throwing at Moreno, or just thought that at first glance. He was clearly throwing to Decker.

You know this how? Both were in line to that pass, T.

Just sayin....

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Dreadnought
11-07-2011, 07:10 PM
Of course not, and that's my point. How many games did Bradshaw win? How many times to sorry-assed Terry Bradshaw who really wasn't that good of a QB, come back and win big games? Plenty. He'd screw up, turn the ball over, throw bad passes, while the defense kept the games close, then he'd magically wake up in the 4th quarter and start hitting deep passes to Swan and Stallworth for a comeback win.

He's a HOFer and seen by many to be a "great" QB because of his WINS, not because of some bullshit completion % or YPA...

Bradshaw's rookie Year - Completion percentage 38%. Int rate 11%, 6 TD's 24 Interceptions, QB Rating of 30.4. That is laugh out loud funny, and it is not a misprint.

Sophomore Season? Better. Completions 54%, 13 TD's, 22 Interceptions, QB rating a still awful 59.7. Bradshaw sucked, and yet he rode a great defense all the way to 4 SB's and Canton.

Yes I know, different era, blah de blah blah. Still, they played on a 100 yard field, still had 11 guys on that field at any time, 4 downs, ten yards for a first down, etc. It wasn't that different. He sucked even by the standards of his time until in his sixth season the lights came on.

To the main point? No, you don't absolutely need a great QB to win a Championship. A very good one will do nicely if you build a sound team.

Ravage!!!
11-07-2011, 07:14 PM
GET the QB and the rest will fall into place. Try to build everything else, and you are in for a LONG haul of major disappointments sprinkled with single season successes. If you wants to be a consistant threat to the NFL, you HAVE to have a top QB.

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 07:16 PM
Bradshaw's rookie Year - Completion percentage 38%. Int rate 11%, 6 TD's 24 Interceptions, QB Rating of 30.4. That is laugh out loud funny, and it is not a misprint.

Sophomore Season? Better. Completions 54%, 13 TD's, 22 Interceptions, QB rating a still awful 59.7. Bradshaw sucked, and yet he rode a great defense all the way to 4 SB's and Canton.

Yes I know, different era, blah de blah blah. Still, they played on a 100 yard field, still had 11 guys on that field at any time, 4 downs, ten yards for a first down, etc. It wasn't that different. He sucked even by the standards of his time until in his sixth season the lights came on.

To the main point? No, you don't absolutely need a great QB to win a Championship. A very good one will do nicely if you build a sound team.

Don't forget getting to throw to Swann, and Stallworth while having Franco tote the rock for you.

catfish
11-07-2011, 07:18 PM
GET the QB and the rest will fall into place. Try to build everything else, and you are in for a LONG haul of major disappointments sprinkled with single season successes. If you wants to be a consistant threat to the NFL, you HAVE to have a top QB.

problem is you won't know if you have a franchise QB unless you have SOME talent to help him out, you could pick a first rounder every 2 years for the next 30 years and if you are the overall less talented team he is going to look poor(not as bad as Tebow maybe) and get the crap kicked out of him. Unles you are 100% sure the QB you pick in the first round is going to be elite you are better of getting the rest of the talent up first, then working on finding a good to great(not average) qb

wayninja
11-07-2011, 07:25 PM
GET the QB and the rest will fall into place. Try to build everything else, and you are in for a LONG haul of major disappointments sprinkled with single season successes. If you wants to be a consistant threat to the NFL, you HAVE to have a top QB.

I'll take single season successes. Unless you call Trent Dilfer a top QB?

Dreadnought
11-07-2011, 07:27 PM
problem is you won't know if you have a franchise QB unless you have SOME talent to help him out, you could pick a first rounder every 2 years for the next 30 years and if you are the overall less talented team he is going to look poor(not as bad as Tebow maybe) and get the crap kicked out of him. Unles you are 100% sure the QB you pick in the first round is going to be elite you are better of getting the rest of the talent up first, then working on finding a good to great(not average) qb

The Archie Manning syndrome. That guy had a good career surrounded by stiffs and stumblebums of the first order and won Jack Squat. Or David Carr...who knows what he would have accomplished with good coaching, a year or two on the bench, and a respectable O-line? Or, conversely, Alex Smith or Steve Young - give them a good system and time and maybe they start winning all of a sudden? Even Vinnie Testaverde came around once he had ten years under his belt.

catfish
11-07-2011, 07:29 PM
The Archie Manning syndrome. That guy had a good career surrounded by stiffs and stumblebums of the first order and won Jack Squat. Or David Carr...who knows what he would have accomplished with good coaching, a year or two on the bench, and a respectable O-line? Or, conversely, Alex Smith or Steve Young - give them a good system and time and maybe they start winning all of a sudden? Even Vinnie Testaverde came around once he had ten years under his belt.

it has always been my opinion that a good team should get you to the playoffs regardless of the QB, a good/great qb takes a playoff team to the SB. trying to get a SB qb without a playoff team is trying to run before you walk

Northman
11-07-2011, 07:32 PM
Bradsh

To the main point? No, you don't absolutely need a great QB to win a Championship. A very good one will do nicely if you build a sound team.

Than we should of stuck with Orton. :laugh::laugh:

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 07:37 PM
The Archie Manning syndrome. That guy had a good career surrounded by stiffs and stumblebums of the first order and won Jack Squat. Or David Carr...who knows what he would have accomplished with good coaching, a year or two on the bench, and a respectable O-line? Or, conversely, Alex Smith or Steve Young - give them a good system and time and maybe they start winning all of a sudden? Even Vinnie Testaverde came around once he had ten years under his belt.

thank you dread. I've been saying it for years. There are very few Elway type players who are good with zero talent around them. I still wonder what could have been for the Carr's and Couch's of the world had they played behind decent offensive lines. Andrew Walter is from my home town and one of my best friends was his left tackle in high school. He commented that Walter's footwork actually regressed from his senior year in college to his last in the league. Why? He was punch drunk from getting hit in the face every time he took a snap.

wayninja
11-07-2011, 07:39 PM
The Archie Manning syndrome. That guy had a good career surrounded by stiffs and stumblebums of the first order and won Jack Squat. Or David Carr...who knows what he would have accomplished with good coaching, a year or two on the bench, and a respectable O-line? Or, conversely, Alex Smith or Steve Young - give them a good system and time and maybe they start winning all of a sudden? Even Vinnie Testaverde came around once he had ten years under his belt.

Steve Young feels out of place in that list... He has 3 rings... granted 2 of them were as backups, but still... 3 rings...

edit: oops, nevermind, I have to remind myself to remember what 'conversely' means.

Dreadnought
11-07-2011, 07:40 PM
Than we should of stuck with Orton. :laugh::laugh:

I said very good QB's, North. Not noodle armed gunshy mediocrities who played like they suffer from PTSD. Tebow might or might not be. Orton's top aspiration would be to someday acheive a level as high as average.

Poet
11-07-2011, 07:42 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_16299748?source=rss

Just figured I'd remind you that you all have some interesting definitions of being good with zero talent around you.

Dreadnought
11-07-2011, 07:47 PM
http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_16299748?source=rss

Just figured I'd remind you that you all have some interesting definitions of being good with zero talent around you.

I totally agree, and never bought that argument. There were some damned good ballplayers on those teams not named John Elway, and it kind of disrespects them to portray them as poor football players. I will admit I get a little tired of it as well. Atwater, Mecklenberg, Rulon Jones, Steve Watson, Dennis Smith, etc. etc. These were not chump players. It was a good lineup, not a great one. I never liked the 80's TE, RB's, or O-line much, but there was talent.

Poet
11-07-2011, 07:52 PM
I totally agree, and never bought that argument. There were some damned good ballplayers on those teams not named John Elway, and it kind of disrespects them to portray them as poor football players. I will admit I get a little tired of it as well. Atwater, Mecklenberg, Rulon Jones, Steve Watson, Dennis Smith, etc. etc. These were not chump players. It was a good lineup, not a great one. I never liked the 80's TE, RB's, or O-line much, but there was talent.

To me, you hit a point of being so good at a game that it's just splitting hairs. I refuse to believe that Elway couldn't have run the WCO like Montana. I hate the "so and so is the best ever hands down," not the "this guy is imo the best guy ever,".

Jsteve01
11-07-2011, 07:59 PM
quick name off the pro bowl skill position players offensively on that list

Oh and just so we're clear Watson's pro bowl was prior to Elway's career.

Dreadnought
11-07-2011, 08:18 PM
quick name off the pro bowl skill position players offensively on that list

Oh and just so we're clear Watson's pro bowl was prior to Elway's career.

That was a ripoff - Watson should have been in every Probowl from '82-86. He was a legit elite WR in a Dan Reeves system. Apart from that you're right. Mark Jackson was good, not great. Vance Johnson was OK. Willhite was a good 3rd down back. Clarence Kay had hands like skillets. Sammy Winder was, well, boring.

HORSEPOWER 56
11-07-2011, 08:50 PM
With scrambling qb's, ala elway/vick/plummer, they give wr's extra time to work free. That was what made elway so dangerous.
Now if TT could hit the wide open receivers.........

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

I saw Phyllis Rivers miss no less than 6 WIDE OPEN receivers yesterday - not counting the 3 INTs he threw, 2 returned for TDs...

When you play in a pass first offense like Rivers, Brees, Brady, and Rodgers, and you drop back to throw 50 times a game you tend to develop a pretty good rhythm and your accuracy and touch typically improves as the game goes on. Tebow attempted a whopping 21 passes and completed ten, if you count the three drops/can't get the second foot in bounds, now he's 13/21. Not great, but not terrible - especially if you're not throwing INTs and contributing 100+ yards on the ground with your legs.

Who really gives a damn if Tebow throws a 30 yard pass or runs for 30 yards? It's still 30 damned yards for the offense. Once again, we have a bunch of jaded-assed fans who think they know more about football and love to hang on the every word of clowns like Merrill Hoge who knows so much about football and especially playing QB... :rolleyes:

The bottom line is, we smoked the Raiders by 14 points, in the black hole, and our 6th NFL start QB outplayed their prototype, first overall pick, pocket passer. I don't give a damn if Tebow never completes a forward pass. If we keep beating teams by 14 points, bring on the 2 headed monster Tebow-McGahee 300 rushing yard meat grinder and we as fans can bitch, whine, complain, and :rolleyes: all the way to the playoffs while we critique completion percentages...

Tned
11-07-2011, 10:25 PM
You know this how? Both were in line to that pass, T.

Just sayin....

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

For one thing he was watching Decker come from the right to the left and then threw it. For another, I'm not blind.

MOtorboat
11-07-2011, 10:40 PM
I saw Phyllis Rivers miss no less than 6 WIDE OPEN receivers yesterday - not counting the 3 INTs he threw, 2 returned for TDs...

When you play in a pass first offense like Rivers, Brees, Brady, and Rodgers, and you drop back to throw 50 times a game you tend to develop a pretty good rhythm and your accuracy and touch typically improves as the game goes on. Tebow attempted a whopping 21 passes and completed ten, if you count the three drops/can't get the second foot in bounds, now he's 13/21. Not great, but not terrible - especially if you're not throwing INTs and contributing 100+ yards on the ground with your legs.

Who really gives a damn if Tebow throws a 30 yard pass or runs for 30 yards? It's still 30 damned yards for the offense. Once again, we have a bunch of jaded-assed fans who think they know more about football and love to hang on the every word of clowns like Merrill Hoge who knows so much about football and especially playing QB... :rolleyes:

The bottom line is, we smoked the Raiders by 14 points, in the black hole, and our 6th NFL start QB outplayed their prototype, first overall pick, pocket passer. I don't give a damn if Tebow never completes a forward pass. If we keep beating teams by 14 points, bring on the 2 headed monster Tebow-McGahee 300 rushing yard meat grinder and we as fans can bitch, whine, complain, and :rolleyes: all the way to the playoffs while we critique completion percentages...

You've really, really changed your tune.

rcsodak
11-07-2011, 10:40 PM
For one thing he was watching Decker come from the right to the left and then threw it. For another, I'm not blind.
Lol

You're funny when you get defensive. ;')

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

MOtorboat
11-07-2011, 10:41 PM
And I'm perfectly fine by a 55 percent completion percentage, at least for the next two seasons, if he's the quarterback. As long as he can continue to run and not turn the football over.

Tned
11-07-2011, 10:51 PM
Lol

You're funny when you get defensive. ;')

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Plummer's gone. Sorry, he's never coming back. Making ridiculous statements like Tebow was throwing to Moreno isn't going to bring Plummer back.

NorCalBronco7
11-07-2011, 10:51 PM
I'm not hanging off the nuts, so just relax and asnswer the question



I know again yesterday was a 50% or sub 50% (technically) 10/21 day from Tebow in the passing dept.

And all morning on both the board and on TV I keep hearing you can't win with a performance like that from your QB, actually let's make that MORE GOODER.

YOU CAN'T WIN CONSISTENTLY

now I get that people will just sit on their numbers and say what they want to say, but in a 10/21 performance, the difference in sub 50% and almost 58% is ...................

2 CATCHES

now I watched the game on a laptop and some of the stream was not great, but I know there was a screen pass over the middle that was dropped, I thought another opportunity was the LONG throw down the right sideline to (Royal I think) that was an incredible throw wiht the coverage given, but Royal (or whoever) could only get 1 foot down - otherwise it would have been a SICK throw and SICK catch.

I KNOW THIS ALSO - there were still some throws from Tebow that were absolutely off target, some with wide open WRs

but if anyone has the gamefilm and is going to look back at it or has the game DVR'd and wants to see it, were there any other CLOSE DROPS?

if so, would that 58% completion number WORK?

I mean, it seems that is all anyone is saying today about THE ENTIRE DENVER BRONCOS TEAM - that they are 1 dimensional, can't come from behind, not going to win with only 50% completion, etc etc

and in fairness, I am speaking about the national media cause my local guys are going ape shit over the FINS today finally putting one in the W column.

this is an honest question, no nut hanging, no Tebow fan appreciation thread

:drinking:

hamrob
11-08-2011, 02:06 AM
I think 55% this year should be the goal. Next year 60%. I don't see as many problems as everyone else.

If Tebow was stepping into a lineup with a bunch of vets...like in Indy, then I would expect more out of his passing game. But, he is stepping into a situation with a very young offensive line and two 2nd year receivers that have hardly played at this level. Not to mention that Royal has been out...for ever...and Thomas is a rookie TE and this is Fells first year here.

That's a hell of a lot oppurtunity for mistakes. Sure Tebow has missed some passes...but, how many wrong routes have been run, how many times have receivers not been open, hopw many times have blockers been blown by?

The bottom like is, it takes time to gel. I believe they are beginning to come together. When they do, I fully expect that Tebow (with his throwing motion, footwork, etc.) will be a 60% passer...and our offense will be formiddable.

The biggest pluses to Tebow right now...are Kuper and Magahee. Both vets with strong leadership skills. You need at least a couple of those guys in the huddle with you...when your a young guy with all of Tebow's scrutiny.

Lancane
11-08-2011, 06:30 AM
I think 55% this year should be the goal. Next year 60%. I don't see as many problems as everyone else.

If Tebow was stepping into a lineup with a bunch of vets...like in Indy, then I would expect more out of his passing game. But, he is stepping into a situation with a very young offensive line and two 2nd year receivers that have hardly played at this level. Not to mention that Royal has been out...for ever...and Thomas is a rookie TE and this is Fells first year here.

That's a hell of a lot oppurtunity for mistakes. Sure Tebow has missed some passes...but, how many wrong routes have been run, how many times have receivers not been open, hopw many times have blockers been blown by?

The bottom like is, it takes time to gel. I believe they are beginning to come together. When they do, I fully expect that Tebow (with his throwing motion, footwork, etc.) will be a 60% passer...and our offense will be formiddable.

The biggest pluses to Tebow right now...are Kuper and Magahee. Both vets with strong leadership skills. You need at least a couple of those guys in the huddle with you...when your a young guy with all of Tebow's scrutiny.

HR, I'm giving you a High-Five simply for pure optimism and a solid post for which you've expressed it. (Not being sarcastic...I wish I could be as optimistic, but alas I can not.)

Joel
11-08-2011, 06:42 AM
58% would be acceptable, but only with at least a dozen more passes. 60-70% would still be better, obviously, but, if the extra dozen passes came with an additional TD and no more than one interception, I think most people would be content with that from their starter. The bigger issue with Tebow is that, in a passing obsessed league, we ONLY threw 21 times, BECAUSE Tebows <50% completions has destroyed confidence in his accuracy. If the team and coaches had enough confidence in Tebows arm to throw 40 times then, yes, only completing 23 of them would be good enough (though still not great) unless he had many picks or few TDs, because that would translate into roughly 50-60 more yards than 18/40, and probably at least a FG.

Until he completes more passes on Sunday, however, we won't be throwing more than 20 times unless we fall way behind very early--which is likely to happen if we ONLY run options, QB draws and hand offs to McGahee. Tebow must be a legitimate and serious threat passing as well as running, so the Broncos will be also. As long as his passes are more often than not incomplete (which is literally what <50% completions means) that will not be the case. That means teams can stack the box and sell out on stopping our running game and/or blitzing Tebow, which creates a vicious cycle from which the only escape is Tebow learning to read Ds, find open receivers and get them ball for big gains and TDs. The first drive of the second half against Oakland was a great example of Tebow doing just that; if/when he can do that consistently EVERYTHING will change and Denvers offense will become lethal, in large part because of Tebow. Conversely, as long as opponents know the odds favor an incomplete pass every time Tebow drops back to throw, they won't worry about it, and WE will continue to worry about it a lot.

Dreadnought
11-08-2011, 06:53 AM
Until he completes more passes on Sunday, however, we won't be throwing more than 20 times unless we fall way behind very early--which is likely to happen if we ONLY run options, QB draws and hand offs to McGahee. Tebow must be a legitimate and serious threat passing as well as running, so the Broncos will be also. As long as his passes are more often than not incomplete (which is literally what <50% completions means) that will not be the case. That means teams can stack the box and sell out on stopping our running game and/or blitzing Tebow, which creates a vicious cycle from which the only escape is Tebow learning to read Ds, find open receivers and get them ball for big gains and TDs. The first drive of the second half against Oakland was a great example of Tebow doing just that; if/when he can do that consistently EVERYTHING will change and Denvers offense will become lethal, in large part because of Tebow. Conversely, as long as opponents know the odds favor an incomplete pass every time Tebow drops back to throw, they won't worry about it, and WE will continue to worry about it a lot.

I have always thought in running an offense that when you hit on a play that the opponent has no answer for you keep running it until they stop it. That kind of describes the last 21 minutes of the Raider game. I agree that this will not always be the case in future, but for the game played on 11/6/11 it was the correct course. Raiders had no answer, so we kept running the same damned play over and over and over again and tortured them with it. Now we've given the Chefs game film, so hopefully they obsess enough about the run option that other stuff down the field opens up. I also think Mo had a great point in that the run option's success was partially set up by two long TD passes earlier in the game. It was proof we would in fact call and could hit on those plays

G_Money
11-08-2011, 09:21 AM
I totally agree, and never bought that argument. There were some damned good defensive ballplayers on those teams not named John Elway, and it kind of disrespects them to portray them as poor football players. I will admit I get a little tired of it as well. Atwater, Mecklenberg, Rulon Jones, Steve Watson, Dennis Smith, etc. etc. These were not chump players. It was a good lineup, not a great one. I never liked the 80's TE, RB's, or O-line much, but there was talent.

Fixed.

What Elway did with the offense he had would be like Jake Delhomme taking the Panthers to three Super Bowls - WITH NO RUNNING GAME.

Watson = Smith, and from there....nothing. Sammy Winder had a 3.7 YPC average, career. 1987, when the Broncos were #2 in yards in the league, he had a 3.8. There was no work horse in either the run game or the passing game. No go-to guy, no reliable anything. John was the 2nd leading rusher on the team, and 8 guys were over 200 yards receiving, with none over 700.

He had jokes in the backfield, and at TE. His receivers were a bunch of #3 guys. It was a mess.

The defense had some talented players. The OFFENSE had Elway, and for a while, Watson. It was some kind of jedi mind trick to convince those teams to be AFC champs.

Reeves was working that trick too - I hated his offenses, but he was doing something right.

Mostly by shutting up in the 4th quarter, thanking his defense for keeping it close, and letting John play sandlot football instead of 2-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust like we'd been doing for the previous 3 quarters.

~G

Jsteve01
11-08-2011, 09:34 AM
Fixed.

What Elway did with the offense he had would be like Jake Delhomme taking the Panthers to three Super Bowls - WITH NO RUNNING GAME.

Watson = Smith, and from there....nothing. Sammy Winder had a 3.7 YPC average, career. 1987, when the Broncos were #2 in yards in the league, he had a 3.8. There was no work horse in either the run game or the passing game. No go-to guy, no reliable anything. John was the 2nd leading rusher on the team, and 8 guys were over 200 yards receiving, with none over 700.

He had jokes in the backfield, and at TE. His receivers were a bunch of #3 guys. It was a mess.

The defense had some talented players. The OFFENSE had Elway, and for a while, Watson. It was some kind of jedi mind trick to convince those teams to be AFC champs.

Reeves was working that trick too - I hated his offenses, but he was doing something right.

Mostly by shutting up in the 4th quarter, thanking his defense for keeping it close, and letting John play sandlot football instead of 2-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust like we'd been doing for the previous 3 quarters.

~G

exactly. It still kills me that we drafted Maddox rather than Carl Pickens. But then, there were so many other opportunities to draft better during the Reeves era.

TXBRONC
11-08-2011, 09:46 AM
I saw Phyllis Rivers miss no less than 6 WIDE OPEN receivers yesterday - not counting the 3 INTs he threw, 2 returned for TDs...

When you play in a pass first offense like Rivers, Brees, Brady, and Rodgers, and you drop back to throw 50 times a game you tend to develop a pretty good rhythm and your accuracy and touch typically improves as the game goes on. Tebow attempted a whopping 21 passes and completed ten, if you count the three drops/can't get the second foot in bounds, now he's 13/21. Not great, but not terrible - especially if you're not throwing INTs and contributing 100+ yards on the ground with your legs.

Who really gives a damn if Tebow throws a 30 yard pass or runs for 30 yards? It's still 30 damned yards for the offense. Once again, we have a bunch of jaded-assed fans who think they know more about football and love to hang on the every word of clowns like Merrill Hoge who knows so much about football and especially playing QB... :rolleyes:

The bottom line is, we smoked the Raiders by 14 points, in the black hole, and our 6th NFL start QB outplayed their prototype, first overall pick, pocket passer. I don't give a damn if Tebow never completes a forward pass. If we keep beating teams by 14 points, bring on the 2 headed monster Tebow-McGahee 300 rushing yard meat grinder and we as fans can bitch, whine, complain, and :rolleyes: all the way to the playoffs while we critique completion percentages...

I don't know if we can win consistently if Tim can't refine his passing skills. My view has nothing to do with Hoge. I have no respect for his views because I think he's a vicious jerk and hypocrite. My views are influnced by Elway has said. Elway has complemented Tebow he but has also said that Tebow has to improve his passing skills.

wayninja
11-08-2011, 10:19 AM
I don't know if we can win consistently if Tim can't refine his passing skills. My view has nothing to do with Hoge. I have no respect for his views because I think he's a vicious jerk and hypocrite. My views are influnced by Elway has said. Elway has complemented Tebow he but has also said that Tebow has to improve his passing skills.

To be fair though, more things need to get better than just Tebow. Our defense which did play pretty decent, is still allowing way too many points/yards per game, for instance.

Yes, Tebow needs to improve his throwing so the triple option can be a true threat, but he also needs to get consistent help on the other side of the ball. The Lions are a good team, but 45 points is asking too much of most QB's with this offence.

Having said that, I think his passing is improving. Maybe winning has my rose colored glasses on, but his passes looked better to me. I don't think there is any doubt that he can be accurate, the question is can he be accurate consistently.

TXBRONC
11-08-2011, 10:54 AM
To be fair though, more things need to get better than just Tebow. Our defense which did play pretty decent, is still allowing way too many points/yards per game, for instance.

Yes, Tebow needs to improve his throwing so the triple option can be a true threat, but he also needs to get consistent help on the other side of the ball. The Lions are a good team, but 45 points is asking too much of most QB's with this offence.

Having said that, I think his passing is improving. Maybe winning has my rose colored glasses on, but his passes looked better to me. I don't think there is any doubt that he can be accurate, the question is can he be accurate consistently.

True there are other areas that need to improve. But those problems wont save Tebow job only him improving will do that.

I would dollars to cold dog turds that Fox and McCoy don't want run a read option offense full time because eventually the number hits Tebow is taking will catch up with him.

There is a lot of doubt that he can be a consistently accurate passer.

wayninja
11-08-2011, 11:56 AM
True there are other areas that need to improve. But those problems wont save Tebow job only him improving will do that.

I would dollars to cold dog turds that Fox and McCoy want run a read option offense full time because eventually the number hits Tebow is taking will catch up with him.

There is a lot of doubt that he can be a consistently accurate passer.

I get that Tebows performance is the main consideration when evaluating his employment, but you did say that you didn't think we could win games consistently if he doesn't refine his passing. Those are just not two necessarily related things. We can absolutely win games if we keep having ridiculously punishing ground games like we did vs Oakland, but that won't necessarily mean Tebow keeps his job.

I don't follow you about Fox and McCoy though. Are you saying they want Tebow to get hurt?

Of course there is doubt, the thing they are evaluating is whether or not that consistency is improving. It looked like improvement to me. Guess we will have to continue to watch though.

TXBRONC
11-08-2011, 12:10 PM
I get that Tebows performance is the main consideration when evaluating his employment, but you did say that you didn't think we could win games consistently if he doesn't refine his passing. Those are just not two necessarily related things. We can absolutely win games if we keep having ridiculously punishing ground games like we did vs Oakland, but that won't necessarily mean Tebow keeps his job.

I don't follow you about Fox and McCoy though. Are you saying they want Tebow to get hurt?

Of course there is doubt, the thing they are evaluating is whether or not that consistency is improving. It looked like improvement to me. Guess we will have to continue to watch though.

Hey that's what Elway thinks and I happen to agree him. Being a one dimensional will eventually catch up with you. Defensive coordinators will find a way to stop the run and if you can't throw it more effectively in a League geared towards the passing game I don't see us winning consistently.

Where in the world do you get the idea that I would suggest that Fox and McCoy want Tebow to get hurt? I'm saying this read option offensive will eventually take it's toll on Tebow because he's taking a lot of extra hits.

Dreadnought
11-08-2011, 12:13 PM
Where in the world do you get the idea that I would suggest that Fox and McCoy want Tebow to get hurt? I'm saying this read option offensive will eventually take it's toll on Tebow because he's taking a lot of extra hits.

From your previous post. Thats how I would have read it if I didn't know your posting better. I'm guessing a typo, though



I would dollars to cold dog turds that Fox and McCoy want run a read option offense full time because eventually the number hits Tebow is taking will catch up with him.

wayninja
11-08-2011, 12:23 PM
Hey that's what Elway thinks and I happen to agree him. Being a one dimensional will eventually catch up with you. Defensive coordinators will find a way to stop the run and if you can't throw it more effectively in a League geared towards the passing game I don't see us winning consistently.

Well, maybe, I don't necessarily disagree. But you are changing the question. Is it about Tebows future or whether or not we can win? Tebow has been REALLY bad in 2 out of 3 games and average/journeyman in another and we are 2-1 with him. His style of play makes it a bit hard to judge on the surface if a game is a gimme in either direction.


Where in the world do you get the idea that I would suggest that Fox and McCoy want Tebow to get hurt? I'm saying this read option offensive will eventually take it's toll on Tebow because he's taking a lot of extra hits.


I would dollars to cold dog turds that Fox and McCoy want run a read option offense full time because eventually the number hits Tebow is taking will catch up with him.

Maybe this is a typo, I dunno, that's why I asked.

catfish
11-08-2011, 12:27 PM
I get that Tebows performance is the main consideration when evaluating his employment, but you did say that you didn't think we could win games consistently if he doesn't refine his passing. Those are just not two necessarily related things. We can absolutely win games if we keep having ridiculously punishing ground games like we did vs Oakland, but that won't necessarily mean Tebow keeps his job.

I don't follow you about Fox and McCoy though. Are you saying they want Tebow to get hurt?

Of course there is doubt, the thing they are evaluating is whether or not that consistency is improving. It looked like improvement to me. Guess we will have to continue to watch though.

I think the quote was supposed to read "wont run" not "want run" might clear that up a bit

TXBRONC
11-08-2011, 12:31 PM
What I meant was that I don't think they want to run a read option offense full time.

Slick
11-08-2011, 12:35 PM
You posting on a phone Tex? Don't go all JRwiz on us.

TXBRONC
11-08-2011, 12:41 PM
Well, maybe, I don't necessarily disagree. But you are changing the question. Is it about Tebows future or whether or not we can win? Tebow has been REALLY bad in 2 out of 3 games and average/journeyman in another and we are 2-1 with him. His style of play makes it a bit hard to judge on the surface if a game is a gimme in either direction.





Maybe this is a typo, I dunno, that's why I asked.

No I didn't change the question because the two are linked. We ran the read option offense because that is what Tebow does best.

You're look at from how you would evaluate Tebow. I'm listening to what Elway says which

wayninja
11-08-2011, 12:49 PM
I don't know if we can win consistently if Tim can't refine his passing skills.


True there are other areas that need to improve. But those problems wont save Tebow job only him improving will do that.

This is why I'm confused. Are we talking about winning or Tebow saving his job?

As it stands right now, we are winning. But Tebow's future is still in doubt. I understand that you think the two are linked, but what if, hypothetically, Tebow plays average/poor the rest of the season and we still somehow end up winning more than we lose and take the division?

G_Money
11-08-2011, 12:54 PM
I don't know if we can win consistently if Tim can't refine his passing skills. My view has nothing to do with Hoge. I have no respect for his views because I think he's a vicious jerk and hypocrite. My views are influnced by Elway has said. Elway has complemented Tebow he but has also said that Tebow has to improve his passing skills.

I know we CAN'T win if Tim doesn't refine those passing skills.

But I still haven't seen anything that indicates it's impossible for him to do so. He'll be inconsistent while he works on his footwork - some throws will be perfect and some will be "WTF#!$#!@$#!!" :mad: level frustrating. :lol:

I don't think his throwing motion is his problem. Leave it alone. Make his footwork more consistent, help him read defenses and throw to a spot accurately instead of just to a receiver generally, and that'll be enough.

I wish Fox would get off his ass and declare Tim the QB for the rest of the year, though. He has to win the 2012 job outright, it's not his to lose. To have a chance to win it, he's gonna need all the games and experience he can get.

~G

TXBRONC
11-08-2011, 01:07 PM
I know we CAN'T win if Tim doesn't refine those passing skills.

But I still haven't seen anything that indicates it's impossible for him to do so. He'll be inconsistent while he works on his footwork - some throws will be perfect and some will be "WTF#!$#!@$#!!" :mad: level frustrating. :lol:

I don't think his throwing motion is his problem. Leave it alone. Make his footwork more consistent, help him read defenses and throw to a spot accurately instead of just to a receiver generally, and that'll be enough.

I wish Fox would get off his ass and declare Tim the QB for the rest of the year, though. He has to win the 2012 job outright, it's not his to lose. To have a chance to win it, he's gonna need all the games and experience he can get.

~G


And by no means am I writing him off not that it matters because it's not my decision. I agree improved footwork would go a long way in helping him become more consistent. I don't know how much they can work on that in the middle of the season. That's why not having offseason so detrimental to him.

rcsodak
11-08-2011, 03:56 PM
Plummer's gone. Sorry, he's never coming back. Making ridiculous statements like Tebow was throwing to Moreno isn't going to bring Plummer back.
Yep. Along with winning seasons. Right, T? ;')

Mobile Post via http://Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

hamrob
11-08-2011, 10:18 PM
HR, I'm giving you a High-Five simply for pure optimism and a solid post for which you've expressed it. (Not being sarcastic...I wish I could be as optimistic, but alas I can not.)Lancane...what I just can't seem to understand is this:

What was the alternative to Tebow? Kyle Orton?? What alternative is that?? Tebow has star power. And, here's the thing people really don't get. His arm is as stron as anyone's in the NFL. Take that one to the bank. And, he will become more accurate and make quicker reads when the game slows down for him and he is more comfortable. Wait and watch.

For the record...I've been a broncos fan since 1974....I've never liked the gators or the Chomp...but, I can see the reason that Tim Tebow excels in everything he does. He's a winner.

If we let this kid get a way...we will greatly regret it!!!

Joel
11-09-2011, 09:54 AM
I have always thought in running an offense that when you hit on a play that the opponent has no answer for you keep running it until they stop it. That kind of describes the last 21 minutes of the Raider game. I agree that this will not always be the case in future, but for the game played on 11/6/11 it was the correct course. Raiders had no answer, so we kept running the same damned play over and over and over again and tortured them with it. Now we've given the Chefs game film, so hopefully they obsess enough about the run option that other stuff down the field opens up. I also think Mo had a great point in that the run option's success was partially set up by two long TD passes earlier in the game. It was proof we would in fact call and could hit on those plays
Well, that's football offense, isn't it? If we're consistently successful running and passing, defences can't exclusively focus on stopping either, and every time they shift too heavily toward stopping one we'll do the other so we still succeed. The two TD passes unquestionably went a long way toward the big runs we had later. In fact, I think the first TD pass was less of a factor than the series of good passes on the 80 yd drive that culminated in the second TD pass, because that showed Tebow could not only hit his receivers for long passes, but do so CONSISTENTLY. Defences are willing to trade the occasional anomalous TD pass for shutting down our run all day long and knowing most of our passes will be incomplete (again, that's what <50% completions means.) Burning them deep on every other play would dramatically change that arithmetic.

The Raiders did what every team we play will do: Dared Tebow to beat them with his arm. Our first drive in the second half convinced them he could do just that and forced them to protect against it, which meant there weren't eight guys waiting for him or McGahee when they tucked it away to run. In a way, the general lack of faith in Tebows arm has made "running to establish the pass" unnecessary: Defences are selling out on stopping our run, not because we do it so well, but because we pass so badly. However we got there though, the fact remains that leaves receivers open downfield; Tebow just has to see them and get them the ball before he's tackled. If/when he can do that on a regular basis we'll have found our QB for the next decade, along with a very versatile offense that scares opponents as much as it scares many of us now.

BroncoStud
11-09-2011, 11:35 AM
58% would be just fine. It's what Orton has last year on his way to those 3,600 yards. If Tebow throws for 58% and runs for an average of 50 yards, the Broncos will win a LOT, a whole LOT of games.

The best way to minimize our defenses impact on the field is to run the football and keep opposing offenses on the sideline.

TXBRONC
11-09-2011, 11:47 AM
58% would be just fine. It's what Orton has last year on his way to those 3,600 yards. If Tebow throws for 58% and runs for an average of 50 yards, the Broncos will win a LOT, a whole LOT of games.

The best way to minimize our defenses impact on the field is to run the football and keep opposing offenses on the sideline.

If that were true we should have been winning game with Orton at the helm. I think 58% will work just but you have also have to able to convert 3rd downs and score in the red zone.

TXBRONC
11-09-2011, 12:42 PM
You posting on a phone Tex? Don't go all JRwiz on us.

I wont make excuses for my mistake. I'm not always disciplined to proof read my posts before I submit them.

Lancane
11-11-2011, 10:43 PM
Lancane...what I just can't seem to understand is this:

What was the alternative to Tebow? Kyle Orton?? What alternative is that?? Tebow has star power. And, here's the thing people really don't get. His arm is as stron as anyone's in the NFL. Take that one to the bank. And, he will become more accurate and make quicker reads when the game slows down for him and he is more comfortable. Wait and watch.

For the record...I've been a broncos fan since 1974....I've never liked the gators or the Chomp...but, I can see the reason that Tim Tebow excels in everything he does. He's a winner.

If we let this kid get a way...we will greatly regret it!!!

HR, I guess it really depends on someone's take regarding the sport in general and which philosophies they themselves believe in. I've never been a fan of offenses which utilize excessive running from the quarterback position. Not to mention that I believe rushing quarterbacks are more of a liability then an asset, it's one thing to be mobile, it's another when it's really the only facet of the position that you successful at. Tebow has show little aptitude in regards to his passing mechanics or even showing his unorthodox style can translate to the NFL, he's downright horrendous, the only reason his quarterback ranking isn't lower is simply due to the fact he has few turnovers, and it's hard to intercept the ball when the receivers struggle to even get to it. In truth HR, he's pretty much Ryan Leaf with legs!

Is there a different or better option? I don't know and I don't think Denver knows either, and instead of changing back and forth I think they're trying to assuage the situation by trying to cater an offense that they hope Tebow can run easier, not so much better but out of more of a need than anything.

As for him being a winner and excelling at whatever he does, he will eventually fail and I believe that time is upon us now. And winning a handful of games is meaningless in my opinion, I want to win as much as possible and I don't think he has the right skill set to shoulder this team, carry them or win against premier quarterbacks that can score every time they touch the ball.

Thestrategist1
11-11-2011, 11:01 PM
Well, thats because 9/10 of the QB's who win championships or even make the SB on a regular basis are HOF'rs. I mean, while i might enjoy winning a SB with Tebow i dont want it too be a one and done kind of deal. I want a QB who can consistently get us in position to be in the SB and play at a very high level. In other words i dont want a trent dilfer but a John Elway, Tom Brady, Joe Montana, etc. That really should be every teams goal when it comes to the QB position.


Wow thats really really tough, Even the great only went 4x in 16yrs,

And to put everything in perspective Elways Comp% was 56.9% at the end of his career.

His first 10 games he went 4-6 and had a Comp% 47.5%.

Dont get me wrong not a comparison!!!! Elway is the Greatest just trying to give some perspective!

MOtorboat
11-11-2011, 11:30 PM
Dont get me wrong not a comparison!!!! Elway is the Greatest just trying to give some perspective!

In a completely different era dominated by a completely different offensive philosophy and a game governed by shockingly different rules.

lgenf
11-11-2011, 11:34 PM
just trying to give some perspective!

Perspective is not a word one can use when speaking about Tebow

The nut hangers (such as myself) believe he will succeed and look at all he has been able to accomplish so far in only 6 games (for a guy that can't play QB)

The doubters believe he will never be anything and no matter what he does it will not be good enough

60% completion, no ints, making plays with his legs, making the offense better because the defense has to account for him rushing, nothing will make them happy

Instead of looking at him for what he is, someone who is finding a way to win with his team, on a team that is not very good, and in his 6th start, a QB that was by everyone's account going to take 2-3 years to develop into a pocket presence passer

Thestrategist1
11-11-2011, 11:44 PM
Looked it up the highest comp% in a nfl season was 70.623%.
The avg pass comp% 59.896%

I dont think Comp% means anything really, only thing that matters are Wins, thats just my take

MOtorboat
11-11-2011, 11:52 PM
Looked it up the highest comp% in a nfl season was 70.623%.
The avg pass comp% 59.896%

I dont think Comp% means anything really, only thing that matters are Wins, thats just my take

The average pass completion when? Last year?

G_Money
11-13-2011, 11:39 AM
The average pass completion when? Last year?

It was 60.8% last year. In 1987 it was 54.8%.

Can't really compare now to the 80s as far as completion percentage goes - the spread of the West Coast offense and its philosophical offshoots really brought up the percentage.

For the last decade, though, it's been 59%+, so anything over the last 10 years is fair game for comparisons IMO. Which is why I try to keep the Timmy comps to guys who played in that era when it comes to low completion %, whenever possible.

I still say his hope is to turn into Steve McNair: running QB who learned how to throw even with a weird motion, "warrior" who was one yard from winning a SB and was MVP of the league.

It took Steve until his 6th season to get over 60% (for a full season). He never threw for a ton of yards in a season - never crossed 3400, actually, though he had 6 over 3000. He did enough to be a great QB, though, on par with Aikman IMO.

But there were growing pains. Getting Tim's completion % up is going to involve growing pains, if we stick with him, that's for damn sure.

~G