I'm trying to see what you are seeing, but I just don't. Seems to me that these games should be blowouts, and the credit needs to be going to the defense. Tebow making a couple decent plays at the end of the game does not impress me one bit, especially when he is awful for the vast majority of the game.
The offense hasn't scored many points with Tebow at QB. Without the stellar defense, they'd be losing.
Exactly, people are saying he brings intangibles and knows just how to "win". True, on that last drive he did make the game winning TD but he wouldnt have had that opportunity if it wasnt for guys like Dumerville or Von Miller on defense making plays
There was a stat they showed on the broadcast that Mark Sanchez has the most comeback wins over the past couple years. Well, it's because he sucks but the Jets defense keeps the team in the game, allowing for last second heroics. How is Aaron Rodgers supposed to make great comebacks when he is blowing teams out? And Von Miller is amazing.
"Tebow just wins" "Tebow will revolutionize the QB position." Does any of that sound familiar? I'm just mocking the VY fans.
I think right now you guys are actually UNDERESTIMATING Tebow. The reason is because more than baseball or basketball, football is a sport where effort really matters. Where team mentality matters. And if there's one thing Tebow has shown, it's that other football players are willing to follow him. Raising morale of a football team in of itself is a very important trait. I don't think Tebow's a legit NFL QB. I don't think he'll ever be more than a capable backup for a contending team. But there's no doubt that the guy has some serious "intangible" that you have to give him credit for.
repped. if your defense keeps it close because you, the QB, can't generate points thru the first 57 minutes of a game then of course your "comeback" stat will be skewed.
Until this year, Rodgers' record as a starter was 31-22, and during that time, he had only two 2nd half comeback wins. As you can imagine, since they've blown everybody out this year (something that really didn't start happening until now), that number still remains at 2. So, the whole "of course he doesn't lead comeback wins, he's always ahead" thing is a total lie when it comes to Rodgers. He simply hasn't performed well when his team is behind.
The way Tebow wins it at the end is completely different compared to other QBs. Spread offense, let him run, he did it by himself in a weird way.
I don't see how you come to that conclusion. He may only have 2 comeback wins, but that doesnt necessarily mean he hasn't performed well from behind. I'd need to see more stats on it.
Agree, but people say Sanchez is good, because he led his team to 2 AFC championship game. I think the defense led the jets to those 2 AFC champ. games.
In today's NBA atmosphere, basketball chemistry is much closer to baseball than football. Superfriends, Boston trio, Gasol to Lakers, etc. pretty much shows that team chemistry takes a huge backseat to simple talent. But in the NFL, it has been shown time and time again that similar talent under different circumstances can result in huge discrepancies in results.
Tebow needs to be more accurate. I don't think they need to tweak his throwing motion. remember Bernie Kosar was a legit NFL QB with an ugly release.
Manning has had the same rep. Not every hall-of-famer is Joe Montana. Front-runner quarterbacks can still be awesome.
Manning was known as a "choker", as in, he'd cost his team the game in the end (sound familiar?). Rodgers, on the other hand, just hasn't brought his team back from behind hardly ever. The good side of that for him is that he hasn't "cost" his team a game before, but the bad side is he has no clutchness on his resume either. Montana was known as a comeback king, cool under pressure, "Joe Cool", etc. , even from his college days, so I'm not sure how that applies. The only thing I really want to see from Rodgers nowdays is him bring his team back from adversity/deficit, that's really the one thing he has yet to accomplish. And since he has been playing with a Superbowl caliber team for 2 of his 4 years as a starter, I don't know if we'll get to see that anytime soon. The wildcard game against Arizona in 2009 was the closest thing we have to that, and that game ended with a pick 6 by Rodgers IIRC. Anyway, thread derail, it just irks me when people use the "how is he supposed to come from behind?" excuse with Rodgers, when there's just no truth to it. He's had several opportunities and failed to make it happen. He didn't necessarily "cost" his team those games (I hate that concept in a team game), but he played decidedly average.
