The Faulty Analysis of Tim Tebow

Perhaps I am restating the obvious here, but I like to do it. Its a rhetorical device that helps me express my opinions, solidify them and present them for criticism.

One of the current meme's in the analysis of Tebow by the likes of Waddle, Dilfer, Stephen A. Smith, etc... (the talking head haters) is that the wins are not because of Tebow's play but should be attributed to the defense, Matt Prater, etc....

They consistently look for reason's to attribute the team's success to something other than Tebow because they know it can't have anything to do with him. To admit otherwise would be to admit they are wrong. Their ego's won't allow it.

Now of course the team is a part of the wins. Its is after all a team game, but to use that against Tebow is intellectually dishonest.

Tere are a few inconsistencies here....

1. The claim that all Tebow did was lead his team to 2 clutch field goals by Prater:

Well, yes he did. But you know what? In the tuck rule game of 2001, Tom Brady did the exact same thing. Vinatieri hit two clutch field goals, one in regulation, one in overtime to win it. So does that make Tom Brady the most attrocious QB ever? Apparently not.

2. The claim that the wins don't count because the defense played well:

I find it ironic that one of Tebow's detractors is Trent Dilfer. Let's all recall that in the 2000 Ravens Super Bowl season, Dilfer's stats were 1500 yds, 12 TD/11 Int, and 76.6 passer rating. The stout defense was the primary reason they won that SB. Certainly no one calls Dilfer elite, but neither was he ravaged on a daily basis by the talking heads.

3. The claim that the wins don't count because the teams they played all had "something wrong with them".

Ok, sure, the Bears didn't have Cutler/Forte, the Vikings didn't have Peterson, the Dolphins and Chiefs are weak teams. Fine.

But if that's the standard, then we need to do the same analysis for Montana, Elway, Favre, Manning, Brady, etc... We would need to vacate all of their wins against any team that was missing a star player.

4. Finally, this one is in the future tense....

Clearly the game on Sunday is loaded with outcomes. If the Broncos win, it will be a big deal. Hopefully there can be some validation, but perhaps there won't.

The other point is if the Broncos lose. If that happens, all the critics will drop a big "I told you so". Of course the irony is that 10 other teams have already lost to the Pats this year. They are a good team, that's what happens. I don't recall hearing those teams QB's being judged permanently based upon the outcome of the games.

So what's the point here? I don't have one. Again, this is pro-sports. In the end none of this matters anyway. Argument for arguments sake my friends.

But damn it, if I am going to argue about something, its going to be about the inability of the ESPN talking heads to mount reasonable, cogent arguments. Of course, this occurs because most of them are former players and really don't possess the intelligence to construct anything other than middle school level arguments anyway. So screw 'em.

Go Broncos.