5th overall.
But even still...if you're only going to throw the ball 20 times a game..you better do it more efficiently. Tebow had his offense figured out pretty quickly. He's 1-4 in his last 5 starts and was getting embarrassed in the losses. He's a gimmick player. I just think all production isn't equal. Vick and Cam Newton were and are far more effective runners and even they were able to shit all over Tebow's passing numbers at times and be a feared passer and complete 50% of their passes.
He was just as efficient as Weeden, Bradford, Ponder, Tannehill and Sanchez, as measured by the yards gained per passing attempt. I'm not sure what what other criteria you want for efficiency.
This just proves why QB rating is such a flawed statistic.
And really the only QB on that list I consider putting Tebow over is Mark Sanchez. LOL at comparing Andrew Luck to Tim Tebow though.
There are, basically, 3 stats that correlate QB play and winning %
http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/
They are QB Rating (not QBR, which is beyond silly), YPA and ANY/A. I find using all 3 to be superfluous since ANY/A is really just a combination of the other two, and I was too lazy to explain what it is. I find it tough to include adjusted yards per attempt for a QB since that includes sacks... which is only partially QB dependent.
Interestingly, completion % is among the lowest correlations of anything we would assume might have value (I think we all understand attempts and yards are dependent on the game situation more than the QB's ability).
The article does say QB rating as a predictive measure is flawed, and it is, but it's hardly worthless.
LOL at this thread and at Sven right now. Sven usually does better work in these threads. Anyways, are you really going to compare numbers when discussing QBs? This is the NFL, not baseball. You can't just put TD/INT up and use that alone to grade NFL players. You have to look at the tape and see the decisions the QBs make, etc.
Obst's GIFs are 100x more valid to the point of whether or not Tim Tebow deserves to be an NFL QB than the comparative numbers of other bad QBs. Tebow gets outplayed at practice, c'mon now.
Yes, because making some GIF's is the equivalent of breaking down the tape. Every QB has bad throws, making a GIF is not an evaluation.
More specifically to my point though, is that Tebow has only had a limited opportunity to run an offense designed around him (for those 11 games in Denver). Nobody is advocating that you Tebow can be a 60% passer. However, the last 2 years have, to me atleast, proven that you can win in the NFL with a QB by running a spread offense.
It's not as good as giving the ball to Peyton/Brady/Rogers/Brees. And Tebow isn't at the level of Cam Newton/RG3/Kapernick (understatement).
That isn't the argument though. My point is that of the 32 "starting" NFL QB's, I'd probably put an Tebow in an offense designed to his strengths somewhere around 27-28. If I'm Minny, I'd rather have Tebow and AP running the offense then Ponder. I'd take Tebow over Weeden. I'd rather run the "Tebow" offense over the Sanchez shit show. I'd take Tebow over the mess that was in KC last year. I'd lean towards Tebow over Gabbert/Locker but I really haven't seen those two play enough yet.
EDIT: I'd take Tebow over Cutler too, but mostly because I think Cutler's shitty attitude and body language are more harmful than his moderately superior play is helpful.
