- Joined
- Feb 3, 2016
- Messages
- 43,134
- Reaction score
- 16,114
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I think we do know whether he'd have been good or not. He's had five years now to get picked up by a team who's job it is to find and play the best players in the NFL. He couldn't start over Sanchez. He couldn't win a 3rd string job over Matt Barkley. Of the 32 teams whose jobs it is to find the best football talent, none of them deemed him worthy enough to play for them despite a big sample of Tebow's skills. Manning, Young, and Aikman of course had rough starts to their careers, but they all had the obvious talent that propelled them to being #1 picks in their various drafts in the first place. To say we'll never know what Tebow could have been because of their bad starts is to say we'll never know what any player could have been, and I just think that isn't true.
Kurt Warner was playing arena football. Experts get things wrong all the time. Your comment about not starting Tebow over Sanchez 100% proves that correct. Sanchez was horrible, HORRIBLE. There was no winning play there, 0. So guess what a smart owner/manager would have done? Put Tebow in, because it would have been impossible to do worse than Sanchez and Tebow would have at least sold tickets.
That's comment/example supports my position more than detracts from it.