|10-10-2012, 06:10 AM||#11|
Everybody loses. Everybody is capable of losing. Not everybody is capable of winning, and certainly not winning more than they lose.
But more specifically, I thought the first Patriots game was winnable, and turnovers turned the tide. I thought Buffalo was a classic meltdown where the QB becomes an interception machine (it happens to every quarterback, sometimes even later in their careers). And I thought in the KC game Tebow was absolutely frozen, afraid to pull the trigger because he knew they were playing a team that would not score much. He thought he could just hold serve the whole game and win it at the end -- and Elway was right in his diagnosis. Tebow was not "pulling the trigger" in that game. He was tight, causing him to not throw it or throw it late. He fixed that in the Pittsburgh game -- unloaded the ball with courage.
But I know what you're thinking -- excuses, excuses, excuses. And they are. So why do you just ask a rhetorical question about why these games are supposedly "ignored?" They were bad games by the QB, bad games by the team, and they lost. But if you get specifics like I've outline above, you'll think "excuses." Because the only answer you'll accept is "Tebow is a horrible QB, the Broncos shouldn't have drafted him, Coach Fox shouldn't have started him, the Jets shouldn't have traded for him, the Jets shouldn't even be thinking about bringing him in, and when he eventually starts for the Jets, the Jets will be stupid to do that, instead of being a brilliant football mind like me."
All you're looking for is comfort, of confirmation that every jab you've ever taken at Tebow was justified. But unfortunately, you're going to have to hang in there and wonder for a while longer.