right, i believe that award is voted on, further proving my point. the heisman, like golden gloves for baseball, and basically every fan or media voted award is nonsense. even the grammy awards and such are complete farces. there are objective measures of skill in sports. nobody cares. they think players are good when they are famous. basically the best QB is the one with the best QB rating and completion %. the best baseball player is the one with the best OPS+. the best pitcher has the best WHIP. objective measures like this are how to judge performance. not polls. polls are meaningless. actually polls are worse than meaningless they are complete fucking nonsense. again, look at how closely a candidate aligns himself with milton friedman. then that is the best politician in terms of economic policy. case closed.
You mean like taking your team to two national championships? Being the first sophomore Heisman winner in history? Being a 3-time All-American? Finishing a college career with the best passing efficiency in SEC history and #10 in NCAA history? Being first (SEC) and second (NCAA) in all-time rushing touchdowns? MVP of the SEC? AP national player of the year? The facts just don't seem to jibe with your philosophy . . . again.
a team accomplishment, not an individual one. voted on. you are proving my point voted on. you are still proving my point. largely a function of an offense tailored to tebow, the kind of offense that doesnt work unless you have percy harvin and the pouncey brothers. the kind of offense that is built around not throwing. the kind of offense that gets nfl teams nowhere, and gets qbs traded, losing their starting jobs. thats very good for college. i wasnt talking about being a good college QB. peyton and eli dont run many in. that shit dont play in the nfl, which is what i was talking about. again, these are voted on honors. you are going to great lenghts to prove my point for me. you have opinions based on public perception, not reality. again, awards that are voted on mean nothing. they are measures of personal likeability. people who know something about baseball know that derek jeter is one of the worst (defensive) shortstops in the game. and yet he wins gold gloves. this proves my point. also regarding tebow, i was making a point about his skills as a pro quarterback, which is a different game than college football. so again, i urge you to look at objective measures and not voted-upon awards. the objective measures reveal that no quarterback has played worse in over 10 years. tebow starts because he is likeable. and obama wins because he is likeable. and so does bush and clinton. again, nobody besides me judges people by objective measure. thats why danica patrick drives in nascar, its why tebow has a job in the league and why jeter wins gold gloves and why you are a moderate without principles. take any position or award that is awarded based on a vote, and be aware that the award or position has no actual merit attached to it. again, there objective ways to judge a politician. we do not use them. the average voter is a mindless dullard that votes against his own interest. its basic human nature. people dont like what is objectively good for them, they like to be charmed. thats why women like me when they definitely shouldnt. and it why we vote for presidents.
Are you too jaded to recognize that leadership of a championship team is is an individual accomplishment for a quarterback? Again ignoring the fact that Tebow is a top athlete that earned his way by athletics, not by his looks. His fame came from his athletics, not the other way around. How many other 20-year old good-looking Jesus freaks are famous? Name one. Well, college is what his career has consisted of, mostly. He has hardly started his NFL career. Anyway, your point was that he only got this far because of Hollywood looks and fame, not because he was a gifted athlete. It's a stupid point, but at least stay on it. They mean nothing TO YOU! But that's because you are a contrarian, which is apparently how you define an iconoclast, your cherished ideal. You simply must be against anything that makes sense to everybody. What a shock that nobody agrees with you on your subjective choices! It's because you're full of crap, amigo. Your continued ignorance of what a principle is is not my problem. What you mean is that I am a moderate without blind ideology. What nonsense. It means that there is great agreement on the accomplishments of the person. The fact that a few disagree is does not change this. What a laugh! There is no more subjective issue on earth than politics. You have so worshipped Ayn Rand objectivism that you attempt to explain everything with it. Except you, of course. Ayn demands that you must be philosophically selfish and self-indulgent. You are a smart feller, martin. I know, because I'm pretty smart myself. So let me warn you, . . . one of the great failures of smart fellers is that they sometimes imagine that everyone else is stupid. You fail in this fashion quite a bit. It is time to grow up and adopt some pragmatism to go with your blind ideology.
There are many leaders on championship teams... UF had a few great players on their run with Tebow. He is a very good athlete, but not top. I didn't see him atop anything if at all on the NFL combine.... http://nflcombineresults.com/playerpage.php?f=Tim&l=Tebow&i=8644 He's not a top QB, I think he is a good NFL player, but not a 1st pick on any team.. 80% of all football analyst disagree with you Red. Tebow is not held to other standards of everyone else in the league b/c of this religion and his expression in that.
Only one was the quarterback. Your own source shows him #1 in 3-cone, #1 in shuttle, #1 in vertical leap, #2 in broad jump, and #4 in the dash among all quarterbacks. How could he not be a top recruit? His religion has cost him as much good will as it has helped him. Look, my point is not that Tebow is the best quarterback around, but that he got where he is because of athletic ability and his track record in college, NOT because his is good-looking and famous, as martin insists. He is famous because of his athletic ability and his record in college. He is both talented and famous and as such he is much like Joe Namath, Peyton Manning, and dozens of other top college quarterbacks early in their NFL careers.[/QUOTE][/quote]
Opion, much like opinionated voting. You said athlete. Ahh, you see, the controversy around him is all press right? Both good and bad? More time in the news = more famous... So most of all analyst agree that Tebow is not a good NFL QB, yet he goes first round as a QB, why? Unlike Namath, Manning, the dozens of other top college QB's early in their NFL careers, his QB numbers DONT stack up. They never will. Its fine, even you labeled him as an athlete, which is what he is. Not a QB.....but even on an athletic scale, he is not the top nor near it with respect to the rest of the league....
[/quote][/quote] again, you are not thinking, only believing the media hype. tebow is objectively bad. he was (and this is literally true) the least accurate QB to play regularly in over 10 years. not since akili smith has a QB produced such a low completion percentage.so thats hundreds of QBS all more accurate. you are a case in point. exactly my point! irrationality is widespread. i told everyone years ago he was terrible. rational analysts all knew he sucked. when he played he was historically bad. but there were a couple guys like you in denver (since fired). havent you seen moneyball? there are high level folks that refuse rational analysis. red, just listen. i am saying that votes do not actually determine skill. they determine public opinion. those are not the same things. tebow is just an example of a time when public perception differs from reality. far higher percentage than that. thats why not a single team in the league is left that is willing to start him. exactly. thats my exact point about the lack of rational analysis. obama is not held to any real standard either. politicians rarely are. people just vote for whoever they like, whoever is more charming.
I said athletic skill was why he was a top quarterback, which he clearly was. You don't compare apples to oranges. Not yet. He's only played one year. But he walked the walk in high school and college (all-american), he was the top recruit in college and a first rounder in the NFL draft. Trying to say he can't play quarterback and is only a pretty face is completely disingenuous.
again, this is what i mean about objective vs subjective analysis. tebow had the worst completion of any regular quarterback in over 10 years. basically every respected nfl analyst said he couldnt play QB in the NFL. he lost his starting job and not on other team offered him another. but he is obscenely popular. even red is fooled. its the perfect example of the kardishianization of our society, where nothing matters but hype. its one of the biggest flaws of democracy, and it explains why obama is president. none of those are objective analysis. completion percentage is objective. so is QB rating. again, i listed earlier the objective ways to measure athletes and politicians. you can argue with my standards for politicians, but not my standards for ahtletes. a QB that has a historically low completion % is objectively and factually bad.
