Tim Tebow - Let's Talk

Sandman62 · Post by **Sandman62** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:43 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
quote:Originally posted by Sandman62:
The big difference between Stafford and Tebow though is that Stafford doesn't also have the risk of "even if he doesn't get hurt, he could be benched at any time for just plain sucking". As a Stafford owner in 2010 who saw that pick go up in flames in the first half of Week 1, I'd say the threat of major injury is about the same as the threat of being benched. [/QUOTE]Maybe the RESULTS are the same, but I think it FAR more likely that Tebow either gets benched or just puts up a bunch of stinkers along the way than predicting the next time a QB will be injured. :rolleyes:

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:51 am

Injuries are always difficult to project. But when a player has played more than one season and has yet to prove he can play a full season the threat of injury is very real and the risk involved is great. I would say Stafford's potential for injury going into this season equates to Tebow's potential to be benched next season.

Until Stafford proved he could stay healthy for a full season he came with risk. Until Tebow shows he can last a full season he comes with risk. The reasons for risk are different but the risk level itself is very similar in my opinion.

Results are all that matters in fantasy football. At the end of the day, how we reach those results is basically meaningless when evaluating a player's performance for that season. If Tim Tebow gets benched at halftime of Week 1 and rarely plays the rest of the season it will be the same thing as Matthew Stafford getting hurt in the first half of Week 1 in 2010 and rarely playing again the rest of that season.

So yes, Matthew Stafford was a risky QB1 option who paid off for anyone who drafted him there this season. He was a much safer QB2 option due to his upside. I'd put Tebow in the same category for 2012. Risky QB1 option but safe QB2 due to his upside.

[ January 15, 2012, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Tom Kessenich ]

Sandman62 · Post by **Sandman62** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:58 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
Results are all that matters in fantasy football. At the end of the day, how we reach those results is basically meaningless when evaluating a player's performance for that season.Yes, it may be meaningless for THIS season. But how he reached those results this season clearly IS meaningful when we evaluate his potential for NEXT season - which is what some of us have been saying all along. As fun as it was to watch Denver's miracle comebacks, there were enough red flags throughout to concern us for next year. At least now maybe some others might understand why we were so adamant against his ability to succeed.

As I said probably over a month ago, "Consider yourselves warned!".

bobsgym · Post by **bobsgym** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:07 am

I would much rather have Stafford/Hill. Hill would still be productive if Stafford went down. Stafford's ceiling is #1. Tebow's is ~#8.

Bob

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:18 am

Originally posted by Sandman62:

As I said probably over a month ago, "Consider yourselves warned!".

Mike, I think most people are aware of the risks involved with Tebow. That's not a breaking story. The facts with Tebow are simple:

1. He finished with a QB1 ranking in most fantasy scoring systems this season, including the NFFC. That comes on the heels of his standout QB1 production as a starter last season in a much smaller sample size.

2. At his best, he's proven he can deliver elite QB1 production.

3. At his worst, he's been completely horrible.

Those are the facts. Most people know Tebow comes with risk attached. How much risk will be determined before the start of next season when we see how much, if any, improvements he has made. At that time, owners will have to decide whether they want to pursue him and hope he delivers on his upside the way Stafford did this season, for example, or if they want to pass for fear the risk greatly outweighs the potential benefits.

For me, as I've stated several times in this thread if I can get him with good value as a QB2 I'll be all over it because I don't see anyone who is likely to be drafted in his range having Tebow's upside. But my guess is I won't have Tebow on many, if any, teams because I'm guessing he'll go before I'm comfortable taking him.

CoMoHusker · Post by **CoMoHusker** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:20 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
Injuries are always difficult to project. But when a player has played more than one season and has yet to prove he can play a full season the threat of injury is very real and the risk involved is great. I would say Stafford's potential for injury going into this season equates to Tebow's potential to be benched next season.

Until Stafford proved he could stay healthy for a full season he came with risk. Until Tebow shows he can last a full season he comes with risk. The reasons for risk are different but the risk level itself is very similar in my opinion.

Results are all that matters in fantasy football. At the end of the day, how we reach those results is basically meaningless when evaluating a player's performance for that season. If Tim Tebow gets benched at halftime of Week 1 and rarely plays the rest of the season it will be the same thing as Matthew Stafford getting hurt in the first half of Week 1 in 2010 and rarely playing again the rest of that season.

So yes, Matthew Stafford was a risky QB1 option who paid off for anyone who drafted him there this season. He was a much safer QB2 option due to his upside. I'd put Tebow in the same category for 2012. Risky QB1 option but safe QB2 due to his upside. What about Tebow's chances for getting hurt? The way in which he has to run the ball to even be effective increases his potential for injury IMO. So if you add that to the possibility of being benched, Tebow is far more risky than Stafford ever was considering there was probably slim chance of him getting benched.

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:24 am

Originally posted by CoMoHusker:
What about Tebow's chances for getting hurt? The way in which he has to run the ball to even be effective increases his potential for injury IMO. So if you add that to the possibility of being benched, Tebow is far more risky than Stafford ever was considering there was probably slim chance of him getting benched. There's the possibility Tebow could get hurt just like there is with every NFL player. Given how he had no durability issues in college and none in the NFL thus far, I don't consider that to be a major red flag, though. I'm more concerned about the possibility of him being benched than I am getting hurt.

I still think Stafford is a fair comparison not in terms of talent obviously but risk-reward. Many of us believed Stafford could be an elite fantasy QB if he could stay healthy and that's what he proved to be. There's no reason to guess what Tebow can do - he's proven he can be a quality QB1 with elite upside if he can avoid being benched. And that's while having some glaring issues as a passer that we all know about. The question is - can he avoid being benched?

[ January 15, 2012, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: Tom Kessenich ]

Sandman62 · Post by **Sandman62** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:43 am

But WHY did many believe in Stafford? I'd guess because he showed early signs of having elite QB SKILLS (not game results). Big difference.

But I'm still hoping at least some folks buy your Stafford comparison and pull the trigger early on Tebow next year in our leagues!

Coltsfan · Post by **Coltsfan** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:55 am

I gotta say that I think any kind of Tebow/Stafford comparison is just way out there. Stafford is an elite talent in a pass first offense. We all know what Tebow is.

And Tom, we talked last summer on these boards about what Stafford "could be" and he was that and even more. But because of your incredible fear of injuries you missed out on the best QB value in the league this past year. Even if Stafford had gone down the Stafford/Hill combo would have justified his draft status. I wish I had a dollar for every time you mention a player as being an injury risk. Guess what - they are all injury risks. And you don't have to "prove" that you can stay healthy.

My best guess on Tebow is that he won't be the starting QB in Denver at the end of 2012. He will be a marginal fantasy QB in Denver when he does start. And the risk/reward just won't be there except perhaps in DC leagues.

Wayne

[ January 15, 2012, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Coltsfan ]

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:56 am

Again, fantasy is all about production. That's it. Despite his limitations, Tebow has proven elite QB1 potential. That's a fact. There is no guesswork, no opinions are necessary. The facts are quite clear. The concern with Tebow is the risk of him being benched. The concern with Stafford was the risk of him missing a large chunk of the season due to another major injury. Different risks. Same potential fantasy result.

And if people are reading what I've written about Tebow and Stafford they'll be more inclined to get Tebow next season as a QB2. If he busts there, as Stafford did in 2010, the blow should be lessened, assuming you didn't miss out with your QB1 pick. If I have a strong QB1, then Tebow is the ideal QB2 because of his considerable upside. Just like Stafford was this season.

I was unable to get Stafford as a QB2 because he ended up going earlier than I was prepared to draft a backup. My guess is something similar happens with Tebow which is why I don't anticipate having him on my rosters next season.

But that's cool. It was a fun ride this year and he helped me cash a lot of money. So I'll always be Tebowing in his honor for that.