Tim Tebow: Jets QB Deserves Chance to Start After Mark Sanchez Flops vs. 49ers
There is only one player that could possibly help turn this runaway train around before it completely goes off the rails—Tim Tebow.
While the loss of Darrelle Revis certainly hurts the team, it has almost nothing to do with their dismal offensive performance. Starting QB Mark Sanchez once again failed to live up to the hope that fans and the organization have in him to become a franchise signal-caller.
The former first-round pick completed 13-of-29 passes for 103 yards and an interception, which makes his year-to-date stats an abysmal 63-of-128 for 813 yards, five touchdowns and four interceptions, along with two fumbles. To make matters worse, three of the TDs came against an equally bad Buffalo Bills team in a Week 1 blowout.
Of course, Tebow hasn’t done much as the backup to Sanchez—completing his only pass attempt of the season on Sunday—but he has much more upside than the 25-year-old USC product.
While Sanchez wasn’t able to guide Gang Green into the playoffs last year, Tebow took the helm of a flailing Broncos squad and led them into the divisional round of the postseason.
If the Jets continue to struggle, it would be stupid for the organization not to give the miracle worker a shot.
Should the Jets start Tebow?
After all, the Jets went out of their way to trade with Denver and acquire Tebow. There is no harm in attempting extract the same sort of results that the Broncos received from the two-time collegiate national champion. He’s a proven winner, even if it isn’t pretty.
Remember, Rex Ryan’s Jets made it to back-to-back AFC Championships on “ugly” football—running the ball, playing sound defense and getting a few lucky throws. Tebow certainly knows how to manage that kind of game with the best of them.
At this point, the Jets don’t have another reasonable course of action, so give Tebow the start in Week 5 against the Houston Texans and hope for the best.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?