Tim Tebow: Jets' Blowout Loss Must Spur Quarterback Change for Final Five Weeks
It's really that simple. Mark Sanchez has been dreadful all season long. He wasn't even good before this season. After the Jets' 49-19 loss to the New England Patriots, why wouldn't you make a quarterback change?
Starting Tebow, at this point, has nothing to do with whether you like him or not. It has nothing to do with his throwing motion, and it has nothing to do with his somewhat annoying public persona.
It has everything to do with common sense in the NFL. If your quarterback, or any player really, is under-performing, you make a change. If he's a rookie, that's different, but this is Sanchez's fourth year behind center.
He should have the simple things down pat right now and slowly working into his prime. Instead, he still hasn't grasped the basic principles of a professional quarterback.
That leaves Tebow, unless you want Greg McElroy running the show. Tebow isn't proven this season, but he's better than someone who has only thrown 12 touchdowns in 11 starts this year. Sanchez can't matriculate the ball down the field; giving Tebow a chance just makes sense.
Who should start at QB for the rest of the year?
The Jets have nothing to lose. That may sound like a poor reason to let Tebow play, but it's not for the Jets. Ryan needs to adopt a proactive attitude, not just allow Sanchez to wither and die under center.
Neither player has franchise-quarterback potential. Taking the unknown route at this point is Ryan's only choice. He's seen what Sanchez can do, and it's not good. Tebow may play poorly, too, but it can't be much worse than 49-19, can it?
Making the postseason is a pipe dream for this group. Retaining some shred of dignity isn't. Any other team would have benched Sanchez by now, rather than making excuses for his poor play.
The Jets coaching staff must end their love affair with the Southern California product and let Tebow have his time. If he fails, he fails. If he doesn't, it was a good idea. Either way, what's happening now isn't working at all.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?