New take on Tebow

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     


    I'll agree Luck has demonstrated he can throw the ball better than Tebow.....

     

    To the other team.

     

    What is shallow is the anal negative hype Tebow gets from self appointed experts and so called experts. Judge the man on what he has actually accomplished on the field, and he is FAR removed from the condemnation he garners.

    Basically, we're talking mindless NFL drama queen BS when talking Tebow. But that's okay, since 75% of football talk around here is that anyway.

     

     




     

    I could care less about Tebow's religious beliefs.  The fact remains that if you watched any of Indy's games last year Luck was asked to make lots of advanced intermediate and down the field throws as part of Arians' system.  On the Broncos they had to completely remake the entire offense to accommodate the fact that he couldn't throw the ball consistently.  In 8 of the games Tebow started they scored under 20 points yet they won 5 of them.  They won a game where he only completed 2 passes and 2 more games where he completed under 10.  That is not a recipe for sustainable success in the NFL.  If you put Tebow on the Colts (who didn't have a RB like McGahee) and an inferior defense they don't make the playoffs.  Luck was asked to do more than Tebow.  The Broncos tried to hide his deficiencies as a passer with a gimmick offense which the Patriots D exposed on National Television.  They are nowhere near comparable despite your attempts to do so with a few choice stats.

     




    I didn't say anything about religion.

    And Tebow's stats are comparable to Luck's across the board.

    Denver went 1-4 with Orton and 7-4 with TT. What's the debate here?

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow


    That's per team. He just got here. I know the rule but always read that per team. He hasn't played 9 games here.



    Here is more:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/27027/a-review-of-practice-squad-rules

    Players must meet one of the following criteria while previously not being on a practice squad more than two seasons:

     

    • No accrued seasons of NFL experience.
    • Free agents who were on an active roster for fewer than nine regular-season games during their accrued seasons.

     

    Tebow is ineligible for the practice squad.

     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    The guy took a 2-14 team, and led them to an 11-5 record,

     



    I think we all know the Colts took a dive with that record TP to get the top draft pick.

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from TexasPat. Show TexasPat's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think we all know the Colts took a dive with that record TP to get the top draft pick. 

     



    RESPONSE: LOL!!!...true that! Nonetheless, how many teams finished 11-5 or better last season? I can't see how you can be critical of Luck, after he accomplished this in his rookie season. Weren't the Colts just 10-6 in the Horse-face's final year as the Indy QB, in 2010?  

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    The 11-5 record for the Colts was a bit of a mirage.  They had a negative point differential (-30).  There were 16 teams last season with negative point differentials.  The Colts were the only team to have a winning record.  If the Colts win that many games next season it will be because Luck took a big step forward in his second season.  If he plays like he did last season I would be surprised if they win 11 games again.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to sheldong's comment:

     


    That's per team. He just got here. I know the rule but always read that per team. He hasn't played 9 games here.

     

     



    Here is more:

     

    http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/27027/a-review-of-practice-squad-rules

    Players must meet one of the following criteria while previously not being on a practice squad more than two seasons:

     

    • No accrued seasons of NFL experience.
    • Free agents who were on an active roster for fewer than nine regular-season games during their accrued seasons.

     

    Tebow is ineligible for the practice squad.

     



    Or this:

    http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA_Searchable_Bookmarked.pdf

    Go to page 161 and look at Section (a).  It is NFL experience, not experience that THAT team.

     

     

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    Like or dislike tebow, his beliefs, throwing motion, etc...the kid has proven to rise to the occasion when the situation warrants it. He is a winner and leader, and a good athlete. Question is what position or positions can he be used based on his unique skill set that provide the most benefit to the pats both short and longer term if he makes the roster?

    short term...he is not beating out any rb nor TE on this roster for playing time. The only way bb uses him at either is injury to someone else or a few trick plays per game. He is already down the depth chart at either position, so I can't see him sticking there. In terms of trick plays...they become less tricky when he's only on the field to run them. If he got a bunch of snaps, then you never know how he might be used. But if TT comes in and the defense can key in on him, what good is trickery?

    therefore, my belief is that TT has been signed to play QB. This is where the pats will invest their time to determine if he can play QB in the pats system rather than tailoring a system to fit TT. That determination will be made within 4-8 weeks. If it has been determined TT can do it but needs refinement, the pats may elect to keep him and then look for a mallet trade partner. If not, the pats will release him within that window or maybe sooner. 

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from pcmIV. Show pcmIV's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:



    I didn't say anything about religion.

    You said not to judge him based on his off the field stuff.  As far as I know that is the religious stuff which I don't care about.

     

    And Tebow's stats are comparable to Luck's across the board.



    No they aren't.  You've just massaged a few of them.

     

    Denver went 1-4 with Orton and 7-4 with TT. What's the debate here?

    The debate is that Tebow won 5 of 8 games where they scored under 20 points.  Orton lost 2 out 3 where they scored 20 or more.  The Tebow led offense was nothing special in most of Denver's wins.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    You're a real piece of work Rusty. You are quick to call people wrong (usually in caps but not this time) and when you are proven wrong you say that the rule isn't clear enough. BTW you didn't ask for clarification you assumed we were wrong and went with it. You know what they say when you make assumption as truth.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    You're a real piece of work Rusty. You are quick to call people wrong (usually in caps but not this time) and when you are proven wrong you say that the rule isn't clear enough. BTW you didn't ask for clarification you assumed we were wrong and went with it. You know what they say when you make assumption as truth.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     



    It's not. It said "the" active roster not "the" roster.  It's very misleading. PCMIV called it ambiguous. I think that particular source didn't make it clear, which is why I asked about that yesterday in another thread. I felt it needed to be clarified, Sheldong found a better source with ADDITIONAL aspects using a word like "acrrued", which helps clarify.

     

    Anyone reading the first source can't really tell if it's talking about multiple rosters or the one the player signs onto. You can't deny that. It's correct I ddn't ask for clarification because I thought the Steelers Addict Chat room sourced version, which is what I saw  as well, was the official version. Clearly it was incomplete. 

    I initially thought there was no way a guy who played in the NFL on a roster for 2 years could't be, but after reading it 3 times and seeing "the" roster and not "an" active roster, it pointed to the SECOND year on the same team, not different rosters, accruing. Jesus.  Am I a piece of work?  How about, YOU are a piece of work for not accpeting why that would be confusing?

    As stated, I asked this PS thing yesterday and Googled exact;y what Sheldong did. I read it 3 times and based off of that sourced version, it appeared he'd be eliglble.

    The second source clearly helps.  Like I said, I do my homework and research before commenting.


    "Except it's not correct.  Tebow is not on Denver or NY. That rule is for when a player plays a minumum of 9 games one year, and then the next year is attempted to be buried on the PS on the SAME TEAM."

    [QUOTE/]

    Yep really did your homework on that one before commenting. You must have been pretty poor in school because when I did homework I double checked something to make sure it was right before waiting for a teacher to correct me. Remember what I said about that assumption thing

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to TexasPat's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    In response to TexasPat's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I think we all know the Colts took a dive with that record TP to get the top draft pick. 

     



    RESPONSE: LOL!!!...true that! Nonetheless, how many teams finished 11-5 or better last season? I can't see how you can be critical of Luck, after he accomplished this in his rookie season. Weren't the Colts just 10-6 in the Horse-face's final year as the Indy QB, in 2010?  

     




    Remember, their scedule was based off that 2-14 season.

     

    I'm not critical of Luck. Though I do think everything about him has been overhyped to this point. He did pretty well for a rookie. My only point has been that Tebow has done just about as well, yet he gets thrown under the bus by all the "experts".

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

     

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    You're a real piece of work Rusty. You are quick to call people wrong (usually in caps but not this time) and when you are proven wrong you say that the rule isn't clear enough. BTW you didn't ask for clarification you assumed we were wrong and went with it. You know what they say when you make assumption as truth.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     



    It's not. It said "the" active roster not "the" roster.  It's very misleading. PCMIV called it ambiguous. I think that particular source didn't make it clear, which is why I asked about that yesterday in another thread. I felt it needed to be clarified, Sheldong found a better source with ADDITIONAL aspects using a word like "acrrued", which helps clarify.

     

    Anyone reading the first source can't really tell if it's talking about multiple rosters or the one the player signs onto. You can't deny that. It's correct I ddn't ask for clarification because I thought the Steelers Addict Chat room sourced version, which is what I saw  as well, was the official version. Clearly it was incomplete. 

    I initially thought there was no way a guy who played in the NFL on a roster for 2 years could't be, but after reading it 3 times and seeing "the" roster and not "an" active roster, it pointed to the SECOND year on the same team, not different rosters, accruing. Jesus.  Am I a piece of work?  How about, YOU are a piece of work for not accpeting why that would be confusing?

    As stated, I asked this PS thing yesterday and Googled exact;y what Sheldong did. I read it 3 times and based off of that sourced version, it appeared he'd be eliglble.

    The second source clearly helps.  Like I said, I do my homework and research before commenting.

     



    "Except it's not correct.  Tebow is not on Denver or NY. That rule is for when a player plays a minumum of 9 games one year, and then the next year is attempted to be buried on the PS on the SAME TEAM."

     

    Yep really did your homework on that one before commenting. You must have been pretty poor in school because when I did homework I double checked something to make sure it was right before waiting for a teacher to correct me.

     



    Umm, based on his sourcing the first set of rules, it was not correct.  I explained why. That source said "the roster", not "an active" roster, the latter which would point to previous OTHER rosters in previous seasons.

     

    You're defending the same source Sheldong and I saw, which is hilarious.  That source isn't sufficient. He found a better which clarifies the confusion.

    The whole reason why that popped up on ESPN is because many fans were pondering that possibility. That one clearly talks about accruing, which clears the air on that possibility.  Why is this so offensive to you?  

    Clearly, the source Sheldong and I saw didn't clarify Tebow's situation. The second one, did




    So you didn't do your homework as you stated because you never got a second source to confirm your thoughts before making an assumption on something you admited needed clearity. Glad you clarified for me that:

    A) You make assumptions of a single source that you find confusing

    B) You don't do your homework as previously stated because you don't look for a second source when there is doubt in your mind

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts