We are wasting a roster spot on #5

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to Muzwell's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Not endorsing Tebow, but Babe has a point about Luck. Yes, his team won games but maybe in spite of him. He really wasn't any good. But the media falls all over themsleves to say how great he was. There was even MVP talk! What?

    If Brady played like him last year, we'd be marching on Foxboro with torches and pitchforks demanding they start Mallett. 

    23 passing TDs (plus 5 rushing) and 23 turnovers, 54% completions, 76.5 QB rating (below Gabbert!). Brutal.

     

     

     




    Luck in year 1, TT in year 4.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Luck was on a team that was previously 2-14

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Right troll, we all know they tanked the season to get Luck if the first place.

    [/QUOTE]

    which is why they turned over 70% of their roster

     

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to MoreRings' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     


    I doubt very much the opposing team would like to see Tebow rather than Brady late in the third quarter down say 31 - 10. Much simpler for them to have Brady in just handing off to burn clock and stop the run than to have to worry about an extra option of Tebow running as well as the backs.

     

    And if you think a 31 - 10 lead late in the 3rd is safe then you must not have seen our D or running game in situations like that much.

     

     

     



    That almost sounds like Rusty.

     

     

     



    Rusty ever says our D is an issue?

     

     

     




    It was a joke Vito.  Do you really think opposing teams would rather see TT than TB. Really?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     


    Yes, I really think in situations where they know we are going to run they may well rather see Brady because he is very likely not going to pass and anybody can hand off.

    I absolutely would from late in the 3rd quarter with a 20 point lead throw TT out there with a clock eating run attack mixed with the occasional keep them honest TT pass/run option. Obviously if the drive came down to a 3rd and 9+ yards I would probably shuttle Brady back in. Not only could this be more effective in that situation than just having Brady hand off, but it would perhaps save some wear and tear on the aging HOFer.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    HORRIBLE idea. Here is why.  Tebow could easily commit a careless turnover, give the opposition the ball with momentum, and turn a 20 pt blowout into a 13 pt game quicker than you can blink.  Leads can evaporate quickly in the NFL.  You don't need some scrub carelessly fumbling the ball away while trying to make something happen, or throwing up a wobbler to the opposing defense even if you are up big. 

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     


    I doubt very much the opposing team would like to see Tebow rather than Brady late in the third quarter down say 31 - 10. Much simpler for them to have Brady in just handing off to burn clock and stop the run than to have to worry about an extra option of Tebow running as well as the backs.

     

    And if you think a 31 - 10 lead late in the 3rd is safe then you must not have seen our D or running game in situations like that much.

     

     

     



    That almost sounds like Rusty.

     

     

     



    Rusty ever says our D is an issue?

     

     

     




    It was a joke Vito.  Do you really think opposing teams would rather see TT than TB. Really?

     

     

     


    Yes, I really think in situations where they know we are going to run they may well rather see Brady because he is very likely not going to pass and anybody can hand off.

    I absolutely would from late in the 3rd quarter with a 20 point lead throw TT out there with a clock eating run attack mixed with the occasional keep them honest TT pass/run option. Obviously if the drive came down to a 3rd and 9+ yards I would probably shuttle Brady back in. Not only could this be more effective in that situation than just having Brady hand off, but it would perhaps save some wear and tear on the aging HOFer.

     

     



    Agreed, about getting Brady off the field in junk time.  One thing i cant stand that BB does is leave him on the field with 2 min left in the 4th quarter and a 3 TD lead.  Hate it.  But I don't want to see TT either.

     

    Yes, I really think in situations where they know we are going to run they may well rather see Brady because he is very likely not going to pass and anybody can hand off.

     

    I agree with running more, have said it over and over here, but if the other team "knows" we are going to run, then I hope we throw.

     

    Lets develop a pounding running game that can not only control the clock when up by 3 tds in the 3rd quarter, but can also control the entire game.  This seems like a much better plan.

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    Right troll, we all know they tanked the season to get Luck if the first place.

     

     



    which is why they turned over 70% of their roster

     

     



    They had a bunch of overpaid old guys that they ditched. It isn't like the roster got significantly better. They had 1 pro bowler in 2011 and 2 in 2012.

    Stop your phoney spin troll. Nobody with a brain buys your BS.

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     


    I doubt very much the opposing team would like to see Tebow rather than Brady late in the third quarter down say 31 - 10. Much simpler for them to have Brady in just handing off to burn clock and stop the run than to have to worry about an extra option of Tebow running as well as the backs.

     

    And if you think a 31 - 10 lead late in the 3rd is safe then you must not have seen our D or running game in situations like that much.

     

     

     



    That almost sounds like Rusty.

     

     

     



    Rusty ever says our D is an issue?

     

     

     




    It was a joke Vito.  Do you really think opposing teams would rather see TT than TB. Really?

     

     

     


    Yes, I really think in situations where they know we are going to run they may well rather see Brady because he is very likely not going to pass and anybody can hand off.

    I absolutely would from late in the 3rd quarter with a 20 point lead throw TT out there with a clock eating run attack mixed with the occasional keep them honest TT pass/run option. Obviously if the drive came down to a 3rd and 9+ yards I would probably shuttle Brady back in. Not only could this be more effective in that situation than just having Brady hand off, but it would perhaps save some wear and tear on the aging HOFer.

     

     

     



    Agreed, about getting Brady off the field in junk time.  One thing i cant stand that BB does is leave him on the field with 2 min left in the 4th quarter and a 3 TD lead.  Hate it.  But I don't want to see TT either.

     

     

    Yes, I really think in situations where they know we are going to run they may well rather see Brady because he is very likely not going to pass and anybody can hand off.

     

    I agree with running more, have said it over and over here, but if the other team "knows" we are going to run, then I hope we throw.

     

    Lets develop a pounding running game that can not only control the clock when up by 3 tds in the 3rd quarter, but can also control the entire game.  This seems like a much better plan.

    [/QUOTE]

    We don't and are not going to have a pounding running game. Just get that out of your head, because it ain't going to happen. We seldom run well against good teams, especially late.


    Problem is if you do throw and miss when you're trying to burn clock you have just given the other guy a free timeout.

    When you have a big lead late the tendency is for the leading team to slack off and ride the lead. It's human nature. Meanwhile the other guys are desperate and claw to get back if for no other reason to save face.

    I could see TT as a specialist and well suited to that specific job. As a matter of fact creating a special hand picked offensive unit for those situations might go a long way in solving these late and large comebacks we have to contend with all too often.

    Anybody can go out there and hand off on these clock burning drives. If you can't see how a Tebow could be an extra advantage in that situation after the explanations, I have to conclude you simply have an insurmountable prejudice against TT that will never succumb to reason.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Luck took over a team that was previously 2-14.  the roster had 70% turnover.  the new HC developed leukemia and was sidelined.  the new OC had to also act as HC.  There was a new DC, a new GM, new system, and low expectations. 

     

     



    Funny how you dig like a little weasel for every scrap of context you can to prop up Luck, but ignore every pertinent fact when it comes to spygate. You are the same old dishonest lying Colts troll you have always been.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
    To begin - that was not much of a digging expedition.  Further, you've done nothing if not used context in this thread to prop up Tebow, whom everyone knows isn't that good as a QB.  Unfortunately, context hasn't gotten Tebow those game reps you think he deserves.  On the other hand, the valid context surrounding Luck last year really demonstrates how important he was to the team's success and why so many people are expecting big things from him this year. 

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Right troll, we all know they tanked the season to get Luck if the first place.

     

     



    which is why they turned over 70% of their roster

     

     

     



    They had a bunch of overpaid old guys that they ditched. It isn't like the roster got significantly better. They had 1 pro bowler in 2011 and 2 in 2012.

     

    Stop your phoney spin troll. Nobody with a brain buys your BS.

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for making my argument for me.  No the team was bad (2-14) and overpaid so they got rid of 70% of the roster and didn't get much better but went 11-5 significantly due to Andrew Luck. 

    Appreciate the help Babe, but I don't think you helped your earlier arguements.

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     


    I doubt very much the opposing team would like to see Tebow rather than Brady late in the third quarter down say 31 - 10. Much simpler for them to have Brady in just handing off to burn clock and stop the run than to have to worry about an extra option of Tebow running as well as the backs.

     

    And if you think a 31 - 10 lead late in the 3rd is safe then you must not have seen our D or running game in situations like that much.

     

     

     



    That almost sounds like Rusty.

     

     

     



    Rusty ever says our D is an issue?

     

     

     




    It was a joke Vito.  Do you really think opposing teams would rather see TT than TB. Really?

     

     

     


    Yes, I really think in situations where they know we are going to run they may well rather see Brady because he is very likely not going to pass and anybody can hand off.

    I absolutely would from late in the 3rd quarter with a 20 point lead throw TT out there with a clock eating run attack mixed with the occasional keep them honest TT pass/run option. Obviously if the drive came down to a 3rd and 9+ yards I would probably shuttle Brady back in. Not only could this be more effective in that situation than just having Brady hand off, but it would perhaps save some wear and tear on the aging HOFer.

     

     

     

     



    Agreed, about getting Brady off the field in junk time.  One thing i cant stand that BB does is leave him on the field with 2 min left in the 4th quarter and a 3 TD lead.  Hate it.  But I don't want to see TT either.

     

     

     

    Yes, I really think in situations where they know we are going to run they may well rather see Brady because he is very likely not going to pass and anybody can hand off.

     

    I agree with running more, have said it over and over here, but if the other team "knows" we are going to run, then I hope we throw.

     

    Lets develop a pounding running game that can not only control the clock when up by 3 tds in the 3rd quarter, but can also control the entire game.  This seems like a much better plan.



    We don't and are not going to have a pounding running game. Just get that out of your head, because it ain't going to happen. We seldom run well against good teams, especially late.

     


    Problem is if you do throw and miss when you're trying to burn clock you have just given the other guy a free timeout.

    When you have a big lead late the tendency is for the leading team to slack off and ride the lead. It's human nature. Meanwhile the other guys are desperate and claw to get back if for no other reason to save face.

    I could see TT as a specialist and well suited to that specific job. As a matter of fact creating a special hand picked offensive unit for those situations might go a long way in solving these late and large comebacks we have to contend with all too often.

    Anybody can go out there and hand off on these clock burning drives. If you can't see how a Tebow could be an extra advantage in that situation after the explanations, I have to conclude you simply have an insurmountable prejudice against TT that will never succumb to reason.

     



    Nothing against him personally. Think he is a good person. 

    Back to the original question, if we use him in the role you say, how much time does he really play and is it worth a roster spot?

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Luck took over a team that was previously 2-14.  the roster had 70% turnover.  the new HC developed leukemia and was sidelined.  the new OC had to also act as HC.  There was a new DC, a new GM, new system, and low expectations. 

     

     

     



    Funny how you dig like a little weasel for every scrap of context you can to prop up Luck, but ignore every pertinent fact when it comes to spygate. You are the same old dishonest lying Colts troll you have always been.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]
    To begin - that was not much of a digging expedition.  Further, you've done nothing if not used context in this thread to prop up Tebow, whom everyone knows isn't that good as a QB.  Unfortunately, context hasn't gotten Tebow those game reps you think he deserves.  On the other hand, the valid context surrounding Luck last year really demonstrates how important he was to the team's success and why so many people are expecting big things from him this year. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    More troll nonsense and lies. I have compared TT's actual on field accomplishments to Luck's. No context needed.

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to MoreRings' comment:


    Nothing against him personally. Think he is a good person. 

     

    Back to the original question, if we use him in the role you say, how much time does he really play and is it worth a roster spot?



    If he plays nearly a quarter in that clock burn role for 4 or 5 games, plus can be used for some sort of change of pace wrinkle (maybe in the backfield with Brady in a shotgun), plus is an alternative option for 3rd and short QB sneak, plus gets some action as a Rb or receiver or ST guy, plus is a backup QB; he would be pretty valuable.

    If any coach could exploit TT's unique set of skills, it's BB.

    Hell, I would keep him just for 3rd and short sneaks. I cringe every time Brady does that.

     

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Right troll, we all know they tanked the season to get Luck if the first place.

     

     



    which is why they turned over 70% of their roster

     

     

     

     



    They had a bunch of overpaid old guys that they ditched. It isn't like the roster got significantly better. They had 1 pro bowler in 2011 and 2 in 2012.

     

     

    Stop your phoney spin troll. Nobody with a brain buys your BS.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for making my argument for me.  No the team was bad (2-14) and overpaid so they got rid of 70% of the roster and didn't get much better but went 11-5 significantly due to Andrew Luck. 

     

    Appreciate the help Babe, but I don't think you helped your earlier arguements.

    [/QUOTE]


    You are incapable of making a single honest post, troll. You are apparently pathological.

    The whole point is that they TANKED the previous season. They certainly did not add enough quality personnel to go from 2-14 to 11-5 with the 26 rated QB leading the charge. LMAO@U

     

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to WazzuWheatfarmer's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     


    I doubt very much the opposing team would like to see Tebow rather than Brady late in the third quarter down say 31 - 10. Much simpler for them to have Brady in just handing off to burn clock and stop the run than to have to worry about an extra option of Tebow running as well as the backs.

     

    And if you think a 31 - 10 lead late in the 3rd is safe then you must not have seen our D or running game in situations like that much.

     

     

     



    That almost sounds like Rusty.

     

     

     



    Rusty ever says our D is an issue?

     

     

     

     




    It was a joke Vito.  Do you really think opposing teams would rather see TT than TB. Really?

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

     


    Yes, I really think in situations where they know we are going to run they may well rather see Brady because he is very likely not going to pass and anybody can hand off.

    I absolutely would from late in the 3rd quarter with a 20 point lead throw TT out there with a clock eating run attack mixed with the occasional keep them honest TT pass/run option. Obviously if the drive came down to a 3rd and 9+ yards I would probably shuttle Brady back in. Not only could this be more effective in that situation than just having Brady hand off, but it would perhaps save some wear and tear on the aging HOFer.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    HORRIBLE idea. Here is why.  Tebow could easily commit a careless turnover, give the opposition the ball with momentum, and turn a 20 pt blowout into a 13 pt game quicker than you can blink. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Really? That's odd, because TT, other than the one game against the Bills, didn't throw a pick but every 120 or so pass attempts.

    The guy takes great care of the ball.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to UD6's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    Right troll, we all know they tanked the season to get Luck if the first place.

     

     



    which is why they turned over 70% of their roster

     

     

     

     

     



    They had a bunch of overpaid old guys that they ditched. It isn't like the roster got significantly better. They had 1 pro bowler in 2011 and 2 in 2012.

     

     

     

    Stop your phoney spin troll. Nobody with a brain buys your BS.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Thanks for making my argument for me.  No the team was bad (2-14) and overpaid so they got rid of 70% of the roster and didn't get much better but went 11-5 significantly due to Andrew Luck. 

     

     

    Appreciate the help Babe, but I don't think you helped your earlier arguements.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You are incapable of making a single honest post, troll. You are apparently pathological.

     

    The whole point is that they TANKED the previous season. They certainly did not add enough quality personnel to go from 2-14 to 11-5 with the 26 rated QB leading the charge. LMAO@U

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I've asked numerous times for someone to prove to me that they intentionally tanked.  No one's been effective.  The colts used 3 different quarterbacks that year to try to improve their situation.  They lost 7 games by less than 10 points.  If the rest of the roster was good enough, they would have found a way to win a couple of those games.  They didn't. 

    But most of us locally knew that the colts roster was somewhat suspect.  We were more than aware that Manning was carrying the team.  The defense had been poor for quite some time.  Injuries didn't help.  And Polian giving the reins to his son who was unprepared and arrogant sealed the deal. 

    Because of that, the new regime turned over 70% of the roster - not just Manning.  Most of these players were no better or not significantly better than the previous set of players.  But given the unique set of circumstances (coach's cancer), they had a rallying cry, the requisite will, a lot of Luck (Andrew), and a little bit of luck (not Andrew). 

    It was a special season for Colts fans.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

    [QUOTE]

     


    Nothing against him personally. Think he is a good person. 

     

    Back to the original question, if we use him in the role you say, how much time does he really play and is it worth a roster spot?

     



    If he plays nearly a quarter in that clock burn role for 4 or 5 games, plus can be used for some sort of change of pace wrinkle (maybe in the backfield with Brady in a shotgun), plus is an alternative option for 3rd and short QB sneak, plus gets some action as a Rb or receiver or ST guy, plus is a backup QB; he would be pretty valuable.

     

    If any coach could exploit TT's unique set of skills, it's BB.

    Hell, I would keep him just for 3rd and short sneaks. I cringe every time Brady does that.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    This honestly makes a lot of sense to me. I have said the same thing on other threads. One further argument - it extends Brady's career.

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to UD6's comment:

     


    Luck was on a team that was previously 2-14 with a new HC (who got Cancer during the season), new OC, new GM and 70% roster turnover.



    So what, every rookie has to deal with a new HC, OC and GM, since, you know, they are new to the team.

     

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to neinmd's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     


    Nothing against him personally. Think he is a good person. 

     

    Back to the original question, if we use him in the role you say, how much time does he really play and is it worth a roster spot?

     

     



    If he plays nearly a quarter in that clock burn role for 4 or 5 games, plus can be used for some sort of change of pace wrinkle (maybe in the backfield with Brady in a shotgun), plus is an alternative option for 3rd and short QB sneak, plus gets some action as a Rb or receiver or ST guy, plus is a backup QB; he would be pretty valuable.

     

     

    If any coach could exploit TT's unique set of skills, it's BB.

    Hell, I would keep him just for 3rd and short sneaks. I cringe every time Brady does that.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    This honestly makes a lot of sense to me. I have said the same thing on other threads. One further argument - it extends Brady's career.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yup. Remember that sneak Brady did where he did an entire flip? Arrrrrgggghhhhh!!!

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from neinmd. Show neinmd's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to neinmd's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to MoreRings' comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     


    Nothing against him personally. Think he is a good person. 

     

    Back to the original question, if we use him in the role you say, how much time does he really play and is it worth a roster spot?

     

     

     



    If he plays nearly a quarter in that clock burn role for 4 or 5 games, plus can be used for some sort of change of pace wrinkle (maybe in the backfield with Brady in a shotgun), plus is an alternative option for 3rd and short QB sneak, plus gets some action as a Rb or receiver or ST guy, plus is a backup QB; he would be pretty valuable.

     

     

     

    If any coach could exploit TT's unique set of skills, it's BB.

    Hell, I would keep him just for 3rd and short sneaks. I cringe every time Brady does that.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    This honestly makes a lot of sense to me. I have said the same thing on other threads. One further argument - it extends Brady's career.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yup. Remember that sneak Brady did where he did an entire flip? Arrrrrgggghhhhh!!!

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    It's burned into my memory bank. If this is the same play you are talking about, didn't he get torpedoed by Ray Lewis on the way down.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from rtuinila. Show rtuinila's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    Why is everyone trying to figure out how Tebow will see the field during a real game this year? How many third QBs make it to the field to play during the regular season? Barring injuries and blowouts, none! Why do you all expect Tebow to buck that trend?  He won't! And just because he doesn't make it to the field doesn't mean he is a wasted roster spot. 

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to neinmd's comment:

     

     



    Yup. Remember that sneak Brady did where he did an entire flip? Arrrrrgggghhhhh!!!

     

     

     

     

     




    It's burned into my memory bank. If this is the same play you are talking about, didn't he get torpedoed by Ray Lewis on the way down.

     

     



    That's it.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     


    Luck was on a team that was previously 2-14 with a new HC (who got Cancer during the season), new OC, new GM and 70% roster turnover.

     



     

    So what, every rookie has to deal with a new HC, OC and GM, since, you know, they are new to the team.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    But the other players don't and the understanding and continuity of the system that they could provide is lost.  further with 70% roster turnover, there's very little continuity amongst teammates.  Finally, throw a cancer diagnosis in a few games into the season and you've got a recipie for failure.  Didn't happen and Andrew Luck had alot to do with that.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from WazzuWheatfarmer. Show WazzuWheatfarmer's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    Amazing how horrible our offense looks with Tebow running it.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    He certainlly didn't help his case. Some of the worst throws I've seen a QB make. Ever. Although I think there were some tough circumstances, it can't be an excuse. He looked like he didn't belong today.

     

        







    "Defense Wins Championships"
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    He certainlly didn't help his case. Some of the worst throws I've seen a QB make. Ever. Although I think there were some tough circumstances, it can't be an excuse. He looked like he didn't belong today.

     

    Literally the least accurate QB I've ever seen allowed to play. When he has to drop back and sling it, and it's not gag throws from RO, it's a nightmare

    Somehow, he managed -1 passing yards for an entire half. 

    I hope BB considers this favor to Urban Meyer over soon. It's a waste of resources.

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    He certainlly didn't help his case. Some of the worst throws I've seen a QB make. Ever. Although I think there were some tough circumstances, it can't be an excuse. He looked like he didn't belong today.

     

    "Defense Wins Championships"



    I didn't see most of the game, but I'll take your word that the "eye test" was really bad. Certainly the numbers are abysmal. But then most fans were calling Cassel a loser after pre-season in 2008 and he did okay when called upon. I just don't get too excited about pre-season performance either way. Brady was one for 3 for 6 yards in his first year. Mallet is one for four with a pick in the NFL. I trust that BB will keep or cut Tebow based on the entire body of work he does vs need, correctly. He is the best at that in the game.

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

    Re: We are wasting a roster spot on #5

    In response to zbellino's comment:

    In response to TrueChamp's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    He certainlly didn't help his case. Some of the worst throws I've seen a QB make. Ever. Although I think there were some tough circumstances, it can't be an excuse. He looked like he didn't belong today.

     

     

    I hope BB considers this favor to Urban Meyer over soon. It's a waste of resources.

    [/QUOTE]

    How naughty of BB to waste a roster spot that could be used to evaluate a player that might actually help the team to do a favor for a buddy. People like that should be fired.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share