PDA

View Full Version : Let Tebow lead the Broncos past the Chargers



Lonestar
06-06-2010, 09:57 PM
Let Tebow lead the Broncos past the Chargers
By Mike Klis
The Denver Post
POSTED: 06/06/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT


Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow hands the ball off to 2-year-old Druezjuan Balke of Loveland on Saturday during the Broncos Kids Club event at Invesco Field at Mile High. (Hyoung Chang, The Denver Post )
The Broncos have added a defensive line, beefed up their offensive front, subtracted locker-room distractions, received a softer schedule and zapped excitement into their fan base with their first-round selection of Tim Tebow.

They still have a major, perhaps even unsolvable problem: Philip Rivers.

The San Diego Chargers have Rivers and the Broncos don't.

Rivers alone explains why the Las Vegas Hilton Sports Book projects the Chargers to go 11-5 and win their fifth consecutive AFC West title while the Broncos are supposed to go either 7-9 or 8-8 and finish second in the division for a fifth consecutive season.

Peyton Manning is the NFL's best quarterback. Drew Brees is second-best. Rivers is third.

Tom Brady, the top quarterback as recently as 2007? Give his moxie and big-game credentials a slight edge over Aaron Rodgers, who otherwise is the superior passer, for No. 4.

Next, in order, are Ben Roethlisberger, despite his four- to six-game suspension; Brett Favre, despite his 40 years of age; and Matt Schaub, despite his relatively skinny resume.

The quarterbacks rounding out the top 10 depend on whether the criteria is past production (Donovan McNabb, Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, Tony Romo) or future promise (Joe Flacco, Matt Ryan, Jay Cutler, Matt Cassel, Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Vince Young, Matt Leinart).

Kyle Orton is closer to but not quite there with the McNabb-Eli group. Brady Quinn is closer to but a bit removed from the Flacco- Sanchez group.

Either way, Rivers is way, way up there. Rivers, as much as any other factor, explains why the Broncos went for Tebow.

In the past four years, the Chargers by and large whipped the Broncos in two ways: Beat 'em up and outgunned them.

Broncos coach Josh McDaniels and general manager Brian Xanders have done a nice job adding heavyweights to their defensive front seven and offensive line. Now, when the Chargers want to yap

ALL THINGS BRONCOS BLOG

The Denver Post's NFL reporters post analysis, notes and minutiae on this blog devoted to the Denver Broncos.

and slug it out, the Broncos can match them salvo-for-punch.
"Everything we do in trying to improve our football team keeps in mind we are going to have to compete with them," McDaniels said after the draft.

Matching Rivers, though, may take awhile.

The numbers Rivers has put up against the Broncos in his four seasons as the Chargers' starting quarterback are startling: 137-of-200, 1,963 yards, 14 touchdown passes, three interceptions and a ridiculous 117.1 rating. That's a per-game average of 17-of-25 for 245 yards and roughly two touchdowns and no interceptions.

Over those same four seasons, Broncos quarterbacks — Orton, Cutler, Jake Plummer and Chris Simms — combined for nine TD passes, eight picks and a 77.8 rating against the Chargers.

Again, Rivers 117.1, Broncos QBs 77.8. That's nearly a 40-point rating difference in quarterback play. Still wondering why the Chargers are the four-time defending AFC West champs?

And that's just in the eight head-to-head meetings. Where the Chargers have trumped the Broncos the past two years, anyway, is against the AFC West doormats.

Rivers has never lost to the Oakland Raiders. Al Davis has gone away smirking in each of the past three seasons against the Broncos. In the last two of those Raiders wins, Broncos quarterbacks got outplayed by JaMarcus Russell.

In Tebow, McDaniels believes he has a quarterback who can eventually match Rivers. Maybe not pass per pass, but play per play.

It's too much to expect Tebow to keep up with Rivers this season. But maybe by 2011, Tebow can stare down Rivers and mix in 190 yards passing with a touchdown and 55 yards rushing with another touchdown. There's the offset to the typical Rivers game against the Broncos.

Before he can beat Rivers, though, Tebow has to win over his locker room.

"When you earn respect from people, then they begin to like you, and then they believe in you, and then they begin to love you, and then you have a team that is united and cares about each other more than anything else," Tebow said in a backroom session with The Denver Post. "And then you go out there and you play for each other, you play for your coaches and you win championships."

Listen to the guy. To beat Rivers, the Broncos had to come up with a different way. Tebow is the way.

http://www.denverpost.com/premium/broncos/ci_15236379

broncobryce
06-06-2010, 10:23 PM
Rivers 3rd? They must have some gooooood stuff down there in Denver. Tom Brady has more superbowl wins then Rivers has playoff wins. I'm looking forward to Doom kicking his ass again this year.

FanInAZ
06-06-2010, 11:41 PM
Rivers 3rd? They must have some gooooood stuff down there in Denver. Tom Brady has more superbowl wins then Rivers has playoff wins. I'm looking forward to Doom kicking his ass again this year.

If your talking about career production & achievements, then your right. An comparison between Brady & Rivers is no contest. Only a Chargers fan equivalent of OR would argue to the contrary. I can see it now..."And yes, Rivers is better then Elway!"

As far as what I might expect of the 2 this year, I can only give Brady credence for so much of what he did prior to him practically missing the entire 2008 season due to injury. Here are the number of Rivers & Brady. I also through in our very own Orton just for fun.

Rivers: 317-486, 4254 yds (9.1 y/a) (13.4 y/c), 28 TDs (5.8 TD%) & 9 Int (1.9 Int%) Team: 13-3, DF: 1st, eliminated: 2nd Rd.
Brady: 371-565, 4398 yds (7.8 y/a) (11.9 y/c), 28 TDs (5.0 TD%), & 13 Ints (2.3 Int%) Team: 10-6, DF: 1st, eliminated: 1st Rd.
Orton: 336-541, 3802 yds (7.0 y/a) (11.3 y/c), 21 TDs (3.9 TD%) & 12 Ints (2.2 Int%) Team: 8-8, DF: 2nd, eliminated: Wk 17.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/

Rivers out performed Brady in every statistical category. Yes, Brady threw of 144 more yards and the same number of TDs, but he did so on 79 more attempts. As far as Orton, well he did edge out Brady in Ints. So I guess those bubble screens are good for something.

Seriously, Rivers and Brady are both elite QBs and are pretty close to equal in how I expect to see them perform this upcoming season. Rivers' numbers were better then Brady's last year, but Brady was coming back from an almost year long injury & Rivers also had a much better supporting cast. I'll take an over the hill LT over any RB that NE had last year. As far as which QB has a history of making us look worse? Its no contest, Rivers.

Shazam!
06-07-2010, 12:23 AM
Phyllis Rivers has faced a Denver defense that has been virtually a hapless clown of a joke for far, far too long. That's the problem when the head-to-head meetings are concerned.

SD will not be year-to-year AFC West Champions forever. Someone will eventually usurp them.

I hope it's Denver before KC or Oakland.

FanInAZ
06-07-2010, 12:30 AM
Phyllis Rivers has faced a Denver defense that has been virtually a hapless clown of a joke for far, far too long. That's the problem when the head-to-head meetings are concerned.

SD will not be year-to-year AFC West Champions forever. Someone will eventually usurp them.

I hope it's Denver before KC or Oakland.

Oakland is a lost cause as long a Al is in charge.

Shazam!
06-07-2010, 12:32 AM
Oakland is a lost cause as long a Al is in charge.

I wasnt going to include da Rayduhhz, but they are in the AFC West.

They unfotunately beat Denver's brains in some must-win games.

FanInAZ
06-07-2010, 12:42 AM
I wasnt going to include da Rayduhhz, but they are in the AFC West.

They unfotunately beat Denver's brains in some must-win games.

That has been the must frustrating aspect of our team for the past several years. It's one thing for us to struggle against the Chargers, but the Raider? :tsk:

spikerman
06-07-2010, 04:17 PM
I'm a big believer in letting Tebow play as soon as possible. IMO this is not a Super Bowl (or maybe even playoff) caliber team so why not let the kid get some experience while the team builds around him? This is a young offensive team and they might as well experience the growing pains together. I think it will make them all better in the end.

Lonestar
06-07-2010, 04:23 PM
I'm a big believer in letting Tebow play as soon as possible. IMO this is not a Super Bowl (or maybe even playoff) caliber team so why not let the kid get some experience while the team builds around him? This is a young offensive team and they might as well experience the growing pains together. I think it will make them all better in the end.

If I thought he was ready to play I'd almost go with this.

But there are dangers to it also. while he is supremely confident young man of good character he has some other things he has to correct before getting ripped by the press and fans because he was not ready Mentally in the game and speed at this level.

When he gets the plays down and makes few mistakes then maybe till then. Better for him to see it from the sidelines.

As for the throwing actions lets get him as many reps as we can before throwing him to the wolves.

If we did not have two VETS in front of him then I might be easier to be persuaded.

spikerman
06-07-2010, 04:31 PM
If I thought he was ready to play I'd almost go with this.

But there are dangers to it also. while he is supremely confident young man of good character he has some other things he has to correct before getting ripped by the press and fans because he was not ready Mentally in the game and speed at this level.

When he gets the plays down and makes few mistakes then maybe till then. Better for him to see it from the sidelines.

As for the throwing actions lets get him as many reps as we can before throwing him to the wolves.

If we did not have two VETS in front of him then I might be easier to be persuaded.

Yeah, you make some good points, but I go back to the early 90's Cowboys. They, and Aikman in particular, were horrible, but they learned a lot. If he lived through it Tebow would be a better QB at the end of the year than at the beginning. I'm just not sure that the Broncos are going to be in a position to challenge even with either Orton or Brady at the helm.

Lonestar
06-07-2010, 04:45 PM
Yeah, you make some good points, but I go back to the early 90's Cowboys. They, and Aikman in particular, were horrible, but they learned a lot. If he lived through it Tebow would be a better QB at the end of the year than at the beginning. I'm just not sure that the Broncos are going to be in a position to challenge even with either Orton or Brady at the helm.

probably correct but aikman lost a few years of his career getting the crap knocked out of him also.

WHo knows how many sacks he had or hits in those few years.

BUT again he was surrounded by studs all over the team. with all the draft choices they got from MIN and the ones they had from stinking up the league for a few years, he played on a loaded team, that almost anyone could have coached to the SB, wait they were so good even the clown that replaced Jimmy won one.

I'd rathe have tebow watch and learn for a year or so before he is thrown to the wolves.

TXBRONC
06-07-2010, 09:08 PM
I'm a big believer in letting Tebow play as soon as possible. IMO this is not a Super Bowl (or maybe even playoff) caliber team so why not let the kid get some experience while the team builds around him? This is a young offensive team and they might as well experience the growing pains together. I think it will make them all better in the end.

McDaniels keeps eluding to how well Tebow is doing and that he has chance to start. If he proves in camp that he can the run offense competently I don't think McDaniels will hesitate to start him.

Northman
06-07-2010, 09:51 PM
McDaniels keeps eluding to how well Tebow is doing and that he has chance to start. If he proves in camp that he can the run offense competently I don't think McDaniels will hesitate to start him.

As well as he should. Manning started his first year so if Tebow is the guy of the future and is the better QB come the start of the season throw him in there and get his feet wet. Its not like we are SB bound anyway.

Lonestar
06-07-2010, 10:16 PM
Let's be serious here.

Manning was the #1 #1 of his draft the best of the best,NFL ready.

While Tebow in some folks minds was a third round project.

Let the hat for jays replacement go.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TXBRONC
06-07-2010, 11:38 PM
Let's be serious here.

Manning was the #1 #1 of his draft the best of the best,NFL ready.

While Tebow in some folks minds was a third round project.

Let the hat for jays replacement go.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Three things:

1.) Whoopied do some people thought Tebow was 3rd round pick and others thought he was a 1st rounder.

2.) You really need to get over yourself and stop trying bait people. Talking about Tebow possibly starting hasn't got a damn thing to do with Cutler.

3.) Btw Joe Flacco was draft 18th overall in 2008 out a Division I AA school and he started immediately.

For some it's time to wake and smell the coffee.

TXBRONC
06-07-2010, 11:46 PM
As well as he should. Manning started his first year so if Tebow is the guy of the future and is the better QB come the start of the season throw him in there and get his feet wet. Its not like we are SB bound anyway.

Exactly. If Tebow is ready to go McDaniels will start him, and if he's not Orton will more than likely start. I don't understand why some people get all constipated by the idea it's McDaniels who keeps alluding to it.

Northman
06-08-2010, 12:18 AM
Three things:

1.) Whoopied do some people thought Tebow was 3rd round pick and others thought he was a 1st rounder.

2.) You really need to get over yourself and stop trying bait people. Talking about Tebow possibly starting hasn't got a damn thing to do with Cutler.

3.) Btw Joe Flacco was draft 18th overall in 2008 out a Division I AA school and he started immediately.

For some it's time to wake and smell the coffee.


:lol:

Great post.

I find it laughable that so many have held Tebow in high regard yet when the question comes up about him starting all of sudden he isnt good enough to do so. I wish those idiots would shit or get off the pot already. Do i personally think he is NFL ready? Hell no which is why i think we took him too high. But, he was picked in the first round with a LOT of hype and with a lot of critics saying he will succeed. To me, if your THE guy of the future (which means Quinn and Orton are not) than rather than dick around for 3 years give the kid the experience he needs because if the talent is there he will be fine. Now all of a sudden we have to walk on eggshells for him? Please. And your correct TX, why Culter was even brought is trollism at best.

Jay has nothing to do with this discussion (or really any discussion from here on out). Tebow was picked because McD thought very highly of him. That tells me that McD sees something "special" in him and tells me he is considered a "franchise" kind of QB. Under Orton we are not going to win the SB, probably not even under Quinn. So why goof off and dilly dally when we can be just as "sucessful" with a rookie QB as we are with an average QB. If Tebow is mentally strong like some suggest, him starting would be a piece of cake for him. There's absolutely no reason to baby him if he is indeed NFL ready like some have eluded too.

LordTrychon
06-08-2010, 09:03 AM
Just because a guy 'might' be our future at a position does not mean he should be thrown in right away.

If we had no better options, sure.

As long as there is someone who gives us a better chance to win... that person belongs in the starting position. The coach is paid to bring us wins. Period.

McDaniels picked up Tebow figuring that he could figure in to that equation at some point or another. That does not mean that he has to right away.

I do not want to go through a horrible season to maybe help (but maybe hurt) the development of someone who maybe could be our leader in the future.

This season is about this season. The draft is about this season and future seasons.

Lonestar
06-08-2010, 09:20 AM
Good post.

I will trust the coaching staff to play him WHEN he is ready AS he is prepared to do so.

I know of few fans that have alluded to him being "ready" to play. Most have said he would be a project and should not needed for at least this year except for "special plays".
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

jhildebrand
06-08-2010, 09:28 AM
Most have said he would be a project and should not needed for at least this year except for "special plays".
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

You really are playing both sides of the fence here, JRWIZ. One minute Tebow was and is a great pick and everything great. When mentioned in the same sentence as "starting QB" all of a sudden he is a "project."

I'm curious, of the 31 other teams in the NFL, how many of them drafted a "project" in the first round? In fact, how many "projects" have been drafted in the first round in say the last 3 years? :confused:

Ravage!!!
06-08-2010, 09:44 AM
Flacco, Ryan, Manning, Sanchez, Young, Rothlesburger, Stafford, Bradford...All first round QBs that started their rookie season. Throw in guys like Brees, who was a second round pick... Manning and Cutler who started games their rookie seasons.

If he was good enough to take in the first round, as a QB, then the team MUST consider him to be franchise QB material. If he has the ability to be franchise QB material, then there is no reason to treat him with kid gloves when it comes to starting.

Every QB that has ever played has ALWAYS said that you don't learn sitting on the sidelings, because once you get in the game its 10x different. Playing is the only way to learn.

Ravage!!!
06-08-2010, 09:45 AM
Three things:

1.) Whoopied do some people thought Tebow was 3rd round pick and others thought he was a 1st rounder.

2.) You really need to get over yourself and stop trying bait people. Talking about Tebow possibly starting hasn't got a damn thing to do with Cutler.

3.) Btw Joe Flacco was draft 18th overall in 2008 out a Division I AA school and he started immediately.

For some it's time to wake and smell the coffee.

:beer: Great post.

TXBRONC
06-08-2010, 09:48 AM
Just because a guy 'might' be our future at a position does not mean he should be thrown in right away.

If we had no better options, sure.

As long as there is someone who gives us a better chance to win... that person belongs in the starting position. The coach is paid to bring us wins. Period.

McDaniels picked up Tebow figuring that he could figure in to that equation at some point or another. That does not mean that he has to right away.

I do not want to go through a horrible season to maybe help (but maybe hurt) the development of someone who maybe could be our leader in the future.

This season is about this season. The draft is about this season and future seasons.

LT it's McDaniels who keeps alluding to Tebow's readiness. However at the end of the day McDaniels will start him when he's ready. It's one thing when fans speculate about it but it's quite another when the coach brings it up. McDaniels has said that the starting quarterback slot is wide open and heck even Orton said as in an interview at the start of passing camp.

Lonestar
06-08-2010, 09:54 AM
You really are playing both sides of the fence here, JRWIZ. One minute Tebow was and is a great pick and everything great. When mentioned in the same sentence as "starting QB" all of a sudden he is a "project."

I'm curious, of the 31 other teams in the NFL, how many of them drafted a "project" in the first round? In fact, how many "projects" have been drafted in the first round in say the last 3 years? :confused:

While I have had a LOT of posts about this KID. I do not think I have ever posted anything but the earliest I thought he should be considered to start was 2011. All of my posts should have said Orton having a "contract" year while Tebow saw spot duty in 3rd and short and inside the red zone.

I have NEVER thought any QB should be pressed into duty as a starter as a rookie.

Unless the VETERANs are broken and are available to play the rookie WHO ever he is IMO will not be ready to play at NFL speed.

For the most part other than OL, LB and maybe RB GENERALLY I do not think rookies should or are ready to be be full time starters. There are ocassional exceptions to that but rarely does a rookie QB have more than an OK rookie year.

I'd rather give them some time to delvelope.

IF Tebow was NFL ready with his mechanics then maybe because he is mentally a "football" player. Hope that explains it.

I could care less about other loser programs that had little if any options than to play rookie QB's we are not in the shape that INDY, DET, NYJ, BAL and ATL were in when they got their QB's.

At least I do not feel that way. If our QB was simms then maybe. But we have Orton and maybe even Quinn that should give us the bteathing room to allow Tebow to develop PROPERLY.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

broncobryce
06-08-2010, 10:00 AM
Aaron rodgers and kevin kolb sat and it seemed to benifit them. I say let him sit one season and get playing time in red zone and wildcat spots unless he beats out the rest.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

LordTrychon
06-08-2010, 10:04 AM
Aaron rodgers and kevin kolb sat and it seemed to benifit them. I say let him sit one season and get playing time in red zone and wildcat spots unless he beats out the rest.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

And Rivers, who the article was praising as the 3rd best in the league. Brady did as well.

T.K.O.
06-08-2010, 10:10 AM
for those who think tebow should start just because he was a 1st rnd pick.....WRONG !
it is widely recognized that tebow has tons of heart ,drive and the obvious ability to win,but also needs work on his footwork,ability to play under center and throwing mechanics.these were well known at the time of the draft.otherwise he would have been not only a 1st rounder but likely a top 5 pick.
so the notion that "since we used a first....he must start" is dumb !
we traded up because mcD felt he was the right guy to bring tebow along and help him reach his potential,possibly as soon as this year,but not likely.
it's just sad that as fans we cant look down the road a year or 2 and try and see that doing whats best for the franchise does'nt always come with "instant gratification" or results.
i think the best thing for the kid (and therefore the team) is to play as much preseason as possible and then MAYBE be used sparingly to throw opposing defenses a curve ball.
all the while building the knowledge and confidence.
there is no shame in grooming a qb for the future and 8 out of 10 times it's beneficial .
so forget about fantasy stats and hype for a minute and think about what is best for the BRONCOS in the long run.
thank you and good day:salute:

LordTrychon
06-08-2010, 10:15 AM
Just went and checked.... Brees played in one game as a rookie, and started none.

So ONE of the top 4 qbs in the league started as rookies.

If he's ready... great. If not... that doesn't make him a bust. Not even in the first round.

Lonestar
06-08-2010, 10:15 AM
Most QB's say they do not learn by setting and the only way to learn is by doing.

What do you expect a competitve athlete to say?

I do not know of any QB save maybe Marino that did not struggle as a rookie. Others had good years but they also had damned fine Defenses or superb players surrounding them and even then their second year numbers were significantly better.

I'll set my rookie QB every time IF I can.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Ravage!!!
06-08-2010, 10:20 AM
Struggling does not mean not learning.

Lets not forget Matt Ryan, Flacco, Rothlesburger, Flacco...

Also, Rivers sat behind Brees and Rodgers behind Favre. You are assuming these two wouldn't have done fine in the NFL as rookies if they had the chance. They just happened to be sitting behind some very good players.

Either way.. we can go down through history and find perfect examples that fit both sides of the line.

I'm not saying he SHOULD start. I'm saying there is absolutely NO REASON to sit him simply BECAUSE he is a rookie. If he's not better than Orton or Quinn, then sit. But don't sit him simply because he's a rookie. Thats foolish.

LordTrychon
06-08-2010, 10:21 AM
Most QB's say they do not learn by setting and the only way to learn is by doing.

What do you expect a competitve athlete to say?

I do not know of any QB save maybe Marino that did not struggle as a rookie. Others had good years but they also had damned fine Defenses or superb players surrounding them and even then their second year numbers were significantly better.

I'll set my rookie QB every time IF I can.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Yeah... QBs that start from day one don't know what they could learn by sitting for a year (or even most of one)... because they never did. QBs that did sit for a year said it was valuable, even though they'd love to go out and compete... but they don't know what it'd be like to do so.

Ravage!!!
06-08-2010, 10:22 AM
Yeah... QBs that start from day one don't know what they could learn by sitting for a year (or even most of one)... because they never did. QBs that did sit for a year said it was valuable, even though they'd love to go out and compete... but they don't know what it'd be like to do so.

Soooo... either way they are saying something they know nothing about? Ok. :beer:

T.K.O.
06-08-2010, 10:23 AM
Soooo... either way they are saying something they know nothing about? Ok. :beer:

just like the rest of us !:laugh:

Softskull
06-08-2010, 10:35 AM
Flacco, Ryan, Manning, Sanchez, Young, Rothlesburger, Stafford, Bradford...All first round QBs that started their rookie season. Throw in guys like Brees, who was a second round pick... Manning and Cutler who started games their rookie seasons.

If he was good enough to take in the first round, as a QB, then the team MUST consider him to be franchise QB material. If he has the ability to be franchise QB material, then there is no reason to treat him with kid gloves when it comes to starting.

Every QB that has ever played has ALWAYS said that you don't learn sitting on the sidelings, because once you get in the game its 10x different. Playing is the only way to learn.

Hell must have frozen over because I'm agreeing with Jr on this one. You're correct, many first rounders have successfully started as a rookie, but there are just as many first round failures that were just put into the game too early. For every Peyton Manning, there are two David Carrs.

And holding the clip board did wonders for guys like Aaron Rogers and Phillip Rivers. The real characteristics that Tebow possesses right now are the "intangibles" like confidence, not timing, accuracy, etc. His best bet and ours as Broncos fans is to let him train under McD for a year, get a few plays under his belt and prep for next year, IMHO.

Lonestar
06-08-2010, 10:42 AM
Yeah... QBs that start from day one don't know what they could learn by sitting for a year (or even most of one)... because they never did. QBs that did sit for a year said it was valuable, even though they'd love to go out and compete... but they don't know what it'd be like to do so.

Thanks for cleaning up my thoughts on this.
I do not know of any QB that was hurt from holding a clip board. If anything they got to understand the mental part of the game.

I'm sure that many "surefire" picks where indeed ruined by playing them before they were ready and lost any confidence they had coming out of college.

All of the flacos, big bens had damned fine teams around them and only saw part of the game plan.

Just like Orton had a limited playbook last year or jay or jake their first year in town.

There is just so much one can digest in a few months.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Lonestar
06-08-2010, 10:54 AM
Hell must have frozen over because I'm agreeing with Jr on this one. You're correct, many first rounders have successfully started as a rookie, but there are just as many first round failures that were just put into the game too early. For every Peyton Manning, there are two David Carrs.

And holding the clip board did wonders for guys like Aaron Rogers and Phillip Rivers. The real characteristics that Tebow possesses right now are the "intangibles" like confidence, not timing, accuracy, etc. His best bet and ours as Broncos fans is to let him train under McD for a year, get a few plays under his belt and prep for next year, IMHO.

Amazing is it not.

Way to many folks do not use logic but are emotional on the Broncos.

As you said the list is long and undisginshed of failed first round QB's because they were played to so becuase they were drafted to a really bad teams.
They were expected to be the savoiurs of their team and franchise but got buried and were beat up phyiscally or mentally.

I'm not calling denver a lousy team but they did not have the Defense on the level that BAL, NYJ or PIT did.

Give a year or so to work on those spots that need works and allow him to learn the playbook.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
06-08-2010, 11:06 AM
Flacco, Ryan, Manning, Sanchez, Young, Rothlesburger, Stafford, Bradford...All first round QBs that started their rookie season. Throw in guys like Brees, who was a second round pick... Manning and Cutler who started games their rookie seasons.

If he was good enough to take in the first round, as a QB, then the team MUST consider him to be franchise QB material. If he has the ability to be franchise QB material, then there is no reason to treat him with kid gloves when it comes to starting.

Every QB that has ever played has ALWAYS said that you don't learn sitting on the sidelings, because once you get in the game its 10x different. Playing is the only way to learn.

Yep. All those guys did just fine starting and if Tebow is of that calibur he should have zero problems adjusting to the NFL. Its really that simple.

TXBRONC
06-08-2010, 12:09 PM
Yeah... QBs that start from day one don't know what they could learn by sitting for a year (or even most of one)... because they never did. QBs that did sit for a year said it was valuable, even though they'd love to go out and compete... but they don't know what it'd be like to do so.

LT I remember Elway saying that while he struggled his rookie season felt benefited more by playing than by sitting.

TXBRONC
06-08-2010, 12:19 PM
Hell must have frozen over because I'm agreeing with Jr on this one. You're correct, many first rounders have successfully started as a rookie, but there are just as many first round failures that were just put into the game too early. For every Peyton Manning, there are two David Carrs.

And holding the clip board did wonders for guys like Aaron Rogers and Phillip Rivers. The real characteristics that Tebow possesses right now are the "intangibles" like confidence, not timing, accuracy, etc. His best bet and ours as Broncos fans is to let him train under McD for a year, get a few plays under his belt and prep for next year, IMHO.

I think a lot of it depends on the situation that they are put into as well as the as well as how much and how firm of grasp does the guy have on the offense.

IIRC the Packers would have liked to start Rodgers sooner than they did because Farve and Rivers wasn't going get the chance to start right away because he was late getting to camp. Then of course Brees had that breakout year and that forced him to sit for another year.

underrated29
06-08-2010, 12:24 PM
I'm a big believer in letting Tebow play as soon as possible. IMO this is not a Super Bowl (or maybe even playoff) caliber team so why not let the kid get some experience while the team builds around him? This is a young offensive team and they might as well experience the growing pains together. I think it will make them all better in the end.





See I really do not like this kind of thinking. To me you are just throwing in the towel already. We are a 10-6, 11-5 win team this year. We are pretty darn close. A lot closer than everyone seems to think...Which still bewilders me. Why would we throw this season away by having tebow start now?

Anything can happen once you are in the playoffs. I do not care if we do not have the juice to win the big dance or not. Lets give it our best shot and if not then pick up the momentum next year with a few more added pieces and exp for our new guys.

Northman
06-08-2010, 12:45 PM
See I really do not like this kind of thinking. To me you are just throwing in the towel already. We are a 10-6, 11-5 win team this year. We are pretty darn close. A lot closer than everyone seems to think...Which still bewilders me. Why would we throw this season away by having tebow start now?

Anything can happen once you are in the playoffs. I do not care if we do not have the juice to win the big dance or not. Lets give it our best shot and if not then pick up the momentum next year with a few more added pieces and exp for our new guys.

How do you know that we are a 10-6, 11-5 team? Im curious.



Edit* Im going to add to this as i dont want it too sound like im coming down on you or trying to steal your optimistic thunder.

But, when i look at the grand scheme of things. That means looking at the player personnel, coaching, etc i just dont see how we are automatically going to improve at that kind of record this year. The last 5 years we have had zero chemistry at the player and coaching positions. To my knowledge i have never seen a team with that much turmoil make the playoffs let alone make the SB. Could it happen? Maybe but not likely. There are just far too many question marks for some of us to really believe that things will be that much more improved this year. To me i think we may be setback a bit because of the losses of Marshall and Nolan. Not fact, just opinion. Maybe you dont put much emphasis on chemistry but i put a lot and that all boils down to experience and talent. Right now we may have a lot of young talent but they are also inexperienced especially on the offensive side of the ball. Defensively, we have a lot of experienced players but now yet again have a new DC who we have no idea if he will be as good as Nolan. Some people will say Nolan was to blame last year but when you dont take in the account that he didnt have a guy like Williams on the front line and the offense was totally inept i just cant place blame on the guy. He got handed a cluster**** of a defense and did what he could to salvage it and did alright for 6 games before the weaknesses reared its ugly head again. Just way too much turnover and lack of chemistry for some of us to assume its going to be a grand year. If they do make it to 10-6 or better great, fantastic. But some of us just cant see that considering the circumstances. Right now history is showing that no matter who the DC, HC, players, etc are the results are the same. We may hit 10-6 in 2011 but right now i cant say that will happen judging by the problems this team has faced.

Ravage!!!
06-08-2010, 12:48 PM
Hell must have frozen over because I'm agreeing with Jr on this one. You're correct, many first rounders have successfully started as a rookie, but there are just as many first round failures that were just put into the game too early. For every Peyton Manning, there are two David Carrs.

And holding the clip board did wonders for guys like Aaron Rogers and Phillip Rivers. The real characteristics that Tebow possesses right now are the "intangibles" like confidence, not timing, accuracy, etc. His best bet and ours as Broncos fans is to let him train under McD for a year, get a few plays under his belt and prep for next year, IMHO.

At the same time, do you know it did wonders? Can you honestly say that, although Rivers may have struggled his first rookie season, that he wouldn't have been as productive his second year after suffering through his rookie.. AND have been on the field one year faster rather than sitting behind Brees?

I'm saying, you don't know if it gave him more benefit. I DO know that he has said that although learning from Brees was nice, that playing on the field taught him a TON more than watching from the sidelines. As has Rodgers. Both saying that playing on the field taught them MUCH MUCH more than watching.

Also, as you said.. his best characteristics are intangibles. THus he needs the playing time to work on the timing, accuracy, presence in the pocket, seeing the rush, and most importantly...the #1 thing... SEEING and learning by watching REAL NFL defenses and learning to read them. Film just isn't the same.

TXBRONC
06-08-2010, 12:57 PM
Just went and checked.... Brees played in one game as a rookie, and started none.

So ONE of the top 4 qbs in the league started as rookies.

If he's ready... great. If not... that doesn't make him a bust. Not even in the first round.

That's what I've been saying. If the coach feels he's ready fine, if the coach I'm fine with that as well. Just look at what McDaniels has said and done about this situation so far. How many times has McDaniels said how far advance Tebow is? If Tim seriously in the running to be the starter, McDaniels could end the debate right now and declare that Orton is starter period. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't automatically assume he not ready when atm McDaniels even saying that.

underrated29
06-08-2010, 01:42 PM
How do you know that we are a 10-6, 11-5 team? Im curious.



Edit* Im going to add to this as i dont want it too sound like im coming down on you or trying to steal your optimistic thunder.

But, when i look at the grand scheme of things. That means looking at the player personnel, coaching, etc i just dont see how we are automatically going to improve at that kind of record this year. The last 5 years we have had zero chemistry at the player and coaching positions. To my knowledge i have never seen a team with that much turmoil make the playoffs let alone make the SB. Could it happen? Maybe but not likely. There are just far too many question marks for some of us to really believe that things will be that much more improved this year. To me i think we may be setback a bit because of the losses of Marshall and Nolan. Not fact, just opinion. Maybe you dont put much emphasis on chemistry but i put a lot and that all boils down to experience and talent. Right now we may have a lot of young talent but they are also inexperienced especially on the offensive side of the ball. Defensively, we have a lot of experienced players but now yet again have a new DC who we have no idea if he will be as good as Nolan. Some people will say Nolan was to blame last year but when you dont take in the account that he didnt have a guy like Williams on the front line and the offense was totally inept i just cant place blame on the guy. He got handed a cluster**** of a defense and did what he could to salvage it and did alright for 6 games before the weaknesses reared its ugly head again. Just way too much turnover and lack of chemistry for some of us to assume its going to be a grand year. If they do make it to 10-6 or better great, fantastic. But some of us just cant see that considering the circumstances. Right now history is showing that no matter who the DC, HC, players, etc are the results are the same. We may hit 10-6 in 2011 but right now i cant say that will happen judging by the problems this team has faced.



North you are not raining on my parade man. i was giving you ish last time....


But in a nut shell here is why- quick and easy.

Last year we were 8-8

9-7 if orton didnt get hurt against washington
10-6 if we didnt let Jamarcus russell beat us :tsk:
11-5 if we made our field goal or didnt let philly get past us. we let that game go

we held on against the colts but barely let that one slip away too. Then we blew chunks against the cheifs with ortons couple pick 6s etc....


Anyway this year we have a much simpler schedule. We are going to start out a little rocky imo. BUt the last 6-8 games should all be wins imo. Sure we lost Nolan, but if the reports hold true...Nolan was being a yes man to JMFMD. He was running Joshs scheme, not the other way around. So the defense should probably remain similar. Plus we added some big time beef on the line, to keep guys fresh, stop the run etc....Ayers is looking good and I expect some sacks from him this year... Our whole team now has a year in the system so that IMMEDIATELY is an upgrade.

The OL has also been Drastically upgraded. DRASTICALLY! more time for Kyle, more holes for knowshon. = more yards, tds and 3rd down conversions.

Brandon will hurt being gone, but it is of my own opinion (which means nothing) that it will help our team..Kyle will stop honing in on him. Thus making him progress through his reads and finding other wr...Our scheme should always have someone open. Always. Kyle just needs to react quicker and I think with his go to saftey net, lock on target out he will branch out and spread the ball more like he should.

Really to me it is the schedule and the OL and the DL...Those 3 combined with the fact that we were almost a 10-6, 11-5 club last year leads me to believe that we will infact be that or better this year.

Northman
06-08-2010, 01:47 PM
North you are not raining on my parade man. i was giving you ish last time....


But in a nut shell here is why- quick and easy.

Last year we were 8-8

9-7 if orton didnt get hurt against washington
10-6 if we didnt let Jamarcus russell beat us :tsk:
11-5 if we made our field goal or didnt let philly get past us. we let that game go

we held on against the colts but barely let that one slip away too. Then we blew chunks against the cheifs with ortons couple pick 6s etc....


Anyway this year we have a much simpler schedule. We are going to start out a little rocky imo. BUt the last 6-8 games should all be wins imo. Sure we lost Nolan, but if the reports hold true...Nolan was being a yes man to JMFMD. He was running Joshs scheme, not the other way around. So the defense should probably remain similar. Plus we added some big time beef on the line, to keep guys fresh, stop the run etc....Ayers is looking good and I expect some sacks from him this year... Our whole team now has a year in the system so that IMMEDIATELY is an upgrade.

The OL has also been Drastically upgraded. DRASTICALLY! more time for Kyle, more holes for knowshon. = more yards, tds and 3rd down conversions.

Brandon will hurt being gone, but it is of my own opinion (which means nothing) that it will help our team..Kyle will stop honing in on him. Thus making him progress through his reads and finding other wr...Our scheme should always have someone open. Always. Kyle just needs to react quicker and I think with his go to saftey net, lock on target out he will branch out and spread the ball more like he should.

Really to me it is the schedule and the OL and the DL...Those 3 combined with the fact that we were almost a 10-6, 11-5 club last year leads me to believe that we will infact be that or better this year.

Well, you make some solid points but i still dont see it. Ive always believed you are what your record says you are. Im sure the Colts could say had Manning not thrown that INT they would of won the Super Bowl. But in the end its about the teams that do make the plays to win ballgames. We went 8-8 because we played like an 8-8 team in my opinion. But i would love for them to prove me wrong this year. :D

Softskull
06-08-2010, 02:29 PM
At the same time, do you know it did wonders? Can you honestly say that, although Rivers may have struggled his first rookie season, that he wouldn't have been as productive his second year after suffering through his rookie.. AND have been on the field one year faster rather than sitting behind Brees?

I'm saying, you don't know if it gave him more benefit. I DO know that he has said that although learning from Brees was nice, that playing on the field taught him a TON more than watching from the sidelines. As has Rodgers. Both saying that playing on the field taught them MUCH MUCH more than watching.

Also, as you said.. his best characteristics are intangibles. THus he needs the playing time to work on the timing, accuracy, presence in the pocket, seeing the rush, and most importantly...the #1 thing... SEEING and learning by watching REAL NFL defenses and learning to read them. Film just isn't the same.

I feel ya and even agree that there is a benefit to learning in real time. I also have seen the long list of Akili Smith, David Carr, Tim Couch, ect that getting in too early set the franchise back years. I dont see the hurry getting Tebow behind center. We're not on the cusp of a SB, hell, some would even argue playoffs yet. Our Oline is a work in progress. Our potentially best WRs wont be ready for a year or so. We know what we have in Orton, we should let Quinn play a bit and see who's going to be our best #2 Qb for next year.

I hate waiting as much as the next guy, but it seem premature to expect a young QB to learn a "NFL" passing technique and a new system all at NFL speed. He wont be worth anything to us injured or even worse, shell shocked. A year of working with the team five days a week and the occational special play that McDaniels will throw in for him would be a safer way to Tebow to succeed.

T.K.O.
06-08-2010, 02:42 PM
I feel ya and even agree that there is a benefit to learning in real time. I also have seen the long list of Akili Smith, David Carr, Tim Couch, ect that getting in too early set the franchise back years. I dont see the hurry getting Tebow behind center. We're not on the cusp of a SB, hell, some would even argue playoffs yet. Our Oline is a work in progress. Our potentially best WRs wont be ready for a year or so. We know what we have in Orton, we should let Quinn play a bit and see who's going to be our best #2 Qb for next year.

I hate waiting as much as the next guy, but it seem premature to expect a young QB to learn a "NFL" passing technique and a new system all at NFL speed. He wont be worth anything to us injured or even worse, shell shocked. A year of working with the team five days a week and the occational special play that McDaniels will throw in for him would be a safer way to Tebow to succeed.

absolutely ^

Slick
06-08-2010, 02:45 PM
I'd like to see Tim start right away mainly because I simply don't like Orton's game a whole lot. He's not a scrub (although I've said he is when I'm mad at him) but he is simply a mediocre QB. He's decent, and he's usually smart and safe with the football, but I want a more dynamic QB.

Sure Tebow will never bowl over linebackers and big strong safeties on a regular basis like he did in college but on those 3rd and 6's when Kyle ends up throwing it away, Tebow might be able to scramble for a first, or simply buy more time for the play to develop, keeping our defense on the sidelines.

I'll echo the sentiment that if we are honest with ourselves, we aren't going to make a big run to the postseason this year, and I seriously doubt if tebow struggles or reads a put down piece in the local parer, that it will effect his confidence in the least.

Tebow may learn the offense by wearing headphones and holding the play charts, but he's not going to model his game after Kyle Orton, at least I hope not.

If he were sitting behind a retiring Elway,Manning, Brady, Montana, Brees etc, then I could see it.

As far as Quinn, well he's had chances, albeit on a shitty team, but I don't think he'll ever be much more than a 2nd stringer at most.

Northman
06-08-2010, 02:50 PM
I'd like to see Tim start right away mainly because I simply don't like Orton's game a whole lot. He's not a scrub (although I've said he is when I'm mad at him) but he is simply a mediocre QB. He's decent, and he's usually smart and safe with the football, but I want a more dynamic QB.

Sure Tebow will never bowl over linebackers and big strong safeties on a regular basis like he did in college but on those 3rd and 6's when Kyle ends up throwing it away, Tebow might be able to scramble for a first, or simply buy more time for the play to develop, keeping our defense on the sidelines.

I'll echo the sentiment that if we are honest with ourselves, we aren't going to make a big run to the postseason this year, and I seriously doubt if tebow struggles or reads a put down piece in the local parer, that it will effect his confidence in the least.

Tebow may learn the offense by wearing headphones and holding the play charts, but he's not going to model his game after Kyle Orton, at least I hope not.

If he were sitting behind a retiring Elway,Manning, Brady, Montana, Brees etc, then I could see it.

As far as Quinn, well he's had chances, albeit on a shitty team, but I don't think he'll ever be much more than a 2nd stringer at most.

Excellent point about who he is sitting behind. Right now i would say based on his potential that Tebow should or would be better than Orton. If you believe the hype.

underrated29
06-08-2010, 04:05 PM
Well, you make some solid points but i still dont see it. Ive always believed you are what your record says you are. Im sure the Colts could say had Manning not thrown that INT they would of won the Super Bowl. But in the end its about the teams that do make the plays to win ballgames. We went 8-8 because we played like an 8-8 team in my opinion. But i would love for them to prove me wrong this year. :D



Cant disagree, we are what we are. An 8-8 team. But I also see that with so much turmoil and things stacked against us last year, we had the opportunity to change our destiny and we let it slip through our fingers. Now games like Balt, Pits etc....we didnt stand an effing chance!

Point is we were close last year, and now most of the ?'s have been answered. Sure we added a couple new ones. But our large ones have been cleared and when i look at those and take into account we were small plays that could have been made by us away from a 10-6 record I feel that is where we will end up...


(but in the weekly pickem league I always say we win, but hey I cant bet against my team even if I know we are going to lose)

LordTrychon
06-08-2010, 05:24 PM
At the same time, do you know it did wonders? Can you honestly say that, although Rivers may have struggled his first rookie season, that he wouldn't have been as productive his second year after suffering through his rookie.. AND have been on the field one year faster rather than sitting behind Brees?

I'm saying, you don't know if it gave him more benefit. I DO know that he has said that although learning from Brees was nice, that playing on the field taught him a TON more than watching from the sidelines. As has Rodgers. Both saying that playing on the field taught them MUCH MUCH more than watching.

Also, as you said.. his best characteristics are intangibles. THus he needs the playing time to work on the timing, accuracy, presence in the pocket, seeing the rush, and most importantly...the #1 thing... SEEING and learning by watching REAL NFL defenses and learning to read them. Film just isn't the same.

Right, we can't know if it helped them or not... we also can't know what would have happened if they'd started as rookies. Maybe Tom Brady, Rivers, and Brees all join the list of Carrs, etc.

How could anyone know what would have happened in circumstances that didn't happen. We can't.

Three of the Top Four QBs (on this list at least) did not start as rookies.

I'm ok with our rookie not starting. I'm also not saying he HAS to sit.

GGMoogly
06-08-2010, 07:29 PM
:tsk: I'm not sure if I buy that "they ruined him because they put him in too early argument." The Carrs and the Couches of the world didn't succeed for a number of reasons, including a lack of mental toughness and intestinal fortitude. Aikman and PManning went to godawful teams, got their butts handed to them, and came back even harder. They refused to drop and curl into the fetal position. When I see Tebow, I see true grit, not JUST the hyperbole of fawning sycophants. Try to imagine Joey Harrington sticking his face mask into the mud for a few extra inches!This boy IS the Chosen One! :salute:

dogfish
06-08-2010, 07:34 PM
Just went and checked.... Brees played in one game as a rookie, and started none.

So ONE of the top 4 qbs in the league started as rookies.

If he's ready... great. If not... that doesn't make him a bust. Not even in the first round.


Aaron rodgers and kevin kolb sat and it seemed to benifit them. I say let him sit one season and get playing time in red zone and wildcat spots unless he beats out the rest.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


And Rivers, who the article was praising as the 3rd best in the league. Brady did as well.

pfft. . . scrubs!

john mother ******* elway started from day one. . . .

:D


so did joe montana and peyton manning. . .

dan marino, dan fouts, johnny unitas and troy aikman all played large parts of if not all of their rookie seasons. . .

and of course you could name many more, but most of the guys in serious consideration for GOAT are on that short list right there-- it's about as definitive as can be. . .

clearly you can make a nice list for the other side as well, including guys like favre and brady, but not one that'll trump the likes of elway, montana and marino. . .

the obvious conclusion is that there is no single correct way to approach developing quarterbacks, or any position for that matter. . . this is the highest level of competition for this sport in the world, and in history as well for that matter-- the training (and juicing, quite frankly) has reached new levels. . . not everyone can jump right in and swim with the sharks right away, and each prospect is a little different. . . and there's no way to predict how any given individual is going to react with any great deal of accuracy. . . although, with tebow, confidence is one thing i'll never worry about. . .

elway got pounded behind bad lines. . . the winners are tough enough to play through adversity-- the guys who aren't, aren't, and it's going to come out at some point. . . that doesn't mean that there aren't a number of good reasons and/or feasible scenarios for sitting rookie QBs-- i just don't think that particular one is a very good reason. . .

if we had st. louis' line with sam bradford's recently-repaired shoulder behind it i might find that line of thinking more valid, but honestly i don't even think they're wrong if they start him this year, and i believe they're going to. . .

in our particualr situation, i won't have a problem with mcdaniels deciding to start tebow at some point this season, but not from day one unless i'm convinced that josh truly believes it gives us the best chance to win and that tebow has honestly earned it. . .

otherwise i'm in agreement with U29-- i won't be happy at all if we ceremonially run up the white flag in september by putting a QB out there who isn't ready. . . and anyone who thinks it's a good idea to just sacrifice a year or two in the hopes of developing tebow for later, i will gladly pay you a hundred bucks to go tell that to brian dawkins. . .

shit, i might even pay your airfare out here if you aren't local. . .

it's a gutless idea, and i hate it. . . just because we aren't front-runners doesn't mean the season's lost before it's played. . . hell, i like to consider myself a realist, and quite frankly i don't like our odds that much this year-- too much turnover and inexperience on offense-- but there's too much parity in this league to say conclusively that someone can't make it. . .

don't believe me? look at the rams in warner's first year. . . look at the 1-15 dolphins winning their division the next year. . . just because we aren't pre-season faves doesn't preclude us from winning-- that's why they play the games instead of letting indy and new orleans have an automatic rematch. . .

you don't know when a team's going to come together, and although we aren't a talent-rich team, we aren't talent-starved either. . . guys like bailey, dawkins, dumervil, DJ williams, goodman, ryan harris, kuper, dan graham, eddie royal, and of course clady if he's healthy give us a solid veteran core. . .

like most underdog teams (and even the big boys, to some extent), we need a few things to fall into place to have a chance. . . top of the list, we need the offensive and defensive line reinforcements to be effective. . . we also need to get some contributions from a couple of our young offensive skill position players-- a more efficient year from moreno, and at least one or two of our young WRs and TEs to give us some receptions. . . and at least a decent showing from martindale (there's plenty of room for improvement in McD's playcalling, as well). . .

all of those things are doable-- nothing on that list is impossible. . .

the other obvious major factor is what this discussion's all about-- quarterback play. . . all the rest of that stuff can happen, and we're still likely to fall short if we have putrid QB play. . . which is why the guy that gives us the best chance to win games right now should start the season. . .

if we go in the tank, put the kid in then-- he can still get some experience this year, and watching from the sidelines for six or eight games won't hinder his development. . . otherwise, unless he legitimately beats out orton in camp, i'd rather play the odds that orton can make some improvements in his second year in the vaunted system. . . orton did help us win eight games last year, and IMO it probably would've been nine if he hadn't gotten hurt against washington-- i think that's enough to win another shot at it unless somebody else takes it away fairly. . . it just doesn't seem like enough of a leap to think re-vamped lines and maybe some additional production from guys lke ayers, mcbath and moreno could be enough to help us win one or two more games this year. . .

you just never know what's going to happen during the course of a season. . . rivers could tear up his knee or shoulder in october, and this division would be as wide open as the middle of kansas. . .

yes, the QB position is extremely important, and yes, developing tebow into a stud is our clearest and easiest path to becoming real contenders. . . but the position isn't so overwhelmingly important that you ever want to throw away years solely based on the interests of ONE player. . . tim should start if we fall out of contention, or if he can win it outright in camp-- if not, let him play in sub-packages this year to get his feet wet, and then re-visit the issue next off-season. . .


all debate about what we "should" do aside, i think it's HIGHLY unlikely that he doesn't get some fairly significant action this year regardless of whether he starts, unless one of the other guys does come out and win games right away to keep us in contention. . .

dogfish
06-08-2010, 07:42 PM
:tsk: I'm not sure if I buy that "they ruined him because they put him in too early argument." The Carrs and the Couches of the world didn't succeed for a number of reasons, including a lack of mental toughness and intestinal fortitude. Aikman and PManning went to godawful teams, got their butts handed to them, and came back even harder. They refused to drop and curl into the fetal position. When I see Tebow, I see true grit, not JUST the hyperbole of fawning sycophants. Try to imagine Joey Harrington sticking his face mask into the mud for a few extra inches!This boy IS the Chosen One! :salute:

oh, i see-- steal my thunder because you type faster. . . :tsk:










:lol:

Dreadnought
06-08-2010, 08:07 PM
john mother ******* elway started from day one. . . .

Yes, and he was so Godawful we needed Steve ******* DeBerg to salvage a surprisingly good season in '83.

I don't want to see Tebow play so much as a single down in 2010, no matter how awful it gets. not one. Sit, watch, and learn. That will do nicely.

turftoad
06-08-2010, 08:40 PM
McD's got his new toy. He's going to play him as soon as he feels comfortable doing so. Hopefully a little later than sooner, but I don't think he can help himself.

GGMoogly
06-08-2010, 08:41 PM
My head tells me that McD starts Orton. It makes sense and gives him his best chance of winning early. My gut tells me Orton goes down at some point and regardless of BQ's performance, we'll see Tebow start in December. My heart says, "PUT THE KID IN NOW!!!! WOOOHOOOO!!! :elefant:

dogfish
06-08-2010, 09:23 PM
Yes, and he was so Godawful we needed Steve ******* DeBerg to salvage a surprisingly good season in '83.

I don't want to see Tebow play so much as a single down in 2010, no matter how awful it gets. not one. Sit, watch, and learn. That will do nicely.

sorry, buddy, you're screwed. . . . :D


barring a TC injury, he's going to play this year. . . at the very least, he's going to play in the goal line packages. . .


besides, that first season didn't prevent elway's career from workin' out okay. . .

LordTrychon
06-08-2010, 11:24 PM
pfft. . . scrubs!
rantrantrantrantrantendlessmother****ingrant...


I understand all that stuff (and the later parts were really good. Really. You must type fast, I say!) ;)

But I think there's a good chance that the reason those greats managed to thrive despite a beating as rookies... is because they are the greats. If Tebow's destined to be a GOAT discussion type QB... then he could thrive under those circumstances too.

If he's in the between-good-to-great area though, there's a chance that a beating could hurt his development. I don't know. I'd rather play it safe if it's going to give him a better chance at realizing his potential. I'm not saying he should never start, because the bench is omgzors better...

Also, the games a little different from when most of those GOAT players played as rookies... and there's some difference there, I'm sure. Of current 'good-great' QBs... more of the top QBs didn't start. I don't think they're 'stunted' for it or anything. The only one of those top four who did start as a rookie is in the GOAT discussion, IMO... and again, maybe thrived despite it because, well... he's in the GOAT discussion.

But yeah. If he's our best option... don't baby him. Give him the shot. If he's not (and I doubt he will be too soon. This year sometime? maybe)... then why WOULD we start him. I'm still playing for THIS year... cause ya know... it's still THIS year.

dogfish
06-08-2010, 11:45 PM
I understand all that stuff (and the later parts were really good. Really. You must type fast, I say!) ;)

But I think there's a good chance that the reason those greats managed to thrive despite a beating as rookies... is because they are the greats. If Tebow's destined to be a GOAT discussion type QB... then he could thrive under those circumstances too.

If he's in the between-good-to-great area though, there's a chance that a beating could hurt his development. I don't know. I'd rather play it safe if it's going to give him a better chance at realizing his potential. I'm not saying he should never start, because the bench is omgzors better...

Also, the games a little different from when most of those GOAT players played as rookies... and there's some difference there, I'm sure. Of current 'good-great' QBs... more of the top QBs didn't start. I don't think they're 'stunted' for it or anything. The only one of those top four who did start as a rookie is in the GOAT discussion, IMO... and again, maybe thrived despite it because, well... he's in the GOAT discussion.

But yeah. If he's our best option... don't baby him. Give him the shot. If he's not (and I doubt he will be too soon. This year sometime? maybe)... then why WOULD we start him. I'm still playing for THIS year... cause ya know... it's still THIS year.

wanna fight?


ben roethlisberger and matt ryan were effective as rookies, and neither of those guys is going to be in the GOAT discussion. . .

but yea, i agree that the chances of a rookie QB being successful enough to win games on anything besides a very good team aren't great. . . i agree that tebow starting from day one isn't likely to result in us winning many games, which is why i'd prefer not to see it. . .

we'll see what JMFMCD thinks, but i'd rather he ease tim into the NFL a little bit rather than tossing him immediately in the deep end. . . let orton start, let tebow play in some specific packages, and get an idea what he's currently capable of before betting everything on him right away. . .

enh. . . should be interesting, at least. . .


edit: just to be clear, my preferrence for orton entering the season as the starter is based on the belief that he's our best chance to win games, not concern about stunting tebow's development. . . JMO of course, but as i've said in other threads-- he played several years in the country's best college conference, played against plenty of great athletes on the game's biggest stages, and faced a media swarm as great as anything he could face in the NFL. . . he's a tough-minded, hard-working competitor-- i have little to no concern about his confidence or "psyche" being wounded. . . i don't think he's the kind of guy to get broken by pressure. . . he may fail at this level, but if he does i just don't see that bein the reason. . .

as far as him getting hurt. . . well, there's always going to be that risk. . . you might argue that it's a little bit magnified with an inexperienced QB who doesn't have much experience reading NFL defenses, but there's only so much he can learn in the film room-- and i'm guessing he's currently plugged in like neo, absorbing data. . . at some point he's got to stand in there, and he's going to get hit if he doesn't diagnose pre-snap or see/feel the pressure. . . happens to every QB. . .

i do tend to believe it's preferrable in most instances to at least give them part of the season to watch from the bench, but unless the guy ahead of them on the depth chart has you in playoff contention, IMO it's not really beneficial to wait that long. . . IF you're out of the playoff race, i definitely think that becomes the right time to start playing the rookie-- at that point, you may as well let him try to take the worst of his lumps this year to increase your chances of being successful the following season instead of writing that one off as a "breaking in a rookie quarterback" year. . .

jhildebrand
06-08-2010, 11:55 PM
Brady did as well.

Brady was also a 6th round pick. Apples and oranges. Even the great Belichick acknowledges the Brady pick was pure luck.

Even if you disregard all of that, Brady sat behind a QB who had recently taken that team to the Super Bowl a few years earlier in Bledsoe.

jhildebrand
06-08-2010, 11:59 PM
Let's not forget McNab started games as a rookie as did Vick. Carson Palmer. Mark Sanchez.

The days of sitting your youngins in the NFL has been over for sometime. Shanahan was one of the last to adapt.

BrocoGator11
06-09-2010, 09:42 AM
Lets not lie. It's what makes everyone have an opinion on this matter. The Tebow effect has begun. It's there weather you want it to be or not. This article by Kristi Dosh discusses the financial aspects of Tebow's career, which hasnt even started yet. A very interesting read.

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/06/the-tebow-effect-part-2/

Ravage!!!
06-09-2010, 09:56 AM
I feel ya and even agree that there is a benefit to learning in real time. I also have seen the long list of Akili Smith, David Carr, Tim Couch, ect that getting in too early set the franchise back years. I dont see the hurry getting Tebow behind center. We're not on the cusp of a SB, hell, some would even argue playoffs yet. Our Oline is a work in progress. Our potentially best WRs wont be ready for a year or so. We know what we have in Orton, we should let Quinn play a bit and see who's going to be our best #2 Qb for next year.

I hate waiting as much as the next guy, but it seem premature to expect a young QB to learn a "NFL" passing technique and a new system all at NFL speed. He wont be worth anything to us injured or even worse, shell shocked. A year of working with the team five days a week and the occational special play that McDaniels will throw in for him would be a safer way to Tebow to succeed.

I see what you are saying, but in all honesty, there isn't any proof that those QBs failed because they were put in early. Yet, we hear QBs that sat behind QBs say that they KNOW they learned more when on the field than they did sitting. They have explained that watching the film isn't anything like the game, and that you just have to "see" it to really understand and "Get" it.

Like I said. I'm not really saying Tebow should start. I'm saying that I wouldn't be opposed to it, and don't think that him being a rookie should be a reason NOT to start him. The NFL has started a ton of rookies lately..... Flacco, Ryan, Sanchez... that have even had playoff success. The teams the played on, had stronger defenses to help them out. Well, our defense is absolutely the strongest unit of this team.

I don't buy into this "sit him" and let him "learn" for a year behind Kyle Orton. If he was sitting behind a Brees, a Favre, a Bledsoe, then I can see what you are saying. But he's sitting behind Kyle Orton. Kyle Orton is the reason we drafted Tim Tebow in the first place.

BoltWalt
06-09-2010, 10:55 AM
See I really do not like this kind of thinking. To me you are just throwing in the towel already. We are a 10-6, 11-5 win team this year. We are pretty darn close. A lot closer than everyone seems to think...Which still bewilders me. Why would we throw this season away by having tebow start now?
Starting Tebow this year likely pays off in a better Draft Pick Next year. Go for it he may surprise you.

jhildebrand
06-09-2010, 12:28 PM
But he's sitting behind Kyle Orton. Kyle Orton is the reason we drafted Tim Tebow in the first place.

/thread :coffee:

TXBRONC
06-09-2010, 09:52 PM
I see what you are saying, but in all honesty, there isn't any proof that those QBs failed because they were put in early. Yet, we hear QBs that sat behind QBs say that they KNOW they learned more when on the field than they did sitting. They have explained that watching the film isn't anything like the game, and that you just have to "see" it to really understand and "Get" it.

Like I said. I'm not really saying Tebow should start. I'm saying that I wouldn't be opposed to it, and don't think that him being a rookie should be a reason NOT to start him. The NFL has started a ton of rookies lately..... Flacco, Ryan, Sanchez... that have even had playoff success. The teams the played on, had stronger defenses to help them out. Well, our defense is absolutely the strongest unit of this team.

I don't buy into this "sit him" and let him "learn" for a year behind Kyle Orton. If he was sitting behind a Brees, a Favre, a Bledsoe, then I can see what you are saying. But he's sitting behind Kyle Orton. Kyle Orton is the reason we drafted Tim Tebow in the first place.

They also had very strong running games to take pressure off them.

Lonestar
06-09-2010, 10:03 PM
Let's not forget McNab started games as a rookie as did Vick. Carson Palmer. Mark Sanchez.

The days of sitting your youngins in the NFL has been over for sometime. Shanahan was one of the last to adapt.


Carson did not start or play in any games as a rookie.

Ncnabb started 13

VIck 2

Sanchez 15 but then he was a top 5 pick IIRC

so you might say this is a mixed bag most of those teams HAD to play the rookie they were that bad nothing could have hurt the team.

TXBRONC
06-09-2010, 10:20 PM
Carson Palmer was the number one overall pick in the 2003 draft. So being a top five pick doesn't always mean you'll start right away.

HORSEPOWER 56
06-10-2010, 07:45 AM
I don't have a problem with Tebow sitting this year behind Orton or Quinn. Tebow isn't Flacco, Sanchez, Ryan, Stafford, etc. He's a HOUSEHOLD NAME across this country and EVERYONE has a vested interest in whether he succeeds (about 50%) or fails (the other 50%) based on what you thought of him in college and, if you're an analyst, what your "predictions" of him as a pro-prospect are.

Tebow is much different than even Manning was coming out. For Tebow, folks are just waiting excitedly for him to fail so the exuberant "I told you so" can be shouted from the rooftops of everyone who ever doubted him. All first round pick QBs are under pressure to perform, but no college athlete in history has been as closely followed, cheered, jeered, scrutinized and fan-worshiped as Tebow has.

I also don't have a problem with him starting this season if he does well enough to earn it in camp. After all, I'm not a huge believer in Orton or Quinn and really, honestly Tebow can't be any worse than Vince Young his rookie season (who was OROY). I have a lot of faith in his work ethic to do what he needs to do to be successful but I don't think we need to rush him if we don't have to, that's all.

GGMoogly
06-10-2010, 07:46 AM
Carson Palmer was the number one overall pick in the 2003 draft. So being a top five pick doesn't always mean you'll start right away.

But that will always be the expectation.

TXBRONC
06-10-2010, 08:15 AM
But that will always be the expectation.

From the fans yes but from a coaching staff not always.

HP said what I've been trying to say but he didn't a much better job. If Tebow sits for a year I'm fine with that. If he's out plays the other two in camp then I also don't have a problem starting him right away or for that matter if he's ready at some point during the season. But Starting him after the season is underway comes with the caveat that the team is either struggling as a whole or the offense is just not holding up its end of the deal. At that point in imho would be the time to consider inserting Tebow into the starting line up.

Ravage!!!
06-10-2010, 11:38 AM
They also had very strong running games to take pressure off them.

I wouldn't say Baltimore had a strong running game, and NY's wasn't exceptional. Hell, they released their vet only to replace him with another aged vet in Tomlinson. It was ok, but wasn't strong.

Tempus Fugit
06-10-2010, 12:24 PM
I wouldn't say Baltimore had a strong running game, and NY's wasn't exceptional. Hell, they released their vet only to replace him with another aged vet in Tomlinson. It was ok, but wasn't strong.

It was the #1 rushing offense in the NFL.

Northman
06-10-2010, 01:35 PM
I wouldn't say Baltimore had a strong running game, and NY's wasn't exceptional. Hell, they released their vet only to replace him with another aged vet in Tomlinson. It was ok, but wasn't strong.

Actually, Bmore does have a strong running game. Not sure why you would think they didnt.