PDA

View Full Version : Whatever Happened to the 3-4 Year "Development" Timeline for Tebow?



vandammage13
10-25-2011, 12:04 PM
Coming out of the draft, The general consensus of Tebow's harshest critics seemed to be that Tebow would need 3-4 years to develop and get up to speed with the NFL game (This was one of their main points on why he shouldn't be a 1st round pick).

So why do these same critics pass judgement on the QB before he gets these stated 3-4 years to develop?

It was a given that Tebow would need time to develop, yet the same pundits that suggested this timeline ignore their own previous stance on TT and are ready to pass judgement after just 4 starts (All the while TT has won 2 of 4 QB'ing a bad team).

If Tebow can still manage to win games on a bad team while he is still a raw, inexperienced QB in need of time to develop, then isn't there a chance that he can improve?

I think if the guy can still manage to win despite his current flaws, then those wins should warrant giving Tim the alloted time to develop and see if he can become a Franchise QB.

I guess what I'm getting at is if he currently is lacking in key facets of the game, yet can still pull out victories on a bad team, then imagine the potential if he finally "gets it." By "getting it" I mean understanding defenses and improving pocket awareness.

Don't give up on the guy yet, because he already has shown he has the intangibles to be clutch when it matters, and we all know that attribute is very hard to come by in this league. It's been about 13-14 years since we've had a QB who thrives when the game is on the line.

claymore
10-25-2011, 12:08 PM
Tebow should have been drafted into a stable team. Not the wreck McD turned us into.


Having said that, we need a leader, a signal caller now. Tebows timeline was moved up the second McD was FIRED (one of the best days of my life).

BigDaddyBronco
10-25-2011, 12:12 PM
Tebow should have been drafted into a stable team. Not the wreck McD turned us into.


Having said that, we need a leader, a signal caller now. Tebows timeline was moved up the second McD was FIRED (one of the best days of my life).

You know, if I ever meet you I'm going to wear a hoodie, carry a play calling sheet, and smack my lips when I talk. Nothing like getting off to a good start.

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 12:17 PM
Tebow should have been drafted into a stable team. Not the wreck McD turned us into.


Having said that, we need a leader, a signal caller now. Tebows timeline was moved up the second McD was FIRED (one of the best days of my life).

I disagree....This team is clearly in rebuilding mode, and no QB is going to take this team to the top as is...

It is an ideal situation to bring along a QB slowly as you rebuild the team around him.

Hopefully, by the time the rest of your team is at a level where you are ready to compete for championships, what was once your young QB is now a veteran QB experienced enough to make all the reads and right decisions.

If he's not, you can cut bait with him and bring in an established Veteran to get you there...This has been done in the past (See Brees, Gannon, Dilfer, B.Johnson.)

Slick
10-25-2011, 12:17 PM
The instant gratification world we now live in, vanddammage. Patience is a thing of the past.

BORDERLINE
10-25-2011, 12:17 PM
that 3-4 year timeline went out when McD was fired. He should be given the same patience that Q.B's like Sanchez and Freeman was given. EFX is not married to Tebow in a sense. Tebow has to produce and do real well for Elway and Fox to go with him as the franchise Q.B. I'm pulling for Tebow I believe he is special but he needs to improve fast.

jhildebrand
10-25-2011, 12:21 PM
Tebow did (and probably does need a 3 year schedule to develop). The problem is in today's NFL you don't get that luxury unless you are Philip Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, or Ryan Mallet sitting behind a Drew Brees, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady respectively.

You certainly don't get that luxury when you are drafted by a bad team, they gave up a lot in draft pick compensation to get you, and then there is a regime change to boot! This team needed to find out NOW what Tim Tebow is and gauge as best they can what kind of ceiling he can have.

Now they (EFX) need to do everybody a favor, themselves the most, and give Tebow a complete playbook to execute on Sundays. Either the kid can grasp it and manage or he can't. This candy assed game plan we saw against the dolphins wont work! It only sets the organization back.

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 12:26 PM
that 3-4 year timeline went out when McD was fired. He should be given the same patience that Q.B's like Sanchez and Freeman was given. EFX is not married to Tebow in a sense. Tebow has to produce and do real well for Elway and Fox to go with him as the franchise Q.B. I'm pulling for Tebow I believe he is special but he needs to improve fast.

Let's be honest about Sanchez...His play has been very erratic at times and I would bet if he weren't in an ideal situation where the Jets play sound D and run the ball (a situation where most QB's would succeed), he would be considered more Matt Leinart than the "Sanchize."

As for Freeman, I like him, but he's thrown 4 picks in 2 different games this year. Seems to be regressing a bit to me...If Tebow ever has a game like that (let alone 2) you can bet the Football/Media World would be coming down on him like D-Day. Sort of a double standard there.

Freeman will be fine, but I think it is a good comparison of perception vs. reality. The guy is making monumental mistakes in Year 3 that he should be well past by now, but he is a Franchise QB because we are told he is....

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 12:28 PM
The instant gratification world we now live in, vanddammage. Patience is a thing of the past.

Good point...I get that, but I think it will be much easier to have patience if he continues to win in spite of the flaws.

I don't expect him to pull off miracles every week like last Sunday, but if he can at least keep us in games and give us a chance in the end, then that's a good start for a project QB IMO.

TXBRONC
10-25-2011, 01:30 PM
Coming out of the draft, The general consensus of Tebow's harshest critics seemed to be that Tebow would need 3-4 years to develop and get up to speed with the NFL game (This was one of their main points on why he shouldn't be a 1st round pick).

So why do these same critics pass judgement on the QB before he gets these stated 3-4 years to develop?

It was a given that Tebow would need time to develop, yet the same pundits that suggested this timeline ignore their own previous stance on TT and are ready to pass judgement after just 4 starts (All the while TT has won 2 of 4 QB'ing a bad team).

If Tebow can still manage to win games on a bad team while he is still a raw, inexperienced QB in need of time to develop, then isn't there a chance that he can improve?

I think if the guy can still manage to win despite his current flaws, then those wins should warrant giving Tim the alloted time to develop and see if he can become a Franchise QB.

I guess what I'm getting at is if he currently is lacking in key facets of the game, yet can still pull out victories on a bad team, then imagine the potential if he finally "gets it." By "getting it" I mean understanding defenses and improving pocket awareness.

Don't give up on the guy yet, because he already has shown he has the intangibles to be clutch when it matters, and we all know that attribute is very hard to come by in this league. It's been about 13-14 years since we've had a QB who thrives when the game is on the line.

What happened to the that timeline? It no longer applies since the guy who brought Tebow in is no longer here.

TXBRONC
10-25-2011, 01:32 PM
You know, if I ever meet you I'm going to wear a hoodie, carry a play calling sheet, and smack my lips when I talk. Nothing like getting off to a good start.

Careful Clay would perceive your lip smacking as a sexual advance.

BigDaddyBronco
10-25-2011, 01:34 PM
Careful Clay would perceive your lip smacking as a sexual advance.

Yea, he would get out the ruffies.

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 01:40 PM
He will get another year if he can show that he can play QB. As of right now, he looks to be a MUCH MUCH MUCH bigger project. I'm not comparing him to Manning or Brees, I'm comparing him to the actual ROOKIES that are playing in the NFL and Tebow is Wayyyyyyy behind. How long do you expect a team to be put on "hold" for him?

If Tebow looks closer to how Ponder, Dalton, or Newton, rookie), alll of which he's had more practices than..... then he'll get more time. But as of right now, that looks to be a MUCH much longer time period and the team just can't sit around and "hope."

claymore
10-25-2011, 01:44 PM
Careful Clay would perceive your lip smacking as a sexual advance.

True, BDB's face labia would be damn near irresistable. :laugh:

TXBRONC
10-25-2011, 01:51 PM
True, BDB's face labia would be damn near irresistable. :laugh:

Ok. Maybe you wouldn't be up to his standards?

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 02:03 PM
What happened to the that timeline? It no longer applies since the guy who brought Tebow in is no longer here.

Again...I'm not referring to EFX timeline, but the timeline given by the critics who are already writing him off despite previously saying he would need time.

slim
10-25-2011, 02:05 PM
Again...I'm not referring to EFX timeline, but the timeline given by the critics who are already writing him off despite previously saying he would need time.

It is a fair point.

You can't tell me he needs three years to develop and then throw him under the bus because he isn't NFL ready after 1.5 years.

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 02:05 PM
It is a fair point.

You can't tell me he needs three years to develop and then throw him under the bus because he isn't NFL ready after 1.5 years.

Thank you...seems that point flew right over everyone's head.

slim
10-25-2011, 02:07 PM
Thank you...seems that point flew right over everyone's head.

People get bent out of shape if you say anything that is perceived to be complimentary of Tebow (not that you did that here, but apparently it was perceived that way).

We have the fanbois to thank for that.

TXBRONC
10-25-2011, 02:11 PM
Again...I'm not referring to EFX timeline, but the timeline given by the critics who are already writing him off despite previously saying he would need time.

It doesn't matter what they think. My assumption is that anyone that gave Tebow that kind of timeline was doing that based on the belief that McDaniels would still be here.

G_Money
10-25-2011, 02:13 PM
I would hope that if Tebow shows promise he might get a couple of years to prove himself, but it's a hard timeline to hold to. And even when it happens with future HOFers, teams still make the wrong choice.

Drew Brees got into one game as a rookie and threw for a couple hundred yards, then had nearly 2 full seasons in which he just wasn't that good. The Chargers had seen enough and drafted Manning, then traded him for Rivers+...and I laughed. :lol: Because I thought Brees was gonna be fantastic and SD was quitting too soon.

Best thing that ever happened to Brees.

But SD gave Brees one year of bench seasoning + 28 games before drafting his replacement. The Drew Brees that showed up the next year was a MONSTER, and has been ever since.

Tebow would have to start the rest of this year and all of next year to be given that much rope, and I don't think that will happen.

Whether it's right or wrong, he's gonna have to be better than this by a significant margin by season's end. I wish him luck, but he's not getting his 3-4 year timeline without a big enough jump in NFL-style QB skills for risk-averse Fox to be comfortable letting him run an offense.

Winning will help because it gives a "he just wins" excuse to earn an extra season of starts - it's just gonna be a rough schedule to win a lot the rest of the season. Should be interesting.

~G

NightTerror218
10-25-2011, 02:18 PM
Kyle Orton happened to the 3-4 year development

G_Money
10-25-2011, 02:22 PM
FWIW, I think Tebow is a 3 year project - Shanny always cautioned people not to judge his QBs until their 3rd year with him when they truly understand the offense - and I'd give him what Brees got to prove whether he is or not. So that's through the end of next year.

I'd work on fixing other holes first while we test-drive Tebow. Fox is on a 3 year contract, and I'd fire him after these 2-3 years if Tebow doesn't work out, and he can take McCoy with him. The next HC can hand-pick his QB to replace Tebow and then he's not working with another man's choice, and we should have some better talent assembled by that time so the new QB isn't getting killed.

Or Tim works out and we can all rest easy that we didn't replace him too early and waste a first round draftpick on his replacement.

Either way works. Fox believes it's 3 years to turn this around, so admit that and give the team - and Tebow - the 3 years.

I dunno that we're patient enough to do that, or that we believe in Tim enough for that sort of a look, which is why I think Tim has to convince the decision-makers to decide in his favor with a quite-decent QB class coming up in the Spring.

Almost all of them will look more like pro QBs than Tebow, which of course doesn't mean any of them will actually BE better pros. But Tim's got to overcome that stigma of appearances with some good results, pronto.

~G

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 02:24 PM
It doesn't matter what they think. My assumption is that anyone that gave Tebow that kind of timeline was doing that based on the belief that McDaniels would still be here.

It may have been based on that, but the criticism doesn't seem to be "he can't because he won't be given the time by EFX," but rather simply "he can't."

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 03:05 PM
It may have been based on that, but the criticism doesn't seem to be "he can't because he won't be given the time by EFX," but rather simply "he can't."

The critcisms were that Tebow was taken in the first round, BECAUSE he is a 3 year project just to get to the point that guys like Gabbert, Ponder, and Dalton are now. Not that it would just take three years.

The problem since then, is the Tebow-maniacs that keep screaming for Tebow. They have set the stage. All the radio stations and talk shows keep getting bombarded with the "Tebow is Great" mantra that the talking heads are pretty tired of. All this hype for a player that hasn't done a single thing in the NFL. The Tebow-guys kept telling everyone that hey was NOT a project, that he was MORE than ready for the NFL because he proved it in Florida and the SEC, and that everyone just "hated on him" because of his religion.

Now that he's in there, THEY (the host of said shows) are now saying "SEE, he isn't that great, he isn't everything you keep bragging about, and he really IS a project. He's NOT ready, and he won't be an NFL QB because the guy can't throw." Right now, they (heads) are the ones that are right and Tebow again is thrust into a position that he must improve QUICKLY to make them (as well as everyone else watching that display) back down off that stance.

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 03:12 PM
The critcisms were that Tebow was taken in the first round, BECAUSE he is a 3 year project just to get to the point that guys like Gabbert, Ponder, and Dalton are now. Not that it would just take three years.

The problem since then, is the Tebow-maniacs that keep screaming for Tebow. They have set the stage. All the radio stations and talk shows keep getting bombarded with the "Tebow is Great" mantra that the talking heads are pretty tired of. All this hype for a player that hasn't done a single thing in the NFL. The Tebow-guys kept telling everyone that hey was NOT a project, that he was MORE than ready for the NFL because he proved it in Florida and the SEC, and that everyone just "hated on him" because of his religion.

Now that he's in there, THEY (the host of said shows) are now saying "SEE, he isn't that great, he isn't everything you keep bragging about, and he really IS a project. He's NOT ready, and he won't be an NFL QB because the guy can't throw." Right now, they (heads) are the ones that are right and Tebow again is thrust into a position that he must improve QUICKLY to make them (as well as everyone else watching that display) back down off that stance.

They are from from being proven right as of now...

There is much to take away from TT's limited action that benefits the arguments of both sides IMO.

Accuracy problems and the inability to diagnose defenses are a couple of points certainly in the critics favor.

2-2 record on a bad team, miracle comebacks, low turnover ratio, good redzone production are a few points in the supporter's favor.

Neither is right or wrong yet...The season needs to be played out. I don't see why the need for a rush to judgement...Still 10 games to go.

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 03:24 PM
They are from from being proven right as of now...

There is much to take away from TT's limited action that benefits the arguments of both sides IMO.

Accuracy problems and the inability to diagnose defenses are a couple of points certainly in the critics favor.

2-2 record on a bad team, miracle comebacks, low turnover ratio, good redzone production are a few points in the supporter's favor.

Neither is right or wrong yet...The season needs to be played out. I don't see why the need for a rush to judgement...Still 10 games to go.

Can only judge on whats been seen. As of right now, he's looked horrible. Thats more realistic than people "guessing" he'll be "ok" if given the time. Sure we'll ahve a better understanding later down the road, but as it is...right now... at this moment....he's proved all the critics right with his play.

jlarsiii
10-25-2011, 03:34 PM
They are from from being proven right as of now...
There is much to take away from TT's limited action that benefits the arguments of both sides IMO.
Accuracy problems and the inability to diagnose defenses are a couple of points certainly in the critics favor.
2-2 record on a bad team, miracle comebacks, low turnover ratio, good redzone production are a few points in the supporter's favor.
Neither is right or wrong yet...The season needs to be played out. I don't see why the need for a rush to judgement...Still 10 games to go.

I think you are missing the point. Rav had a good part of it right about Tebow being a multi-year project. That looks to be true with every passing day which still bothers me considering we drafted him in the first round. Projects shouldn't be drafted that high, but before I hijack my own post off topic I will stop with that.

The rush to judgement is because the FO and coaching staff don't have the luxury of waiting 3-4 years to develop him. They just don't. Just look at McD's tenure. When he was hired most thought he would easily get 3 years before anyone would really start to judge him as a coach. Well, he f-ed up so bad he didn't even last 2 seasons.

I am sorry but that is the way it is. It is a what have you done for me lately league. And this current FO and staff are not married to Tebow in any way. If he doesn't show it this year, he is as good as done as the FQB for Denver because they will not wait on him especially considering the nature of the league as it is now and with a respectable QB class coming up in the next draft. They can't afford to and get to keep their jobs.

And I don't agree with you G about firing Fox if Tebow doesn't develop. Fire Tebow in that case...

TT15Superman
10-25-2011, 03:38 PM
The "lack of time" is due to the 2012 draft class which is full of "pro-style ready" QBs (like Jimmy Clausen).

I think that Tebow has more time than 10 more games, but that is strickly dependent upon how he progresses and where we are in the draft.

While I can see #7 going all-in and mortgaging the future for Luck, I don't think he will, and I don't think he will do the same for Barkley or Jones. There's only one possible "sure-thing", and unless he falls in our lap, I would believe that Elway will wait for Tebow and draft a QB in the lower rounds to develop also.

For what it is worth, QBs drafted in the bottom of the 1st round are classified DIFFERENTLY than QBs drafted in the top. Their timelines/expectations are different.
Other examples include Rodgers, Rivers, Maddox, Ramsey, Quinn, Flacco, Campbell, Losman, Grossman.

http://www.giftsandfreeadvice.com/free_advice/quarterbacks-drafted-in-the-nfl-1970-2008-by-year-team-round-college/

CoachChaz
10-25-2011, 03:51 PM
The 2 truths we know. Tebow will require time to develop more...and he has about 10 games to do it. Not really fair, but so be it. It's not our decision to make.

The interesting thing to me is the rush to get that franchise guy into Denver. Look at our team as a whole. How much better are we with Brady or Rodgers or Brees running the show? With any of them, I think we are still a losing team.

So we can go "all in" for Luck if we want, but it will be year 6 or 7 before the team is in any shape to contend. That being said...if we dont get the over-hyped Luck this year...there will be another very good QB or 2 or 3 that will be available in future years. Let's not pretend that it's Luck or nothing for every team in the NFL.

This whole team needs time at ALL positions

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 03:56 PM
A QB turns around a franchise in a hurry, no matter how bad that team may be. Its the fastest and best move for ANY team's future. Trying to build the team, and THEN hope to land in a position to draft a top QB doesn't make any sense. If you are in position, get the QB onto the team, let him learn the NFL AS you are building, and let him improve your team.

Of course the team needs a lot, but a good QB improves the OL, the WRs, the running game, and helps the defense by not going 3-n-out all the time.

I don't get where it would still take 6-7 years. I say get the absolute best QB on the roster, and watch the pieces fall into place.

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 03:58 PM
The 2 truths we know. Tebow will require time to develop more...and he has about 10 games to do it. Not really fair, but so be it. It's not our decision to make.

The interesting thing to me is the rush to get that franchise guy into Denver. Look at our team as a whole. How much better are we with Brady or Rodgers or Brees running the show? With any of them, I think we are still a losing team.

So we can go "all in" for Luck if we want, but it will be year 6 or 7 before the team is in any shape to contend. That being said...if we dont get the over-hyped Luck this year...there will be another very good QB or 2 or 3 that will be available in future years. Let's not pretend that it's Luck or nothing for every team in the NFL.

This whole team needs time at ALL positions

I think of guys like Aaron Rogers. Everyone keeps talking about the next Elway or Manning in Luck. Right now the hands down best qb in the game, the guy that I'd like to find for our team is Aaron Rogers. And what did Aaron have? Only depth at every position other than the O line when he took over.

I'll take me a Brees, or a Rogers who were both taken after the top tier guys.

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 04:06 PM
Can only judge on whats been seen. As of right now, he's looked horrible. Thats more realistic than people "guessing" he'll be "ok" if given the time. Sure we'll ahve a better understanding later down the road, but as it is...right now... at this moment....he's proved all the critics right with his play.

You yourself are too overly critical then...To say that he has looked "horrible" as you put it, would not be historically out of the norm for a QB in his first few starts. (Yes, I know there are some recent examples of QB's who have produced immediately, but there are also plenty of others who needed a little time as well before they began to be productive.)

The problem with your assertion that TT has looked "horrible," is that there is also evidence that suggests he's actually played pretty well for a guy making his first 4 starts overall.

Also with TT you can't just look at the passing numbers (which are actually pretty favorable other than completion %), but also look at the rushing numbers he brings along with that.

A QB who starts out 2-2 (nearly pulled out another in his 2nd half replacement of Orton), has top-tier Red Zone results among all QB's (which is the hardest part of the field to move the ball), in the top tier of all QB's in turnover ratio (one of the most important aspects of winning a game), and a knack for getting it done in crunch time cannot be discounted.

I believe you are leaving the above out of your equation...Yes, there are parts of Tebow's game that can definitely be classified as "horrible" at this point, but when you consider the overall scope of how he has performed thus far, he's been about as productive as you could hope a guy with 4 starts could have been. He just might get it done in a way you aren't used to seeing.

Overall, Tebow has not been nearly as "horrible" as you claim...I wouldn't classify TT's play as being great...far from it...But it has been OK all things considered.

As long as the guy keeps giving a bad team a chance to win, then he's doing OK IMO, considering his well documented flaws.

TT15Superman
10-25-2011, 04:08 PM
A QB turns around a franchise in a hurry, no matter how bad that team may be. Its the fastest and best move for ANY team's future. ... I don't get where it would still take 6-7 years. I say get the absolute best QB on the roster, and watch the pieces fall into place.Not if you mortgage the franchise with 3 first round picks, a few 2nd rounders, etc.

That'll be the cost for Luck.

SuckWithLuck will be the mantra if Elway does this.

A. Rodgers was not mortgaged for. He was drafted with GB's first round pick @ 25. Sat on the bench for 2 years and learned. BTW, he changed his throwing motion also. He's a Tedford protégé, who held the ball next to his ear when he played at UCLA and when he first entered the NFL.

Cugel
10-25-2011, 04:09 PM
Tebow did (and probably does need a 3 year schedule to develop). The problem is in today's NFL you don't get that luxury unless you are Philip Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, or Ryan Mallet sitting behind a Drew Brees, Brett Favre, and Tom Brady respectively.

You certainly don't get that luxury when you are drafted by a bad team, they gave up a lot in draft pick compensation to get you, and then there is a regime change to boot! This team needed to find out NOW what Tim Tebow is and gauge as best they can what kind of ceiling he can have.

Now they (EFX) need to do everybody a favor, themselves the most, and give Tebow a complete playbook to execute on Sundays. Either the kid can grasp it and manage or he can't. This candy assed game plan we saw against the dolphins wont work! It only sets the organization back.

There's a fantasy among the Tebowniacs where Tebow would have made great throws "if only" those darn dumb coaches would have called some pass plays and not tried to run the ball all afternoon (for 6 yards a carry!). :coffee:

In fact they called about 15 pass plays in the first half. He only had 5 pass attempts because he was sacked four times from holding onto the ball too long, and ran with the ball instead of throwing it most of the rest.

So, get this clear in your heads Tebowniacs: The Broncos coaching staff set up a bunch of nice pass plays from the shot-gun to try and coddle Tebow into having a good first game. They tried to run the ball some to take some pressure off him and the OL did an outstanding job (with these RBs, 6 yards a carry is evidence of GREAT OL play! -- Stink called it the best game by the Broncos OL he'd seen in the last 5 years).

BUT Tebow screwed the pooch by missing WIDE open WRs and holding onto the ball and taking the sack instead of throwing it and by generally acting like a teen-aged driver suddenly entered into the Indy 500. :coffee:

Well, he'd better learn fast because it's not going to get any easier from here. Next week it's the Detroit Lions and Ndamukong Suh and not the Miami Powderpuffs and their 30th ranked scoring defense! :coffee:

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 04:16 PM
There's a fantasy among the Tebowniacs where Tebow would have made great throws "if only" those darn dumb coaches would have called some pass plays and not tried to run the ball all afternoon (for 6 yards a carry!). :coffee:

In fact they called about 15 pass plays in the first half. He only had 5 pass attempts because he was sacked four times from holding onto the ball too long, and ran with the ball instead of throwing it most of the rest.

So, get this clear in your heads Tebowniacs: The Broncos coaching staff set up a bunch of nice pass plays from the shot-gun to try and coddle Tebow into having a good first game. They tried to run the ball some to take some pressure off him and the OL did an outstanding job (with these RBs, 6 yards a carry is evidence of GREAT OL play! -- Stink called it the best game by the Broncos OL he'd seen in the last 5 years).

BUT Tebow screwed the pooch by missing WIDE open WRs and holding onto the ball and taking the sack instead of throwing it and by generally acting like a teen-aged driver suddenly entered into the Indy 500. :coffee:

Your fantasy almost came to fruition when TT was stinking it up for 3 1/2 quarters on Sunday....You were no doubt just giddy that all your TT bashing was being validated....Then he had to go out and win the game and I'm sure that just made you sick to your stomach.

:coffee:

CoachChaz
10-25-2011, 04:17 PM
A QB turns around a franchise in a hurry, no matter how bad that team may be. Its the fastest and best move for ANY team's future. Trying to build the team, and THEN hope to land in a position to draft a top QB doesn't make any sense. If you are in position, get the QB onto the team, let him learn the NFL AS you are building, and let him improve your team.

Of course the team needs a lot, but a good QB improves the OL, the WRs, the running game, and helps the defense by not going 3-n-out all the time.

I don't get where it would still take 6-7 years. I say get the absolute best QB on the roster, and watch the pieces fall into place.

I'm the last to say that Tebow is the answer. I hope he is, but I cant say that right now.

But if we give up picks to get Luck, then how do we go about getting that "home grown" talent to develop along with our shiny new QB? Just look at the picks Chicago gave up for Cutler. Has their team really improved any? Can they thank skill or luck for their trip to the NFCCG last year?

How about how much Miami has improved since adding Marshall? What about Houston's improvement after dealing for Shaub?

Maybe the rise to glory doesnt last 7 years, but maybe it lasts longer. I just dont see this team being all that much better right now even with the best QB. I think EFX has to continue to hold steady and draft the BPA every year until it starts to come together. If the BPA happens to be a QB...so be it. But mortgaging 3-5 starters for a QB is silly to me. Without that young talent...who will block for him/catch his passes/run the ball/etc?

Cugel
10-25-2011, 04:23 PM
Not if you mortgage the franchise with 3 first round picks, a few 2nd rounders, etc.

That'll be the cost for Luck.

SuckWithLuck will be the mantra if Elway does this.

A. Rodgers was not mortgaged for. He was drafted with GB's first round pick @ 25. Sat on the bench for 2 years and learned. BTW, he changed his throwing motion also. He's a Tedford protégé, who held the ball next to his ear when he played at UCLA and when he first entered the NFL.

Stop your whining! The Broncos aren't getting Luck unless they lose out the rest of the way and the Colts, Dolphins and Rams all win at least 2 games. And it doesn't look like any of those teams is even TRYING to win. They are all trying to suck for Luck.

Did you SEE the Colts getting blown out 620 to 7 by the Saints?

Any team that gets Luck will keep him and NOBODY will trade him. That includes the Rams who would trade Sam Bradford and keep Luck. Of course that gives the Broncos a chance to trade their 1st round pick for Bradford, especially if they finish with a top 5 pick (which is likely enough despite the set back they suffered in winning in Miami).

If you're the Rams and just finished with the NFL's 31st offense with Bradford why not take Luck? AND get a 1st round draft pick or two for him, PLUS sign Luck with your #1 overall pick and pay him about 1/2 as much because the new rookie wage scale is so much lower than the old one.

The Broncos play the Lions, then @Raiders, @KC, Jets, @Chargers, @Vikings, Bears, Patriots,@Bills before they finally get a home game they can win to finish the season 3-13 by beating the Chiefs the final game of the season. So, they still have a chance, but realistically, beating Miami set this franchise back for years to come! :coffee:

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 04:24 PM
You yourself are too overly critical then...To say that he has looked "horrible" as you put it, would not be historically out of the norm for a QB in his first few starts. (Yes, I know there are some recent examples of QB's who have produced immediately, but there are also plenty of others who needed a little time as well before they began to be productive.)

The problem with your assertion that TT has looked "horrible," is that there is also evidence that suggests he's actually played pretty well for a guy making his first 4 starts overall.

No vanda... he looked horrible. I'm not saying that he's never going to improve or that he's a complete "failure" in the NFL. But the reality is, he looked HORRENDOUS, and thats not an exaggeration.



Also with TT you can't just look at the passing numbers (which are actually pretty favorable other than completion %), but also look at the rushing numbers he brings along with that.

A QB who starts out 2-2 (nearly pulled out another in his 2nd half replacement of Orton), has top-tier Red Zone results among all QB's (which is the hardest part of the field to move the ball), in the top tier of all QB's in turnover ratio (one of the most important aspects of winning a game), and a knack for getting it done in crunch time cannot be discounted.

Most of your stats are complete bunk. He's had a single stat and you are using % to compare to those that have had 7. Sorry, doesn't hold an ounce of water.... none.. zero.. and actually takes away from your argument because it makes it appear that you are pulling a Bullgator by ignoring the obvious and skewing the stats.


I believe you are leaving the above out of your equation...Yes, there are parts of Tebow's game that can definitely be classified as "horrible" at this point, but when you consider the overall scope of how he has performed thus far, he's been about as productive as you could hope a guy with 4 starts could have been. He just might get it done in a way you aren't used to seeing.
This is another thing I'm tired of reading, because its again a load of crap. Tebow hasn't done ANYTHING that I haven't seen before. In the Miami game, he was HORRIBLE throughout the game, and then we want to try and give him credit for taking us out of the hole that he helped create? He didn't recover the onsides kick, he didn't force the fumble in OT, and he didn't kick the 52 yarder.

The coaches were worried that he would get yet another sack at teh end of the game and put us out of FG range, so they called three runs.


Overall, Tebow has not been nearly as "horrible" as you claim...I wouldn't classify TT's play as being great...far from it...But it has been OK all things considered.

As long as the guy keeps giving a bad team a chance to win, then he's doing OK IMO, considering his well documented flaws.

Tebow has had ONE start this season, and his play was horrendous on Sunday. Its disappointing to see just how bad he was, because I was truly believing that the coaches were somehow exaggerating the situation by starting Orton. I thought that Schlereth was exaggerating when he said Tebow looked TERRIBLE when he watched him play in over 10 practices. I was HOPING that he wouldn't actually prove that Orton gave us the best "chance" to win.... but instead, Tebow proved every critical statement about him correct. UP TO THIS POINT. Up to this point, Tebow has only proved his detractors right.

If you look at the game in a realistic sense, you can not give Tebow the "credit" for pulling us out of that game and winning it. Thats like giving the pilot that turned off the engines, credit for hitting a body of water on the crash.

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 04:25 PM
I'm the last to say that Tebow is the answer. I hope he is, but I cant say that right now.

But if we give up picks to get Luck, then how do we go about getting that "home grown" talent to develop along with our shiny new QB? Just look at the picks Chicago gave up for Cutler. Has their team really improved any? Can they thank skill or luck for their trip to the NFCCG last year?

How about how much Miami has improved since adding Marshall? What about Houston's improvement after dealing for Shaub?

Maybe the rise to glory doesnt last 7 years, but maybe it lasts longer. I just dont see this team being all that much better right now even with the best QB. I think EFX has to continue to hold steady and draft the BPA every year until it starts to come together. If the BPA happens to be a QB...so be it. But mortgaging 3-5 starters for a QB is silly to me. Without that young talent...who will block for him/catch his passes/run the ball/etc?

Correct...

Problem with starting Tebow is that he's gonna win us enough games to get us out of contention for Landry Jones, let alone Andrew Luck.

Barkley will probably still be around, but I don't think teams are going to be too high on him, and he might go back to USC for 1 more year anyway considering there are 2 QB's that are clearly better than him in this draft.

So the only way to get Luck would be selling the farm and that is just going to cripple this team for years.

If there was one valid point that the Ortonites had was that the problems on this team go well beyond Orton...Their flaw was that they just failed to recognize that Orton was a big part of the problem.

This team has way too many problems to spend any more than 1 pick on a QB.

Lancane
10-25-2011, 04:31 PM
I'm the last to say that Tebow is the answer. I hope he is, but I cant say that right now.

But if we give up picks to get Luck, then how do we go about getting that "home grown" talent to develop along with our shiny new QB? Just look at the picks Chicago gave up for Cutler. Has their team really improved any? Can they thank skill or luck for their trip to the NFCCG last year?

How about how much Miami has improved since adding Marshall? What about Houston's improvement after dealing for Shaub?

Maybe the rise to glory doesnt last 7 years, but maybe it lasts longer. I just dont see this team being all that much better right now even with the best QB. I think EFX has to continue to hold steady and draft the BPA every year until it starts to come together. If the BPA happens to be a QB...so be it. But mortgaging 3-5 starters for a QB is silly to me. Without that young talent...who will block for him/catch his passes/run the ball/etc?

NFC Championship Game, that's more then enough said! ;)

pnbronco
10-25-2011, 04:32 PM
Vand you are right, when Tebow was drafted it was estimated that he would be a 3 to 4 year project. If McD was still here that could still be the plan, but he's not. We have a new coach, new GM and they have their own vision, which is their job.

Add to this there will be a good class of pro-style QB's in the next draft. I'm pretty sure we are out of the Luck race, but there are other's out there that seem to be on the path of the FO vision.

There is also a new CBA in place since Tebow was drafted. So you can draft a QB and not have to give up the farm for him in wages. Tebow is getting paid a fair amount of money right now even if he was drafted in the lower of the first. McD did him no favors by drafting him in the first. There are certain expectations that come with it and no one really knows if he can live up to them.

So fair or not that time line left with McD.

Cugel
10-25-2011, 04:34 PM
The problem with your assertion that TT has looked "horrible," is that there is also evidence that suggests he's actually played pretty well for a guy making his first 4 starts overall.

I don't know what game you saw, but the one I saw featured Tebow stinking up the field for 3 1/2 quarters. He was BEYOND HORRIBLE! Horrible doesn't even begin to describe the fiasco of Tim Tebow's play over 55 minutes. Getting sacked 7 times because he held onto the ball too long, panicking and rushing throws in the pocket. QBs who miss wide open WRs by 15 yards normally don't even get drafted, let along become starting NFL QBs.

I'll take Sink and Alfred Williams' assessment as former Broncos players over yours. They both described Tebow's performance as "horrible." :coffee:

CoachChaz
10-25-2011, 04:35 PM
NFC Championship Game, that's more then enough said! ;)

But it wasnt Cutler that got them there and he certainly didnt do shit once they did.

Give Calvin Johnson his TD on opening day last year and tell the Giants punter one more time DO NOT punt to DeSean Jackson...and the Bears dont make it to the playoffs. After that...the Seahawks in the divisional game?

Cutler didnt get them to that game. The rest of the NFC did.

slim
10-25-2011, 04:36 PM
I don't know what game you saw, but the one I saw featured Tebow stinking up the field for 3 1/2 quarters. He was BEYOND HORRIBLE! Horrible doesn't even begin to describe the fiasco of Tim Tebow's play over 55 minutes. Getting sacked 7 times because he held onto the ball too long, panicking and rushing throws in the pocket. QBs who miss wide open WRs by 15 yards normally don't even get drafted, let along become starting NFL QBs.

I'll take Sink and Alfred Williams' assessment as former Broncos players over yours. They both described Tebow's performance as "horrible." :coffee:

I think his sample size was more than just last week :listen:

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but Tim played a few games last year.

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 04:43 PM
No vanda... he looked horrible. I'm not saying that he's never going to improve or that he's a complete "failure" in the NFL. But the reality is, he looked HORRENDOUS, and thats not an exaggeration.

I would still disagree...I think there are parts of his game that have been horrible, and other parts that have been positive...At least you left a little wiggle room that there is a possibility that he can improve.




Most of your stats are complete bunk. He's had a single stat and you are using % to compare to those that have had 7. Sorry, doesn't hold an ounce of water.... none.. zero.. and actually takes away from your argument because it makes it appear that you are pulling a Bullgator by ignoring the obvious and skewing the stats.

Not really sure what you meant by the part that I bolded above...Anyway, his completion % and inability to read a defense are main points that critics often raise (and rightly so), so I posted them. I guess I could have added his propensity for taking sacks and looking to run too quickly to that, but those just stem from not being able to read a defense IMO.

Wasn't trying to skew the pros vs cons one way or the other, those were just main ones both sides harp on...If you can think of more things wrong with TT feel free to name them.


This is another thing I'm tired of reading, because its again a load of crap. Tebow hasn't done ANYTHING that I haven't seen before. In the Miami game, he was HORRIBLE throughout the game, and then we want to try and give him credit for taking us out of the hole that he helped create? He didn't recover the onsides kick, he didn't force the fumble in OT, and he didn't kick the 52 yarder.

So you've seen a QB throw for 2 TD's and run in a 2 point conversion in the last 3 minutes of a game to send it into OT?

Certainly TT didn't do it alone...A lot of things had to go right and a lot of other guys had to make plays for that comeback to happen, but to refuse to give TT credit for what he did just shows how unwilling you are to recognize that he did do some things that weren't "horrible."


The coaches were worried that he would get yet another sack at teh end of the game and put us out of FG range, so they called three runs.

I think that is a valid point...


Tebow has had ONE start this season, and his play was horrendous on Sunday. Its disappointing to see just how bad he was, because I was truly believing that the coaches were somehow exaggerating the situation by starting Tebow. I thought that Schlereth was exaggerating when he said Tebow looked TERRIBLE when he watched him play in over 10 practices. I was HOPING that he wouldn't actually prove that Orton gave us the best "chance" to win.... but instead, Tebow proved every critical statement about him correct. UP TO THIS POINT. Up to this point, Tebow has only proved his detractors right.

Yeah...TT has one start this year, but 3 others from last year. When you don't have a lot to go on in the first place, why would you leave any games out?

You are also leaving out the 2nd half action against SD...Was that "horrible" too? Seems you only want to include 3 1/2 quarters of play in order to "skew" your own stance.


If you look at the game in a realistic sense, you can not give Tebow the "credit" for pulling us out of that game and winning it. Thats like giving the pilot that turned off the engines, credit for hitting a body of water on the crash.

I can give Tebow credit for the role he played...Others deserve credit as well.

And your pilot/plane comparison doesn't work, because in your analogy, the pilot still crashes the plane into a body of water.

A better analogy would have been a pilot that turned of the engines, turned them back on at the last possible second with the help of his crew, and safely landed the plane on the runway.

Cugel
10-25-2011, 04:44 PM
Problem with starting Tebow is that he's gonna win us enough games to get us out of contention for Landry Jones, let alone Andrew Luck.

Barkley will probably still be around, but I don't think teams are going to be too high on him, and he might go back to USC for 1 more year anyway considering there are 2 QB's that are clearly better than him in this draft.

So the only way to get Luck would be selling the farm and that is just going to cripple this team for years.

If there was one valid point that the Ortonites had was that the problems on this team go well beyond Orton...Their flaw was that they just failed to recognize that Orton was a big part of the problem.

This team has way too many problems to spend any more than 1 pick on a QB.

Once again the question of a "trade" simply doesn't arise at all.

If you're the Colts will you entertain any offers of trading picks for Luck? NO!

Not if you agree with all the experts who call Luck the best QB prospect since Peyton Manning or John Elway. Would you trade away a guy who's potentially a Hall of Fame QB for draft picks?

How many Superbowl rings does Chris Hinton have? Do you even know who he is? The guy the Colts got for Elway? He had a great career, but who cares?

All they know in Baltimore is that the SCUMBAG Robert Irsay traded Elway to the Broncos and he led the team to 4 Superbowls and won 2 of them. It flat doesn't matter how many draft picks they got.

How often do you have the chance to draft a guy who could become the next Peyton Manning? If they pass on Luck it could be another 20 years before they get a chance like that again!

Same thing goes for the Rams and Dolphins who have been looking to replace Dan Marino for decades now, without any success. Are the Rams winning with Bradford?

Would you be known as the team that wound up with Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan like the Seattle Supersonics? That brilliant move cost them their entire franchise!

The Vikings are in the same boat. They are facing an uphill fight to get a bond initiative approved. Getting Luck might be their only hope of staying in Minnesota instead of moving the team to LA!

Lots of teams are desperate to get Luck and NONE of them are going to take the risk that he becomes a Hall of Famer -- and they wind up the idiots who traded Brett Favre for a plastic cereal box prize.

Lancane
10-25-2011, 04:45 PM
Correct...

Problem with starting Tebow is that he's gonna win us enough games to get us out of contention for Landry Jones, let alone Andrew Luck.

Barkley will probably still be around, but I don't think teams are going to be too high on him, and he might go back to USC for 1 more year anyway considering there are 2 QB's that are clearly better than him in this draft.

So the only way to get Luck would be selling the farm and that is just going to cripple this team for years.

If there was one valid point that the Ortonites had was that the problems on this team go well beyond Orton...Their flaw was that they just failed to recognize that Orton was a big part of the problem.

This team has way too many problems to spend any more than 1 pick on a QB.

Hahaha... I love how Tebowites have this fierce affinity against the quarterbacks in the draft!

I doubt Barkley returns to USC, he's currently a top ten pick, it's quite possible that he knows that if he returns and isn't as successful that his draft stock will plummet, and your wrong...there are a lot of teams high on Barkley. And Jones is pretty much in the same boat.

However, Matt Barkley and Landry Jones are not the only other first round graded quarterbacks in the draft any longer, Robert Griffith has skyrocketed into the Top 20 and I don't see him forgoing the draft either, Nick Foles and Ryan Tannehill are battling it out and both of their draft stock has climbed and are the two top seniors of the class. The underclassmen that could force this class to even be better would be one of the 'Tylers', Tyler Wilson or Tyler Bray, depending on their draft stock come the end of the season and what they decide to do.

This may well end up being the best quarterback draft class in NFL history, even superior to the 83' Draft. I don't see Denver passing on the chance to add someone, especially if Tebow is still questionable no matter what the fans believe.

Cugel
10-25-2011, 04:46 PM
But it wasnt Cutler that got them there and he certainly didnt do shit once they did.

Give Calvin Johnson his TD on opening day last year and tell the Giants punter one more time DO NOT punt to DeSean Jackson...and the Bears dont make it to the playoffs. After that...the Seahawks in the divisional game?

Cutler didnt get them to that game. The rest of the NFC did.

B.S.! He played well and they won. PERIOD. You can make all the excuses you want but Jay Cutler is an excellent NFL QB who's having a very good NFL season AGAIN, despite having virtually ZERO blocking.

The minute he gets even minimal pass-protection he's lighting it up.

And you're going to get to see that here in Denver in a few weeks. That should shut up the Cutler haters. :coffee:

Cugel
10-25-2011, 04:48 PM
This may well end up being the best quarterback draft class in NFL history, even superior to the 83' Draft. I don't see Denver passing on the chance to add someone, especially if Tebow is still questionable no matter what the fans believe.

If Tebow plays like he did Sunday, it will be blindingly OBVIOUS long BEFORE the end of the season, let alone the April draft, that he's not the answer.

Then all the bleating of the Tebowniacs won't matter worth a damn. They'll kick his sorry butt to the curb and get a pocket passing QB who can compete in the NFL. :coffee:

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 04:49 PM
I don't know what game you saw, but the one I saw featured Tebow stinking up the field for 3 1/2 quarters. He was BEYOND HORRIBLE! Horrible doesn't even begin to describe the fiasco of Tim Tebow's play over 55 minutes. Getting sacked 7 times because he held onto the ball too long, panicking and rushing throws in the pocket. QBs who miss wide open WRs by 15 yards normally don't even get drafted, let along become starting NFL QBs.

I'll take Sink and Alfred Williams' assessment as former Broncos players over yours. They both described Tebow's performance as "horrible." :coffee:

what is it with you and the coffee drinking icon? for the love of pete there's hundred of them. choose something else

slim
10-25-2011, 04:50 PM
what is it with you and the coffee drinking icon? for the love of pete there's hundred of them. choose something else

Good point, Steve :coffee:

Northman
10-25-2011, 04:52 PM
what is it with you and the coffee drinking icon? for the love of pete there's hundred of them. choose something else

He likes caffeine. :laugh:

jlarsiii
10-25-2011, 04:52 PM
I'm the last to say that Tebow is the answer. I hope he is, but I cant say that right now.

But if we give up picks to get Luck, then how do we go about getting that "home grown" talent to develop along with our shiny new QB? Just look at the picks Chicago gave up for Cutler. Has their team really improved any? Can they thank skill or luck for their trip to the NFCCG last year?

How about how much Miami has improved since adding Marshall? What about Houston's improvement after dealing for Shaub?

Maybe the rise to glory doesnt last 7 years, but maybe it lasts longer. I just dont see this team being all that much better right now even with the best QB. I think EFX has to continue to hold steady and draft the BPA every year until it starts to come together. If the BPA happens to be a QB...so be it. But mortgaging 3-5 starters for a QB is silly to me. Without that young talent...who will block for him/catch his passes/run the ball/etc?

Ummm, how many picks did we trade away to draft Tebow? You were saying something about silliness...:coffee:

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 04:53 PM
B.S.! He played well and they won. PERIOD. You can make all the excuses you want but Jay Cutler is an excellent NFL QB who's having a very good NFL season AGAIN, despite having virtually ZERO blocking.

The minute he gets even minimal pass-protection he's lighting it up.

And you're going to get to see that here in Denver in a few weeks. That should shut up the Cutler haters. :coffee:

Cutler is a pretty good qb. He's by no means great. put down the cutleraid for a moment. Great qbs win games. They don't quit on their teams when they have an mcl strain.


Would I prefer that the Cutler trade had never happened? Of course. but let's continue to work off win loss and stats vs his unbelievable physical potential.

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 04:53 PM
Ummm, how many picks did we trade away to draft Tebow? You were saying something about silliness...:coffee:

Not sure he endorsed that move at all with his post. What's your point here?

Cugel
10-25-2011, 04:54 PM
what is it with you and the coffee drinking icon? for the love of pete there's hundred of them. choose something else

There's not a sarcasm icon, nor one that denotes bemused detachment at the folly of others. :coffee:

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 04:55 PM
There's not a sarcasm icon, nor one that denotes bemused detachment at the folly of others. :coffee:

hmm is there a pedantic icon?

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 04:55 PM
I don't know what game you saw, but the one I saw featured Tebow stinking up the field for 3 1/2 quarters. He was BEYOND HORRIBLE! Horrible doesn't even begin to describe the fiasco of Tim Tebow's play over 55 minutes. Getting sacked 7 times because he held onto the ball too long, panicking and rushing throws in the pocket. QBs who miss wide open WRs by 15 yards normally don't even get drafted, let along become starting NFL QBs.

I'll take Sink and Alfred Williams' assessment as former Broncos players over yours. They both described Tebow's performance as "horrible." :coffee:

As I pointed out to Rav earlier, you are leaving out 3 games from last year, 2nd half of the SD game, not to mention that 1/2 quarter from the very game he looked "Horrible."

Pretty weak argument to focus on just part of one game (a game in which he still threw 2 TDs and won).

I could point to Tom Brady's single game where he threw 4 INTs vs the Bills, and if I came to the conclusion that he is "horrible" based on one game, wouldn't that be sorta ridiculous?

Cugel
10-25-2011, 04:55 PM
Cutler is a pretty good qb. He's by no means great. put down the cutleraid for a moment. Great qbs win games. They don't quit on their teams when they have an mcl strain.


Would I prefer that the Cutler trade had never happened? Of course. but let's continue to work off win loss and stats vs his unbelievable physical potential.

If the Cutler trade had never happened and McMoron had simply concentrated on fixing the defense do you honestly believe that the team would have been 4-12 last year? Or that McMoron wouldn't still have his job here?

Well, perhaps he wouldn't because he couldn't find a draft pick if you gave him the players' name. But, still.

Cugel
10-25-2011, 04:58 PM
As I pointed out to Rav earlier, you are leaving out 3 games from last year, 2nd half of the SD game, not to mention that 1/2 quarter from the very game he looked "Horrible."

Pretty weak argument to focus on just part of one game (a game in which he still threw 2 TDs and won).

I could point to Tom Brady's single game where he threw 4 INTs vs the Bills, and if I came to the conclusion that he is "horrible" based on one game, wouldn't that be sorta ridiculous?

Well, if Timmy wins 3 SBs then has a bad game I'll concede your point! :coffee:

But, there's no need to worry! Tebow will have 10 more games against some of the NFL's top defenses. If he can beat the Lions, Bears, Patriots and Bills as well as the Chargers the way he did the Miami Manatees and their 31st scoring defense then we'll have something to talk about!

As of right now he just played 55 minutes of some of the WORST QBing I have ever seen in 35 years of watching the NFL. And that includes everything from Joe Kapp to Sage Rosenfels.

So, you will pardon me if I don't make the same feeble excuses as you Tebowniacs for his pitiful performance.

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:00 PM
Indy was asking for 2 first round picks, and 2 seconds, for John Elway (they didn't get that). Anyone think that would be too much to give for him today? Sure its a risk, absolutely it is. But this NFL is QB driven, and if you don't have a top QB you are NOT a contender each and every year. Sure you will have a team crop up from time to time and have a single-year-run...but thats not what we are talking about.

Yes, I absolutely would give up 4 players for a top QB in a HEARTBEAT... without a question, and never look back.

you only have to look at the teams that had top QBs and how quickly they dropped, and how long it takes them to rise again, to see just how important the QB is. There is NO DOUBT that the SINGLE POSITION that makes HUGE change in a team, is the QB.

Northman
10-25-2011, 05:01 PM
Indy was asking for 2 first round picks, and 2 seconds, for John Elway (they didn't get that). Anyone think that would be too much to give for him today? Sure its a risk, absolutely it is. But this NFL is QB driven, and if you don't have a top QB you are NOT a contender each and every year. Sure you will have a team crop up from time to time and have a single-year-run...but thats not what we are talking about.

Yes, I absolutely would give up 4 players for a top QB in a HEARTBEAT... without a question, and never look back.

you only have to look at the teams that had top QBs and how quickly they dropped, and how long it takes them to rise again, to see just how important the QB is. There is NO DOUBT that the SINGLE POSITION that makes HUGE change in a team, is the QB.


Unless of course that QB fails. For every great QB there is a slew of really bad ones.

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 05:01 PM
If the Cutler trade had never happened and McMoron had simply concentrated on fixing the defense do you honestly believe that the team would have been 4-12 last year? Or that McMoron wouldn't still have his job here?

Well, perhaps he wouldn't because he couldn't find a draft pick if you gave him the players' name. But, still.

Of course I believe our record would have been better if he hadn't aliented virtually every star on the team. None of that has anything to do with your post about Cutler being great. He's good. I reserve the great label for those that actually win something. Go fish and try to avoid the red herrings from now on. The sad thing is I actually agree with much of argument about Tebow's play on Sunday. The difference is that I having played and coached for years know it's far too early to write my final evaluation of Tebow.

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:03 PM
Cutler is a pretty good qb. He's by no means great. put down the cutleraid for a moment. Great qbs win games. They don't quit on their teams when they have an mcl strain.

Cutler is good, and the way he's playing this year... VERY GOOD. Great is something that is saved for Super Bowl winners.

But...
:lol: Guess what, Brady had the same injury in his VERY FIRST playoff game. He had to come out in the second quarter while Bledsoe won the game for him. He was then "well enough" to start the next week. I guess Brady quit on his team and isn't a great QB, either.

Please, its absolutely idiotic, and ignorant, to say that Cutler quit on his team.

G_Money
10-25-2011, 05:03 PM
B.S.! He played well and they won. PERIOD. You can make all the excuses you want but Jay Cutler is an excellent NFL QB who's having a very good NFL season AGAIN, despite having virtually ZERO blocking.

The minute he gets even minimal pass-protection he's lighting it up.

And you're going to get to see that here in Denver in a few weeks. That should shut up the Cutler haters. :coffee:

But, um, he would have had 2 first round picks to address the line if they hadn't given them to us to get Cutler in the first place. If they draft Alex Mack (Pro Bowl center already) in 2009 and Iupati or Bulaga or Anthony Davis in 2010, how does their line look?

That was half the point - the Bears are not good enough to take advantage of what Cutler can do because he's getting sacked 70 times a year - they don't have the talent on the OL to do what needs to be done. Which would indicate that trading a ton of picks for Luck is a dumb idea and drafting a QB with an OL that can't keep his jersey clean isn't the best one either.

The best way to ruin young QBs is to let them get hit all the time and ruin the clock in their heads. Before starting a young one, they should absolutely have a good line in front of them to let them learn the position the right way.

Tebow can run his ass off, so the OL isn't as big for him as it could be (though tons of pressure will still retard his development since he won't get to his 2nd and 3rd reads due to the need to run his ass off all the time).

But if you WANT to draft a pocket passer, then he probably needs a pocket to throw from first. Otherwise you get the Stafford/Bradford type of injuries to developing QBs or their mental destruction a la David Carr that push back that window of contention that Coach was talking about.

I would rather not draft a QB this coming year. I'd like to get another OT, move Franklin to guard, and if I could get a great center I'd do that too (harder to do this year, but you never know how the draft's gonna work out).

Beadles can be a backup and the center can learn for a year before taking over for Walton, who should also have a decent career as a backup.

Once we've got bookend tackles, monster guards and a center who can punch holes for the run game and not fall back into the QB's lap, THEN you can tell me that Tebow can't throw from the nice pocket he now has and we need a new QB, and we'll be in better shape to make the next guy a productive player with a long career at that point too.

~G

jlarsiii
10-25-2011, 05:04 PM
Not sure he endorsed that move at all with his post. What's your point here?

And my post said that he did endorse it?:confused:

I just wanted to point out that in the very, very near past of this franchise we already did what he called silliness. It could easily be done again.

Lancane
10-25-2011, 05:04 PM
Ummm, how many picks did we trade away to draft Tebow? You were saying something about silliness...:coffee:

Actually, let's look at the picks wasted overall by McDaniels in trying to fix the quarterback mess he created.

Within the span of two off-season he spent a 6th on Tom Brandstater, not to mention wasted picks from the Cutler trade; traded Peyton Hillis and another 6th round pick to Cleveland for Brady Quinn, then traded a 2nd, 3rd and a 4th in 2010 to get back into round one for Tebow.

Tom Brandstater is no longer a part of the team, Brady Quinn will soon be gone not to mention that Cleveland will have our 6th round pick this year. The picks he got for Cutler have not really panned out all that well, and to top it all off, Tebow may well turn out to be a bust.

:tsk:

vandammage13
10-25-2011, 05:10 PM
Well, if Timmy wins 3 SBs then has a bad game I'll concede your point! :coffee:

But, there's no need to worry! Tebow will have 10 more games against some of the NFL's top defenses. If he can beat the Lions, Bears, Patriots and Bills as well as the Chargers the way he did the Miami Manatees and their 31st scoring defense then we'll have something to talk about!

As of right now he just played 55 minutes of some of the WORST QBing I have ever seen in 35 years of watching the NFL. And that includes everything from Joe Kapp to Sage Rosenfels.

So, you will pardon me if I don't make the same feeble excuses as you Tebowniacs for his pitiful performance.

Highly doubt he'll ever win 3 SB's, but that won't necessarily make his career a failure if he doesn't...Still you fail to acknowledge that you are ignoring the rest of the small body of work when pointing out how bad he was in part of one game.

Also to say that those 55 minutes were the worst you've ever seen is pretty short sighted considering he didn't even commit one turnover. Wasn't even worse performance of the day, as Kyle Boller and Carson Palmer each had 3 INTs in just one half of play, and Josh Freeman had 4 INTs on the same day.

To qualify for "worst ever" conversation, I would say you would have to have multiple turnovers, and at the very least, lose the game. (See KO's performance against the Raiders last year...)

Was it an abysmal performance for 3 1/2 quarters? Yeah...It was awful...But not even in the conversation for worst ever.

By the way...I'm not a Tebowmaniac or Tebow apologist, but I am a realist, and I'll call a spade a spade...So when people try to sum up Tebow's career based on 3 quarters of a game in which he still ended up in the win column I'll be there every time to set the record straight.

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:10 PM
Unless of course that QB fails. For every great QB there is a slew of really bad ones.

Rarely is there a QB that has the skillset that Luck does. We aren't talking about just an every year QB, here.

But you are absolutely right, North. However, you minimize your risks with certain players. NO player is a sure thing, but when the position and the player is there, you go for it. Denver did with Elway. Even if that player isn't a HoF QB, the chances that you hurt your team as bad as some are saying is not NEARLY as rewarding as having a top QB on the roster. The reward FAR FAR exceeds the risk.

Look at the players that were taken with the pick for just Ricky Williams in that trade. Even with all those picks available, doesn't mean you get the most out of them. Nothing compared to a stud QB behind center.

G_Money
10-25-2011, 05:11 PM
Indy was asking for 2 first round picks, and 2 seconds, for John Elway (they didn't get that). Anyone think that would be too much to give for him today? Sure its a risk, absolutely it is. But this NFL is QB driven, and if you don't have a top QB you are NOT a contender each and every year. Sure you will have a team crop up from time to time and have a single-year-run...but thats not what we are talking about.

Yes, I absolutely would give up 4 players for a top QB in a HEARTBEAT... without a question, and never look back.

you only have to look at the teams that had top QBs and how quickly they dropped, and how long it takes them to rise again, to see just how important the QB is. There is NO DOUBT that the SINGLE POSITION that makes HUGE change in a team, is the QB.

First QB taken in the 1983 draft: John Elway
Second QB taken in the 1983 draft: Todd Blackledge

4 draft picks for Elway? Okay, I can understand that, even if it hurts our ability to improve his supporting cast for the first couple of years.

4 draft picks for Blackledge? You're fired!!! :lol:

But wouldn't it be equally viable to find Drew Brees and keep the 4 draft picks?

~G

jlarsiii
10-25-2011, 05:12 PM
Actually, let's look at the picks wasted overall by McDaniels in trying to fix the quarterback mess he created.

Within the span of two off-season he spent a 6th on Tom Brandstater, not to mention wasted picks from the Cutler trade; traded Peyton Hillis and another 6th round pick to Cleveland for Brady Quinn, then traded a 2nd, 3rd and a 4th in 2010 to get back into round one for Tebow.

Tom Brandstater is no longer a part of the team, Brady Quinn will soon be gone not to mention that Cleveland will have our 6th round pick this year. The picks he got for Cutler have not really panned out all that well, and to top it all off, Tebow may well turn out to be a bust.

:tsk:

Exactly. If we can burn all that for Tebow (a project stated by most pundits and the original topic of discussion of this thread) then we can certainly do that for Luck (currently considered a can't miss once in a generation QB prospect).

Still, FWIW I think we are out of the running for Luck regardless so it is a moot point..

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 05:14 PM
Cutler is good, and the way he's playing this year... VERY GOOD. Great is something that is saved for Super Bowl winners.

But...
:lol: Guess what, Brady had the same injury in his VERY FIRST playoff game. He had to come out in the second quarter while Bledsoe won the game for him. He was then "well enough" to start the next week. I guess Brady quit on his team and isn't a great QB, either.

Please, its absolutely idiotic, and ignorant, to say that Cutler quit on his team.

Would John have left the game? Or did John play on the worst knees in the league for the final 8 years of his career? It looked to me like he got tired of getting punched in the mouth on every play.

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:14 PM
First QB taken in the 1983 draft: John Elway
Second QB taken in the 1983 draft: Todd Blackledge

4 draft picks for Elway? Okay, I can understand that, even if it hurts our ability to improve his supporting cast for the first couple of years.

4 draft picks for Blackledge? You're fired!!! :lol:

But wouldn't it be equally viable to find Drew Brees and keep the 4 draft picks?

~G

The difference is that Elway had the highest rating of ANY COLLEGE PLAYER, ever. So would you say the risk with Elway is as high as it would be with Blackledge to begin with?

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:16 PM
Would John have left the game? Or did John play on the worst knees in the league for the final 8 years of his career? It looked to me like he got tired of getting punched in the mouth on every play.

Are you saying that Elway never left a game due to injury?

Cutler got punched in the mouth EVERY GAME OF THE YEAR, if you watched a single down of Chicago football you would know this. He gets punched in the mouth every down this year. WHY would he then stop in THAT game and decide its too much? He didn't, its a silly premise to begin with.

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 05:17 PM
and ravage be honest. If the game had been close at the half do you think Jay lets them sit him? Im sorry man I've played with injuries I couldn't walk on the next day, and Im by no means nfl tough. Jay was seen walking up the stairs to dinner with his girlfriend later that night. I call bs

jlarsiii
10-25-2011, 05:19 PM
Highly doubt he'll ever win 3 SB's, but that won't necessarily make his career a failure if he doesn't...Still you fail to acknowledge that you are ignoring the rest of the small body of work when pointing out how bad he was in part of one game.

Also to say that those 55 minutes were the worst you've ever seen is pretty short sighted considering he didn't even commit one turnover. Wasn't even worse performance of the day, as Kyle Boller and Carson Palmer each had 3 INTs in just one half of play, and Josh Freeman had 4 INTs on the same day.

To qualify for "worst ever" conversation, I would say you would have to have multiple turnovers, and at the very least, lose the game. (See KO's performance against the Raiders last year...)

By the way...I'm not a Tebowmaniac or Tebow apologist, but I am a realist, and I'll call a spade a spade...So when people sum up Tebow's career based on 3 quarters of a game in which he still ended up in the win column I'll be there every time to set the record straight.

Van, let me give you another viewpoint. I didn't get to see Tebow play last season so all I have to go on is what I saw this past weekend. Tebow looked bad for almost the entirety of the game. BAD.

His first throw was an almost pick six (good thing it was Dansby trying to catch it) and he did have a fumble that they recovered, so please let go of the no turnover bit. It isn't a strong point considering how lucky he was not to have any in the game.

I don't think it was worst ever, but it wasn't that far off of it either. He looked like dog crap...

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:20 PM
and ravage be honest. If the game had been close at the half do you think Jay lets them sit him? Im sorry man I've played with injuries I couldn't walk on the next day, and Im by no means nfl tough. Jay was seen walking up the stairs to dinner with his girlfriend later that night. I call bs



And Brady STARTED the game the next week. Its silly to think he just "stopped" because of some pain when he was getting the snot knocked out of him allllll season long. THat doesn't even make sense. Cutler has proved time and time and TIME again that he's a VERY tough QB and takes a TON of hits.... and still gets up and goes again. Why you would think that he just "stopped" in this game, the NFC Championship game, is just being personal against Cutler. I saw him take more hits during regular season games and stay in. I don't buy into that BS at all.

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 05:20 PM
Are you saying that Elway never left a game due to injury?

Cutler got punched in the mouth EVERY GAME OF THE YEAR, if you watched a single down of Chicago football you would know this. He gets punched in the mouth every down this year. WHY would he then stop in THAT game and decide its too much? He didn't, its a silly premise to begin with.

Never saw John leave an NFC championship game due to injury. Nope I didn't.

or for that matter an AFC champ game (good catch ladies) ;

Northman
10-25-2011, 05:22 PM
Would John have left the game? Or did John play on the worst knees in the league for the final 8 years of his career? It looked to me like he got tired of getting punched in the mouth on every play.

There's no denying that some QB's are tougher than others. Big Ben is one of the toughest QB's ive ever seen but if Manning took the kind of pounding that Ben does i highly doubt he would be playing in as many games as he does. Cutler has a really BAD Oline, there is just no denying that but he isnt built like Ben but that doesnt make Jay a quitter.

jlarsiii
10-25-2011, 05:22 PM
Never saw John leave an NFC championship game due to injury. Nope I didn't.

You wouldn't either because he never played in an NFC championship game.:D

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:25 PM
Never saw John leave an NFC championship game due to injury. Nope I didn't.

THat's because John never played in an NFC Championship game! :D :beer:

But just because John didn't get injured in an AFC Championship game, doesn't mean Cutler wasn't. Just like Brady, or Tomlinson..for that matter. Doesn't even make sense to say that because Elway didn't, Cutler wasn't. It's weird that you are even trying to say that.

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 05:26 PM
And Brady STARTED the game the next week. Its silly to think he just "stopped" because of some pain when he was getting the snot knocked out of him allllll season long. THat doesn't even make sense. Cutler has proved time and time and TIME again that he's a VERY tough QB and takes a TON of hits.... and still gets up and goes again. Why you would think that he just "stopped" in this game is just being personal against Cutler. Thats your right, but I don't buy into that BS at all.

I can appreciate your fervor. As I stated before I wish Cutler, Hillis, Scheff and Marshall had never been traded. I just know He looked beat in the first quarter. I just know I watched Byron Leftwich come back in on a broken leg at Marshall. Olandis Gary played a quarter of football on a torn ACL. The forum matters. NFC championship game is a pretty big deal ya know? I know Jay has displayed toughness, but he looked like he gave up during that game.

Cugel
10-25-2011, 05:27 PM
Never saw John leave an NFC championship game due to injury. Nope I didn't.

Well, since Elway played in the AFC his entire career, I'd say you're right! :coffee:

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 05:28 PM
THat's because John never played in an NFC Championship game! :D :beer:

But just because John didn't get injured in an AFC Championship game, doesn't mean Cutler wasn't. Just like Brady, or Tomlinson..for that matter. Doesn't even make sense to say that because Elway didn't, Cutler wasn't. It's weird that you are even trying to say that.

you asserted that John had left games due to injury. I replied he'd never left a conference championship game due to injury. There is case after case of great players playing through major injuries. See TD with his migraines in the Super Bowl

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:28 PM
I can appreciate your fervor. As I stated before I wish Cutler, Hillis, Scheff and Marshall had never been traded. I just know He looked beat in the first quarter. I just know I watched Byron Leftwich come back in on a broken leg at Marshall. Olandis Gary played a quarter of football on a torn ACL. The forum matters. NFC championship game is a pretty big deal ya know? I know Jay has displayed toughness, but he looked like he gave up during that game.

It looked like it to you because you don't like Cutler. I've heard the same thing from a lot of posters around here. But the fact is, he TRIED to play again, and couldn't. The coaches saw that he couldn't.

Hell, Mike Golic was KILLING Cutler the day after the game because of the same thing you are saying. But after learning the facts, he backed off and said himself that he no longer believes Cutler "Gave up" on his team.

jlarsiii
10-25-2011, 05:28 PM
But, um, he would have had 2 first round picks to address the line if they hadn't given them to us to get Cutler in the first place. If they draft Alex Mack (Pro Bowl center already) in 2009 and Iupati or Bulaga or Anthony Davis in 2010, how does their line look?
That was half the point - the Bears are not good enough to take advantage of what Cutler can do because he's getting sacked 70 times a year - they don't have the talent on the OL to do what needs to be done. Which would indicate that trading a ton of picks for Luck is a dumb idea and drafting a QB with an OL that can't keep his jersey clean isn't the best one either.
The best way to ruin young QBs is to let them get hit all the time and ruin the clock in their heads. Before starting a young one, they should absolutely have a good line in front of them to let them learn the position the right way.
Tebow can run his ass off, so the OL isn't as big for him as it could be (though tons of pressure will still retard his development since he won't get to his 2nd and 3rd reads due to the need to run his ass off all the time).
But if you WANT to draft a pocket passer, then he probably needs a pocket to throw from first. Otherwise you get the Stafford/Bradford type of injuries to developing QBs or their mental destruction a la David Carr that push back that window of contention that Coach was talking about.
I would rather not draft a QB this coming year. I'd like to get another OT, move Franklin to guard, and if I could get a great center I'd do that too (harder to do this year, but you never know how the draft's gonna work out).
Beadles can be a backup and the center can learn for a year before taking over for Walton, who should also have a decent career as a backup.
Once we've got bookend tackles, monster guards and a center who can punch holes for the run game and not fall back into the QB's lap, THEN you can tell me that Tebow can't throw from the nice pocket he now has and we need a new QB, and we'll be in better shape to make the next guy a productive player with a long career at that point too.

~G

And how long will this take to pan out? There is no guarantee that any drafted o-linemen would pan out either. They can be busts also. That happens all the time. Sorry but if I had the chance to draft a FQB I take them. Last time I checked the QB position is still considered the most valuable especially in an evolving passing league.

Granted, you need to protect your QB, but that doesn't take precedence over getting a FQB.

Edit: You also made the assumption that they would have used those picks on o-line players. No way to know about that. Even if they did that still would leave them with Orton (in no way, shape, or form in the same universe as Cutler when it comes to being a NFL QB).

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:30 PM
you asserted that John had left games due to injury. I replied he'd never left a conference championship game due to injury. There is case after case of great players playing through major injuries. See TD with his migraines in the Super Bowl

yes, they play through them IF they can play through them. Again, I bring up MANY great players that have missed playoff games and NFC Championship games due to injury.. and its not because they are just "giving up." Injuries DO happen.

Again, just because Elway wasn't injured during one of those games does NOT mean that Cutler was not injured. One does not make the other true. It doesn't make sense to say that because one player was never injured, that the other person wasn't REALLY injured.

Northman
10-25-2011, 05:32 PM
yes, they play through them IF they can play through them. Again, I bring up MANY great players that have missed playoff games and NFC Championship games due to injury.. and its not because they are just "giving up." Injuries DO happen.

Again, just because Elway wasn't injured during one of those games does NOT mean that Cutler was not injured. One does not make the other true. It doesn't make sense to say that because one player was never injured, that the other person wasn't REALLY injured.

Charles Woodson got hurt in the SB vs the Steelers. He didnt play through that shit and that was the biggest game of all.

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:32 PM
Charles Woodson got hurt in the SB vs the Steelers. He didnt play through that shit and that was the biggest game of all.

Great example :beer:

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:36 PM
But it wasnt Cutler that got them there and he certainly didnt do shit once they did.

Give Calvin Johnson his TD on opening day last year and tell the Giants punter one more time DO NOT punt to DeSean Jackson...and the Bears dont make it to the playoffs. After that...the Seahawks in the divisional game?

Cutler didnt get them to that game. The rest of the NFC did.

Wow.. and if the dog didn't stop to take a shit, he would have won the race.

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 05:37 PM
Charles Woodson got hurt in the SB vs the Steelers. He didnt play through that shit and that was the biggest game of all.

It was a broken collar bone for a guy that plays a ton in the box. Totally different.

Ravage!!!
10-25-2011, 05:39 PM
It was a broken collar bone for a guy that plays a ton in the box. Totally different.

No its not. Its only different because you want to believe one injury is real and the other wasn't. You really have absolutely no basis to say that the injury wasn't real, except that you want to believe he just "gave up" despite evidence otherwise.

Jsteve01
10-25-2011, 05:45 PM
No its not. Its only different because you want to believe one injury is real and the other wasn't. You really have absolutely no basis to say that the injury wasn't real, except that you want to believe he just "gave up" despite evidence otherwise.

Not true man. I've torn ligaments and it's a totally different level of pain than a broken bone. Ask stink about playing a position that requires leverage on a bum knee. That took heart.


"As a guy [who has had] 20 knee surgeries, you'd have to drag me out on a stretcher to leave a championship game,'' tweeted former Pro Bowl lineman Mark Schlereth

Lancane
10-25-2011, 05:59 PM
Unfortunately, Tebow might be in the same boat as both Steve Young and Michael Vick, it took both of them about seven years to finally find their place in the NFL, and sadly...they've both been comparison models for Tebow, both left handed quarterbacks, both highly mobile and both had to go to different teams from those that drafted them to be successful!

:D

jhildebrand
10-25-2011, 06:56 PM
A QB turns around a franchise in a hurry, no matter how bad that team may be. Its the fastest and best move for ANY team's future. Trying to build the team, and THEN hope to land in a position to draft a top QB doesn't make any sense. If you are in position, get the QB onto the team, let him learn the NFL AS you are building, and let him improve your team.

Of course the team needs a lot, but a good QB improves the OL, the WRs, the running game, and helps the defense by not going 3-n-out all the time.

I don't get where it would still take 6-7 years. I say get the absolute best QB on the roster, and watch the pieces fall into place.

Meh. If Luck is indeed the next Manning then we can look at Manning and the Colt's as an example. It was 4 seasons in Indy before they saw real, sustained success.

This team has as many, I would argue more, holes than Indy did at the time Manning was drafted.

This team has so many holes. I don't see how playing Tebow is "putting the team on hold." :noidea: Playing Orton was putting the team on hold. Tebow needed to be evaluated. 11 games will suffice. Truthfully, it is a godsend. It keeps interest in the team despite all the other issues!

BroncoStud
10-25-2011, 08:44 PM
Josh Freeman sucks. I'm all for giving Tebow the time to develop as long as he continues to improve. If his accuracy doesn't improve greatly next season then there are serious issues that may not be correctable.

For now, if we can be competitive with Tebow, build a roster around him, and he improves as we move along, I don't see why he isn't a keeper.

His intangibles are off the chart.

Lancane
10-25-2011, 08:47 PM
His intangibles are off the chart.

Very debatable... ;)

TXBRONC
10-25-2011, 10:00 PM
Kyle Orton happened to the 3-4 year development

No because he was here before Tebow got here.

TT15Superman
10-25-2011, 11:41 PM
Stop your whining! The Broncos aren't getting Luck unless they lose out the rest of the way and the Colts, Dolphins and Rams all win at least 2 games. And it doesn't look like any of those teams is even TRYING to win. They are all trying to suck for Luck.First, put down the bottle and start reading with comprehension. Nowhere in my post was I "whining".

Second, who cares if a team "Sucks For Luck". It would be stupid to do so b/c it doesn't mean that the worst team gets him. Do you not remember the Elway/Manning situations? Luck could decide that he does not want to go to the Phins or Colts or Rams, stay in school for one more year, or get into a "deal" like others.

As for Tebow, why don't you wait 10 more games before going all hate. I say that it's 70-30 he's the Broncos franchise QB for the next 15 years.

Read some real analysis of his play instead of filling your head with hate bias:
http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/you-got-served-all-tebow-all-the-time

Jsteve01
10-26-2011, 09:11 AM
high fived for the IAOF plug. Great site. Slim should post over there.