Thread: Let Tebow lead the Broncos past the Chargers

Originally Posted by LordTrychon

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.

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.

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/...effect-part-2/

Originally Posted by Softskull

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.

Originally Posted by underrated29

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.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

But he's sitting behind Kyle Orton. Kyle Orton is the reason we drafted Tim Tebow in the first place.

/thread

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by jhildebrand

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

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.

Originally Posted by GGMoogly

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.

Originally Posted by TXBRONC

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.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.

Originally Posted by Ravage!!!

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.