Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2017 6:14:00 PM (view original):
But we're moving farther and farther away from the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that Tebow should be a starting QB or that he would have been really efficient. The point is/was he should have been a back-up QB somewhere, somewhere with a defined #1, for the last 5 seasons.

But he wasn't. Your theory is that he was blackballed. My theory is that he was bad at football.

The 'tard level of this thread rises with each subsequent dahs and BL post.

Well, I was being a bit sarcastic with that. Surprised it took you this long to get around to commenting on it.

I really think he wasn't given the opportunity to earn a spot because of the distraction. He simply wasn't good enough to have because of the media attention he'd have received. No coach wants background noise about his back-up QB. And, again, it would have to be a place with a clear #1. The Raiders would have benefited from a QB with experience in the NFL. Or maybe not just Matt McGloin. When Carr went down, that was that. MMcG was not going to give them a chance to win.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/13/2017 6:53:00 PM (view original):
The 'tard level of this thread rises with each subsequent dahs and BL post.

It's because they're stuck on completion %. It's not really that, it's the fact that he was inaccurate. He reminded me of early McNabb.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2017 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/13/2017 6:53:00 PM (view original):
The 'tard level of this thread rises with each subsequent dahs and BL post.

It's because they're stuck on completion %. It's not really that, it's the fact that he was inaccurate. He reminded me of early McNabb.

I don't think anyone is stuck on completion percentage.

Again, if you think Tebow was good, say so. Otherwise STFU.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2017 6:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 4/13/2017 6:02:00 PM (view original):
A lot of Tebow's sacks were scrambles for negative yards. IOW, he went back, didn't see any receivers open (or probably just the first one), and took off to his left. Still nobody open right in front of him? Well, he didn't pull a Cutler and try to zip the ball into a tiny window, and just stepped out of bounds for -0- gain. SACK.

Knowing he's not very accurate and that he has a good defense behind him, it was his SMARTEST move. If he had a mediocre defense behind him, you'd probably want a more adventurous QB that will force a ball (or force his receivers to make a play). He would've been a fine backup for a team with a good/great defense and a decent run game.... if he didn't pray so damn much.

Only 2 of his 38 sacks in 2011 (33 reg 5 playoff) were for zero yards.

I thought you weren't a research monkey. You have no problem digging stuff up to support your weak positions, but if there's something that could hurt your arguments..."NO WAY IN HELL I'M LOOKING THAT UP!!"

Posted by tecwrg on 4/13/2017 6:53:00 PM (view original):
The 'tard level of this thread rises with each subsequent dahs and BL post.

To dahs's credit, he at least puts some thought into his arguments. BL argues something, and then two posts later refutes himself.

crap. Look, Tebow is bad at football and will be bad at baseball. I can't believe there have been this many pages arguing about it.

Posted by Jtpsops on 4/13/2017 7:11:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2017 6:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 4/13/2017 6:02:00 PM (view original):
A lot of Tebow's sacks were scrambles for negative yards. IOW, he went back, didn't see any receivers open (or probably just the first one), and took off to his left. Still nobody open right in front of him? Well, he didn't pull a Cutler and try to zip the ball into a tiny window, and just stepped out of bounds for -0- gain. SACK.

Knowing he's not very accurate and that he has a good defense behind him, it was his SMARTEST move. If he had a mediocre defense behind him, you'd probably want a more adventurous QB that will force a ball (or force his receivers to make a play). He would've been a fine backup for a team with a good/great defense and a decent run game.... if he didn't pray so damn much.

Only 2 of his 38 sacks in 2011 (33 reg 5 playoff) were for zero yards.

I thought you weren't a research monkey. You have no problem digging stuff up to support your weak positions, but if there's something that could hurt your arguments..."NO WAY IN HELL I'M LOOKING THAT UP!!"

Don't be jealous, jtpsops.

Posted by wylie715 on 4/13/2017 7:13:00 PM (view original):
crap. Look, Tebow is bad at football and will be bad at baseball. I can't believe there have been this many pages arguing about it.

You can't believe that a thread that BL is arguing in has gone on for this many pages?

Are you new here?

My point was that an inaccurate scrambling quarterback SHOULD have more sacks, if he knows his limitations. If there's pressure, he won't wing the ball downfield into a tiny window, he'll run around a bit trying to find someone WIDE OPEN, or he won't throw it... and he'll eat the sack. It's the inaccurate quarterbacks that STILL throw the ball when pressured that are really bad for their teams.

Posted by tecwrg on 4/13/2017 7:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 4/13/2017 7:13:00 PM (view original):
crap. Look, Tebow is bad at football and will be bad at baseball. I can't believe there have been this many pages arguing about it.

You can't believe that a thread that BL is arguing in has gone on for this many pages?

Are you new here?

Love how you ignore your many posts trying to argue that team wins are a better way to measure player quality than player stats.

Posted by toddcommish on 4/13/2017 7:32:00 PM (view original):
My point was that an inaccurate scrambling quarterback SHOULD have more sacks, if he knows his limitations. If there's pressure, he won't wing the ball downfield into a tiny window, he'll run around a bit trying to find someone WIDE OPEN, or he won't throw it... and he'll eat the sack. It's the inaccurate quarterbacks that STILL throw the ball when pressured that are really bad for their teams.

I would buy that argument if it weren't for the fumbles. Avoiding picks looks a lot less valuable when you manage to turn the ball over almost twice a game anyway. When you combine his passing and rushing stats for the season he had 18 touchdowns and 20 turnovers. Those are not good numbers any way you want to look at it.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2017 7:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/13/2017 7:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 4/13/2017 7:13:00 PM (view original):
crap. Look, Tebow is bad at football and will be bad at baseball. I can't believe there have been this many pages arguing about it.

You can't believe that a thread that BL is arguing in has gone on for this many pages?

Are you new here?

Love how you ignore your many posts trying to argue that team wins are a better way to measure player quality than player stats.

LOL. It's funny (though not at all surprising) to see that's what you took away from my posts.

It's that lack of self-awareness thing of yours again. You really should try to fix that.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/13/2017 7:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/13/2017 6:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/13/2017 6:53:00 PM (view original):
The 'tard level of this thread rises with each subsequent dahs and BL post.

It's because they're stuck on completion %. It's not really that, it's the fact that he was inaccurate. He reminded me of early McNabb.

I don't think anyone is stuck on completion percentage.

Again, if you think Tebow was good, say so. Otherwise STFU.

Again, I said he was good enough to be a back-up.

Do you even read other people's posts or just reply with what you think they might have posted?