RE: TEBOW!

RE: TEBOW! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

TheRaptorJesus -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 2:32:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Now you are just spewing bullshit Raptor....all spread options employ running backs in the backfield.Hence the word "option",let me clear this up for you the option is to pitch it to that runningback or to keep it. See the "option" yet? Roch sub,yes my post should not have included the word "scrambling" ,it would have been more accurate of me to ask ...how many option qb's have won pro championships and leave it at that.....though when one mentions "scramblers" that have won championships it should be noted that all that have done so first had to learn to scramble as a means of extending plays,in other words to still throw the ball downfiels as opposed to tucking it and running. You just went full-retard. I was talking about Ken's post where he said they don't use the running back. Learn to read. PS- Tebow has also thrown the ball downfield quite often the last few weeks. If you watched the games involving the players you talk about, it might do you some good.

DarkSteven -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 2:35:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If the Broncos stick with a QB option offence next season they will not have a winning record. I had predicted a three or four win season for Denver this year, based on essentially the same players as last year. Until Orton got benched, there was no reason to believe I predicted wrong. Tebow inspires the team to win games, and the option offense seems to work best for them. Ken, please explain - the Broncos have gone (I believe) 6-0 since adopting the option offense. What will be the difference between this year, which has to count as a huge success, and next year such that the Broncos will not scrape together at least 8 wins? To be brutal about it, 6 games will be played against crappy AFC West teams, and that should account for 4 or 5 wins right there.

slvemike4u -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 2:42:23 PM)
Yeah,your discussion with Ken went a little far afield of what Tebow actually does though. And yes,he has enjoyed limited success throwing in the last few weeks.But now it is your turn to learn to read,no one here is denying that he is 7 and 1 it is the record the team sports...what I,and others,keep saying is that there is no chance of substainability untill and unless he can learn to adapt his game to the Pro style offence.I repeat you can not run an option in the pros and win,Not For Long anyway.

TheRaptorJesus -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 3:16:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Yeah,your discussion with Ken went a little far afield of what Tebow actually does though. And yes,he has enjoyed limited success throwing in the last few weeks.But now it is your turn to learn to read,no one here is denying that he is 7 and 1 it is the record the team sports...what I,and others,keep saying is that there is no chance of substainability untill and unless he can learn to adapt his game to the Pro style offence.I repeat you can not run an option in the pros and win,Not For Long anyway. And what I've tried to get you to say, after I've provided evidence as to why the spread option is a sustainable system conceived of sound football ideas, is WHY you think it won't work. And you STILL haven't done that. You've responded about 4 times to me asking and still haven't provided any football reasoning as to why the system isn't sustainable. I've explained it's merits and yet all you've said is: "HURR DURR NOPE CAN'T DO IT!" Give football reasons why the spread option can't work in the NFL aside from "the people are big and fast on every team against every system".

DomKen -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 3:21:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheRaptorJesus You're viewing from an incredibly narrow scope and your idea of the spread option doesn't seem to have Denver's variant in mind. Denver almost always has a running back in the backfield with Tebow. Have you even been watching the games? If it's the spread offence then there is no one in the backfield except the QB and maybe someone in motion. If there is a lone RB that is not a spread offence. If there is always an RB in the backfield it is a pretty standard QB option offence and fast good tackling LB's will eat it for lunch.

DomKen -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 3:24:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If the Broncos stick with a QB option offence next season they will not have a winning record. I had predicted a three or four win season for Denver this year, based on essentially the same players as last year. Until Orton got benched, there was no reason to believe I predicted wrong. Tebow inspires the team to win games, and the option offense seems to work best for them. Ken, please explain - the Broncos have gone (I believe) 6-0 since adopting the option offense. What will be the difference between this year, which has to count as a huge success, and next year such that the Broncos will not scrape together at least 8 wins? To be brutal about it, 6 games will be played against crappy AFC West teams, and that should account for 4 or 5 wins right there. Teams will prep for the offence in the offseason if Denver is on their schedule. This makes a huge difference in beating gimmick offences or defences that don't see much play in the NFL.

TheRaptorJesus -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 4:15:04 PM)
It's NOT a gimmick offense. It's sound football. Why is that so hard to grasp? In the typical running game, the defense is at a numeric advantage because the Quarterback is just giving the ball to the back. Defensive ends can break containment. Incorporating the option and a running quarterback into the offense negates the defenses advantages and forces them to play differently. Will defenses get BETTER at defending it? Yes. Will they render it obsolete? No, because it is grounded in sound, fundamental football.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 4:37:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheRaptorJesus It's NOT a gimmick offense. It's sound football. Why is that so hard to grasp? In the typical running game, the defense is at a numeric advantage because the Quarterback is just giving the ball to the back. Defensive ends can break containment. Incorporating the option and a running quarterback into the offense negates the defenses advantages and forces them to play differently. Will defenses get BETTER at defending it? Yes. Will they render it obsolete? No, because it is grounded in sound, fundamental football. Spread offenses arent even that unusual and are the most effective response against pressure defenses. Its more situational for most teams, but you are correct, it is a sound response to modern defenses. The presence of a running back doesnt make it not a spread offense. And sm4u is almost certainly got wiki on his favorites list. Thats where a lot of this nonsense comes from.

thishereboi -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 8:17:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Tebow is a highly religious chap:) Im far from worshipping football, I prefer hockey:) and I was digging at FDD in a joke, he is a ravens fan, he hates the steelers:) Lucy...people have zero sense of humor! Especially in R & P... I wonder who cried to get it moved? I mean... I got 3:16 in there didn't I???!!! I don't know who got it moved, but they missed this one... http://www.collarchat.com/m_3959814/tm.htm and I have to admit, I clicked on this thread hoping for more of the same.[8D]

DomKen -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 9:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheRaptorJesus It's NOT a gimmick offense. It's sound football. Why is that so hard to grasp? In the typical running game, the defense is at a numeric advantage because the Quarterback is just giving the ball to the back. Defensive ends can break containment. Incorporating the option and a running quarterback into the offense negates the defenses advantages and forces them to play differently. Will defenses get BETTER at defending it? Yes. Will they render it obsolete? No, because it is grounded in sound, fundamental football. The option, in all of its various guises, has been obsolete in the NFL since at least the 70's (the last time anyone seriously tried it IIRC). The option doesn't make DE's less effective it makes them more important since the option almost always runs outside the tackles. The offence not the defence is at a numeric advantage on the typical running play since they know where the run is going and lineman can pull to that side. That's why you here analysts talking about getting 8 men in the box for run defence. It means they're attempting to match the offence man for man on the side the run is going to by bringing most of the teeam up close to the line. The option is not grounded in solid fundamental football. It runs directly counter to present sound football. If you look at all the recent rules changes meant to protect QB's it is clear they are trying to cut down on the abuse a QB takes during a game. Running the option will by design subject the QB to more abuse.

DomKen -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 9:39:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: TheRaptorJesus It's NOT a gimmick offense. It's sound football. Why is that so hard to grasp? In the typical running game, the defense is at a numeric advantage because the Quarterback is just giving the ball to the back. Defensive ends can break containment. Incorporating the option and a running quarterback into the offense negates the defenses advantages and forces them to play differently. Will defenses get BETTER at defending it? Yes. Will they render it obsolete? No, because it is grounded in sound, fundamental football. Spread offenses arent even that unusual and are the most effective response against pressure defenses. Its more situational for most teams, but you are correct, it is a sound response to modern defenses. The presence of a running back doesnt make it not a spread offense. And sm4u is almost certainly got wiki on his favorites list. Thats where a lot of this nonsense comes from. A spread offence is not a gimmick. Running the option out of it is. QB's are too imortant to a team's success to let them get tackled 5 or 10 extra times per game.

Hillwilliam -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 9:44:45 PM)
Just a thought, Ken. Way back when they played with leather helmets and round balls and I was playing (OK, not but 35 years ago) The job of the DE/Outside Backer which was me was to basically make the Quarterback wish he had never carried out a fake to my side of the field. If he even acts like he has the ball, the DE was supposed to BLAST his ass. This would make the QB a bit gunshy and if he's paying more attention to where your helmet is going to be planted than where his pitch man is located was a fumble is likely. With the NFL protecting Quarterbacks as much as they are, wouldn't that make the option more effective as the DE/OLB is basically neutered as a weapon? I mean if one of those guys hits Tebow like they hit QB's back in the days of the veer, you're talking personal foul penalties, fines, suspensions and all kinds of crap.

TheRaptorJesus -> RE: TEBOW! (12/13/2011 10:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: TheRaptorJesus It's NOT a gimmick offense. It's sound football. Why is that so hard to grasp? In the typical running game, the defense is at a numeric advantage because the Quarterback is just giving the ball to the back. Defensive ends can break containment. Incorporating the option and a running quarterback into the offense negates the defenses advantages and forces them to play differently. Will defenses get BETTER at defending it? Yes. Will they render it obsolete? No, because it is grounded in sound, fundamental football. Spread offenses arent even that unusual and are the most effective response against pressure defenses. Its more situational for most teams, but you are correct, it is a sound response to modern defenses. The presence of a running back doesnt make it not a spread offense. And sm4u is almost certainly got wiki on his favorites list. Thats where a lot of this nonsense comes from. A spread offence is not a gimmick. Running the option out of it is. QB's are too imortant to a team's success to let them get tackled 5 or 10 extra times per game. Since I doubt Mike will ever actually respond, I'll just accept that this is the only true criticism of the Denver offensive system. I maintain that the hits a QB takes in the pocket (particularly those to the blindside) are more dangerous than the ones he'll take (for the most part) running the option and depending on his build, he can take it. Tebow is built like a fullback. He's as tough as anyone in the league.

DomKen -> RE: TEBOW! (12/14/2011 2:56:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Just a thought, Ken. Way back when they played with leather helmets and round balls and I was playing (OK, not but 35 years ago) The job of the DE/Outside Backer which was me was to basically make the Quarterback wish he had never carried out a fake to my side of the field. If he even acts like he has the ball, the DE was supposed to BLAST his ass. This would make the QB a bit gunshy and if he's paying more attention to where your helmet is going to be planted than where his pitch man is located was a fumble is likely. With the NFL protecting Quarterbacks as much as they are, wouldn't that make the option more effective as the DE/OLB is basically neutered as a weapon? I mean if one of those guys hits Tebow like they hit QB's back in the days of the veer, you're talking personal foul penalties, fines, suspensions and all kinds of crap. That's the problem. The QB is protected from the DE's, LB's and S's that think QB's look best limping off the field when they're in the pocket in the act of throwing a pass. As soon as they're just running with the ball they lose all those special protections.

Hillwilliam -> RE: TEBOW! (12/14/2011 7:54:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Just a thought, Ken. Way back when they played with leather helmets and round balls and I was playing (OK, not but 35 years ago) The job of the DE/Outside Backer which was me was to basically make the Quarterback wish he had never carried out a fake to my side of the field. If he even acts like he has the ball, the DE was supposed to BLAST his ass. This would make the QB a bit gunshy and if he's paying more attention to where your helmet is going to be planted than where his pitch man is located was a fumble is likely. With the NFL protecting Quarterbacks as much as they are, wouldn't that make the option more effective as the DE/OLB is basically neutered as a weapon? I mean if one of those guys hits Tebow like they hit QB's back in the days of the veer, you're talking personal foul penalties, fines, suspensions and all kinds of crap. That's the problem. The QB is protected from the DE's, LB's and S's that think QB's look best limping off the field when they're in the pocket in the act of throwing a pass. As soon as they're just running with the ball they lose all those special protections. Tell that to James Harrison. http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=ArnnSBhUUeYRx0Fw28XL_wJDubYF?slug=ap-steelers-harrison

slvemike4u -> RE: TEBOW! (12/14/2011 8:01:28 AM)
Don't worry about whether or not I will respond Raptor(life does at times call me away from the laptop)what has transpired in my absence is,as far as I'm concerned sufficiant.DomKen has handled things admirably. On the other hand willbeur and you have demonstrated a propensity for taking everything Skip Bayless pontificates as holy gospel.Keep running your QB,but you better insure that the backup is ready to go,eventually you are going to need him'cause in the Pros the defenders are TOO BIG and TOO FAST for the option to have substainable success. The only folks that don't understand that are the idiots that are currently blinded by Tebowmania. The pro game is constituted to keep the qb on the field,rule changes emphasize the passing game.....run your qb and you lose the advantage of said rules(all of this has been covered by Ken,but the devout need constant reminding),can your backup run this offence(in Denvers case NO) so when Tebow gets hurt all of a sudden you tell the rest of the guys we are switching on the fly to a pro style offence?

FatDomDaddy -> RE: TEBOW! (12/14/2011 8:48:55 AM)
Tebow is bigger, stronger and faster than many of the linebackers he faces and certainly, more so than the majority of secondary players. Denver's rushing game is simply wearing out the defenses they are playing and tired worn out defenses make mistakes in the fourth quarter.

slvemike4u -> RE: TEBOW! (12/14/2011 8:56:10 AM)
So Tebow is too big and too fast to get hurt ? Once he does get hurt,which is an eventuality not a possibility(everyone gets hurt in this game) what does Denver,as an organization do,revert to a more mainstream offence mid game? After practicing exclusively on an offence tailored to Tebow's unique skill set? This is a good move for the organization in what universe? Elway's job is to ensure continued success for the organization,not for Tim Tebow.He didn't draft Tebow and on some levels Tebows current success is placing Elway in a box he would rather not be in.Recently Elway has spoken of working with Tebow during the off season in a hope to adapt his talents to a more mainstream style,if that fails Dever has no choice organizationally except to go in another direction.You can not tailior a team,and an offence around one unique player while ignoring the possibility of injury to that player.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: TEBOW! (12/14/2011 9:09:08 AM)
What does any team do!!! In Baltimore Tyron Taylor the back up and rookie to Joe Flacco is an option/pass type QB, the exact opposite of Joe Flacco. What happens is Chase Daniels has to go in for the Saints or Colin Kaepernick has to go in for the 49'ers? NEXT MAN UP! Tebow is nothing like Orton.... look how that's working out.

DarkSteven -> RE: TEBOW! (12/14/2011 9:11:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Tebow is nothing like Orton. Yeah, Orton is a QB who will keep the game close, and lose by a very small margin. Tebow wins. I'll be damned if I can figure out how, but he does. If McDaniels ends up in KC, then they'll be the recycling center taking what Denver doesn't want.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.140625