Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by R_T26, Mar 17, 2012.
Apparently John Clayton says Denver will trade Tebow to Pats if Manning signs with denver.
......... and why would we even consider trading for Tebow again? I forget.
Only reason for him, then I'd only give them a 7th round pick.
BB does like the guy.
Obviously a rumor perpetuated by the media by linking Tebow to McDaniels. Obvious connection to me.
wow so many of these "experts" are stupid so we passed on tebow the year he was draft and now we are going to trade something for him so he can sit on the bench, tebow and be a virgin.
I can pull random rumors out of my ass does that mean i can be an "expert"
oh yeah i almost forgot
can he rush the passer?
Here's a kinda sorta source link. So basically Clayton is repeating rumors. Amazing how much mileage they're getting out of a pre-draft North End meal.
Strictly value wise, he'd be a good value as H-Back/Fullback and 4th emergency quarterback for a 7th round pick.
I don't think even John Elway hates him that much to trade him that low.
For a low round pick, I wouldn't have a problem with it. He'd be a nice utility player on offense and good for the locker room. He's clutch, too.
Ofcourse the biggest need on the Patriots is a QB since Brady, Hoyer, Mallet don' cut the mustard and we need Jesus and his 4 completions a game here to put us over the hump
In other news, Patriots will also explore trading Daniel Graham since TE is another need:bricks:
Oh, man. I'd so rather see Tebow in that H-back spot than, say, Hernandez (like we sort of attempted last year). Tebow would be flat out good at it too.
AH = pass catcher (not rusher). Tebow = rusher (not passcatcher, eh, or thrower)
The Urban Meyer/Belichick connection too.
Because he is a unique player and a focused competitor. The shortcomings in his game would be masked because he wouldn't be an every down player/passer.
I'm not surprised given Bill's interest in him around draft time. McDaniels is also the guy that picked him. Given their familiarity, the transition to this offense shouldn't have as steep of a learning curve for Tebow as it would for others.
I'd be for it if we're not sending back too much in return.
Gotta say, I just LOL'd!
I woiuld prefer to use TEs, and HBacks at TE and HBAck that try to turn a QB into one and pay a first round contract for it.
So we're going to trade for a 4th string QB?
Yeah, Tim "One Read and Throw it Out of Bounds" Tebow ought to fit in real good in the Pats offense.
Beyond idiotic. Clayton is such a moron.
Who says he'd be exclusively used as a TE/Hback?
There is also the possibility that he'd be willing to restructure his contract to mitigate his impact on the payroll.
Wasnt Tebow the QB that made Hernandez a star in Florida? Tebow has no quality TE in Denver, plus they run the ball a lot.
I gave the OP 10 minutes to show a link that Clayton even breathed this.
He has 4 more minutes.
Then this thread disappears.
Just remembered he played some snaps in the slot for Denver early in the season and his routes didn't look too bad actually, so you could probably get some use out of him as a H-Back, he also flat out runs over people too so you can use him for a couple of running plays too.
Someone already posted one in the thread:
Where else are you going to put him?
Let me get this straight, he will agree to a paycut to go from starting QB on a playoff team to not a QB, or a 4th string QB for what reason?
you never know
They certainly had a solid connection.
If the Pats interest is legitimate, I think it's mostly indicative of what kind of player BB is looking for.
Versatile, receptive to coaching, competitive...
It should also be taken in to consideration that Hoyer wants the chance to play and might fetch something decent in a trade.
Mallett is totally green and it would be nice to have a backup QB that's proven he can win some games.
Because the premise of the thread is that he won't be starting either way.
He'd be the back up QB, not 4th string.
He'd also be a short yardage running option, a decoy, red zone threat, mobile blocker...
Brady is crazy efficient sneaking the ball, but it might be a good idea to protect him a little more in those situations as he ages. Any hit Tommy avoids is a big positive in my eyes.
It would be beneficial to everyone if the thread originator ATTRIBUTED when and where he learned of the claim he's making......other than "apparently such and such happened".
This is how it's done:
Or "I heard on ESPN Radio a few minutes ago".....or "Lousie K. Cornetta tweeted a few minutes ago..."
It's quite simple.
Decoy of what? How about we use RBs to run short yardage, receivers to receiver and blockers to block? I think that works better than putting a poor QB in those roles because you like him and want to find a place to get him on the field.
Oh God again. You want to trade for Tebow to take TFB off the field in the red zone.
Mike Klis of the Denver Post originally wrote in one of his columns a few weeks ago that it was his opinion that the Patriots would/could be a trade partner for Tebow if the Broncos were to acquire Peyton Manning.
This was based entirely, as Uncle Rico pointed out earlier, on the Patriots being previously "interested" in Tebow - i.e., they had dinner with him in the North End prior to his being drafted.
Now in typical espn fashion, the world wide leader not only recycles the story but also makes no mention of Klis' commentary - implying instead that they are breaking some new story, while also blurring the line between facts and opinions in the process.
On a side not I was listening to the radio in my car today and Clayton was on an espn radio affiliate in the role of a college basketball 'expert', talking about March Madness. What is up with that? It's not that Clayton said anything idiotic or anything, but of all the hundreds of people they employ they didn't have one single basketball guy available?
Then again, perhaps I should consider this to be a sign that they're going to move him full time from pro football to college basketball. One can only hope.
Separate names with a comma.