Player Signing Why did this team sign Tebow?

[sb1]

Because he inherited a sucky team, had room to play with roster spots, and Brady demonstrated that he could learn the offense and be a productive player for them in the future. Basically the exact opposite of the Tebow situation.

Bill obviously liked a lot of the attributes that Brady had... and he saw an opportunity for someone to be in position to push Bledsoe...either to improve, or just out the door.

 

[Demosthenes]

Let's stop meandering off topic and quit playing "gotcha" cause that's kinda annoying.

All you need to know is Brady did not "sit and learn" from anyone in 2000 as you tried to claim several pages back. Brady was not a viable QB prospect, a guy who had a real chance to take Bledsoe's job until his following camp in 01.

And neither will Tim.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, Tim is not here because the Pats want to develop him as a QB. That ship has sailed. He's here because Bill thinks he might help the team win today in one way or another.

That is all that matters. And that is all you need to know.

What's annoying is your stubborn insistence to ignore reality and continue to claim that "Brady wasn't a viable QB PROSPECT in 2000" because you don't want to admit that you were wrong.

You DO NOT carry a rookie at QB4 for an entire season unless he is indeed a "viable QB prospect".

Think about it. People are arguing now that you don't "waste" a roster spot on a QB3. Brady was a freaking QB4.

Hell, your post/position is self contradictory. You just said that Brady wasn't a viable QB prospect in 2000, but you also said that he didn't "sit and learn" from anyone in 2000. That would mean that Brady went from not even being a viable QB prospect to outperforming Drew all in one training camp in 2001 ?

You're being silly at this point and you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole.

 

[kennyb]

Because he inherited a sucky team, had room to play with roster spots, and Brady demonstrated that he could learn the offense and be a productive player for them in the future. Basically the exact opposite of the Tebow situation.

very well kennied, I mean put.

 

[Demosthenes]

Because he inherited a sucky team, had room to play with roster spots, and Brady demonstrated that he could learn the offense and be a productive player for them in the future. Basically the exact opposite of the Tebow situation.

That rather suspiciously resembles someone who is a "viable QB prospect".

 

[sb1]

What's annoying is your stubborn insistence to ignore reality and continue to claim that "Brady wasn't a viable QB PROSPECT in 2000" because you don't want to admit that you were wrong.

You DO NOT carry a rookie at QB4 for an entire season unless he is indeed a "viable QB prospect".

Think about it. People are arguing now that you don't "waste" a roster spot on a QB3. Brady was a freaking QB4.

Hell, your post/position is self contradictory. You just said that Brady wasn't a viable QB prospect in 2000, but you also said that he didn't "sit and learn" from anyone in 2000. That would mean that Brady went from not even being a viable QB prospect to outperforming Drew all in one training camp in 2001 ?

You're being silly at this point and you are just digging a deeper and deeper hole.

If that's what you'd like to believe then that is your opinion. I know you tend to play gotcha whether you mean to or not, but frankly I'm not that interested. I'd rather talk football.

And besides, it's kinda hard to admit I'm wrong when nothing I said was wrong. And this is coming from a longtime fan of a team who has followed them closely for many, many years... and not someone who observed them on the outside and learned about them by looking up things on the internet.

 

[kennyb]

That rather suspiciously resembles someone who is a "viable QB prospect".

I guess it depends on the definition of viable. His is apparently "ready to play immediately", whereas yours is "ready to play soon".

Whatever.

Tebow isn't viable under any scenario or definition. He should be cut post haste.

 

[sb1]

That rather suspiciously resembles someone who is a "viable QB prospect".

You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it might be.

 

[sb1]

I guess it depends on the definition of viable. His is apparently "ready to play immediately", whereas yours is "ready to play soon".

Whatever.

Tebow isn't viable under any scenario or definition. He should be cut post haste.

If he can help the team - and that remains to be seen - then keep him.

But he ain't staying here and "sitting and learning" to be a QB on this team's dime no matter what some of his fans would like to see or believe. This team has not dedicated a roster spot for that in their present win-now era and there's not really a reason to start now.

 

[Demosthenes]

I guess it depends on the definition of viable. His is apparently "ready to play immediately", whereas yours is "ready to play soon".

Whatever.

Tebow isn't viable under any scenario or definition. He should be cut post haste.

It's two words that are being misused. Viable, as well as prospect. He was a prospect in that he wasn't ready to step right into the starting job, or even to be carried as the #2 or #3. Yet Bill saw something in him and didn't want to lose him by putting him on the practice squad where other teams could snatch him up.

People don't have to take my word on this, Bill Belichick has said this very thing.

IF a QB isn't a "viable QB prospect", you don't worry about other teams grabbing him.

 

[Demosthenes]

If he can help the team - and that remains to be seen - then keep him.

But he ain't staying here and "sitting and learning" to be a QB on this team's dime no matter what some of his fans would like to see or believe. This team has not dedicated a roster spot for that in their present win-now era and there's not really a reason to start now.

Dude, you have no idea what Bill or Josh's intentions or plans are. Bill definitely doesn't have the same "short term" mentality that you do, which is why the Pats have been dominant for over a freaking decade.

BTW, when did this supposed "win-now era" start ?

 

[BrickPat]

Simple question. WHY did Belichick carry Brady as a 4th QB on the 2000 roster ?

Are you really trying to equate whatever BB saw in Brady back then to what BB sees in Tebow now?

Really?

 

[jmt57]

Whether you choose to believe it or not, Tim is not here because the Pats want to develop him as a QB. That ship has sailed. He's here because Bill thinks he might help the team win today in one way or another.

That is all that matters. And that is all you need to know.

The way that reads it comes across as is if it is an indisputable fact. I am curious, how exactly is it that you know this to be the case?

If indeed your theory is true then why is Tebow only playing one position - quarterback - a position for which "that ship has sailed"? If that is what the Patriots plan is then why isn't he practicing and playing TE, FB, or whatever other position it is that is in the team's future plans for him?

 

[Demosthenes]

Are you really trying to equate whatever BB saw in Brady back then to what BB sees in Tebow now?

Really?

Equate them ? No. Pointing out that there may be some similarities ? If Tebow makes the 53, then yeah.

Even with that said, it's not that Bill would see the same things. It's that Bill sees something that he warrants is worth a roster spot.

 

[sb1]

Dude, you have no idea what Bill or Josh's intentions or plans are. Bill definitely doesn't have the same "short term" mentality that you do, which is why the Pats have been dominant for over a freaking decade.

BTW, when did this supposed "win-now era" start ?

No I don't, but dedicating a roster spot so a QB prospect who can't throw and has yet to show any signs of improvement at such to "sit and learn" for however long it takes would be a major break from their modus operandi. Said MO oddly enough has kept them "dominant for over a freaking decade".

And no offense but I think you can look it up on your favorite site and find out for yourself when the win now era started for this team.

 

[JackBauer]

Usually when you have a viable QB prospect, you expect them to get better over time, not worse.

 

[sb1]

The way that reads it comes across as is if it is an indisputable fact. I am curious, how exactly is it that you know this to be the case?

If indeed your theory is true then why is Tebow only playing one position - quarterback - a position for which "that ship has sailed"? If that is what the Patriots plan is then why isn't he practicing and playing TE, FB, or whatever other position it is that is in the team's future plans for him?

There's no evidence at this point in time that he'd be any better at TE, etc than he is at QB.

There's also a difference between helping the team win today as QB3 + whatever other roles they planned for him vs dedicating a roster spot for "sitting and learning" for a 26 year old journeyman QB in his 4th year in the league... a guy who can't throw the football very well, can't read defenses, can't remember plays very well, and has shown no improvement in such to this point...

I'm in favor of keeping him to help the team win today but let's be realistic about his chances to become a viable NFL QB.

 

[Demosthenes]

No I don't, but dedicating a roster spot so a QB prospect who can't throw and has yet to show any signs of improvement at such to "sit and learn" for however long it takes would be a major break from their modus operandi. Said MO oddly enough has kept them "dominant for over a freaking decade".

And no offense but I think you can look it up on your favorite site and find out for yourself when the win now era started for this team.

Hmmm, I could have sworn that just two years ago, the Pats carried 3 QBs on the roster. Brady, Hoyer as his backup, and an inexperienced Ryan Mallett whom they would develop.

And no, I want to know when YOU think the "win now era" started.

 

[jmt57]

Whether you choose to believe it or not, Tim is not here because the Pats want to develop him as a QB. That ship has sailed. He's here because Bill thinks he might help the team win today in one way or another.

That is all that matters. And that is all you need to know.

There's no evidence at this point in time that he'd be any better at TE, etc than he is at QB.

There's also a difference between helping the team win today as QB3 + whatever other roles they planned for him vs dedicating a roster spot for "sitting and learning" for a 26 year old journeyman QB in his 4th year in the league... a guy who can't throw the football very well, can't read defenses, can't remember plays very well, and has shown no improvement in such to this point...

I'm in favor of keeping him to help the team win today but let's be realistic about his chances to become a viable NFL QB.

Help me out, I'm having difficulty understanding where you're going with this and how you got there.

1. - You don't think he is, or ever will be a good QB.
   
   
2. - You also believe there's no evidence at this point in time that he'd be any better at TE, etc. than he is at QB.
   
   
3. - But you do want to keep him on the roster because he will help the team win today.

Correct?


If you believe in points number one and two (which by the way, I am not disagreeing with), then how do you arrive at the conclusion (point #3)?

 

[mgteich]

OK, let's compare Edelman and Tebow. Both are at about the same time in their career. \

Edelman came into rookie camp and starting to learn new positions: wide receiver and punt returner. He became an adequate backup slot back, and on the best punt returners in the NFL. He even played a bit of nickel back when he has desparately needed. And finally, he has shown enough at WR, so that Brady can count on him. What this means is that he is now the #3 WR until he his displaced by Dobson or Boyce.

Tebow on the other hand came into camp as a top quarterback. He learned no other position except perhaps a bit of special teams. Now, four years later, folks are suggesting that maybe he should learn a new position. NO! The time for that developmental project was long, long time a go. Personally, I doubt whether 4 years of trying would make him an NFL quality TE. It is hard to imagine him as an inline blocker.

So, here we are choosing a roster. I choose Edelman.

 

[Demosthenes]

There's no evidence at this point in time that he'd be any better at TE, etc than he is at QB.

There's also a difference between helping the team win today as QB3 + whatever other roles they planned for him vs dedicating a roster spot for "sitting and learning" for a 26 year old journeyman QB in his 4th year in the league... a guy who can't throw the football very well, can't read defenses, can't remember plays very well, and has shown no improvement in such to this point...

I'm in favor of keeping him to help the team win today but let's be realistic about his chances to become a viable NFL QB.

hahaha, back to the "26 year old journeyman QB" thing ?


You're funny.