Has Tim Tebow earned a roster spot on the Patriots?

[Kontradiction]

Why do you have that blasphemous picture still in your sig. Do you hate Christianity?

Don't feed the trolls. :trolls::beersign:

 

[sb1]

No and there is nothiing blasphemous about the New England Patriots logo otherwise I wouldn't be a Pats fan.

That's not the picture I'm talking about.

Who do you have a problem with Christianity?

 

[detpatsfan]

That's not the picture I'm talking about.

Who do you have a problem with Christianity?

I have no problem with Christianity unlike alot of the Tebow-haters. I am a born-again Pentecostal who loves freedom.

 

[sb1]

I have no problem with Christianity unlike alot of the Tebow-haters. I am a born-again Pentecostal who loves freedom.

You have a blasphemous picture in your sig, therefore clearly you do have a problem with Christianity.

What has Tebow ever done to you to make you hate Christianity that much?

 

[mgteich]

Perhaps we should have a poll with regard to what minor injury Tebow will sustain in the 4th preseason game.

 

[PatriotReign]

Red zone defense alone doesn't make a team a good defense. Case in point: Miami's defense was tops in the red zone in the league last season. Would you take them over Seattle's defense? How about San Francisco's?

The fact of the matter is that there's more to evaluating a defense than just points. The order that I would put it in is this...

1. Points

2. Turnovers

3. Yards allowed

Most defenses tighten up in the red zone. That's a fact that's widely known throughout the NFL. So to give the Patriots credit for something that every defense in the NFL has a propensity to do because the field gets shorter is simply bad logic. The Patriots did decently in points allowed and turnovers that year, but too many people (such as yourself) dismiss yards because it doesn't work out in their argument's favor. But when you're gaining yards, you're moving the chains. When you're moving the chains, you're taking more time off the clock. When you're taking more time off the clock, you're keeping Brady and the Pats offense off the field. That's what happened in the Super Bowl. Brady's brilliance passing through some of the tightest windows I've ever seen kept us in the game, but in the end the Giants had simply chewed up too much clock, controlled T.O.P. and we were out of the time at the end... after our defense had just had it's hand in blowing the game. You also saw a microcosm of that in the Pittsburgh game earlier that year.

Chad Henne, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Rex Grossman, and Dan Orlovsky all put up career games against that defense. Their teams lost in the end because of the inability to stop the Pats offense. When the Pats played a team whose defense could get stops against the Pats offense (i.e. - winning teams), the Pats lost those games. In the AFCCG, they would have lost if Flacco found the open man in the end zone on one play and if Sterling Moore didn't have the play of his life on another. Why? The defense fell apart at the end of the game.

Further, again, you're ignoring everything the Pats did on that side of the ball in the 2012 draft simply because that pass defense sucked so bad. Since I don't feel like typing it out again, I'll simply copy and paste my reply to Oinko...

Anybody who thinks that that defense was any good that year...

1. Didn't watch that many Pats games.

2. Is blind.

3. Is a HUGE homer.

4. Didn't see the following draft when the Pats went defense-heavy for good reason.

It's either one of those, or a combination of any of them. The pass defense was BRUTAL that year. Second worst all time. After that season, Belichick made some pretty wholesale changes to that side of the ball including: adding a premier pass rusher, adding a rookie LB, signing a safety to a nice-sized contract and drafting one with a second round pick, drafting another pass rusher (that hasn't worked out), and signing an interior pass rusher that lied about an injury and was off the team before the kickoff of Week 1. Do you notice the common theme there? All those moves on that side of the ball were to improve the PASS defense. Why? Because the pass defense was garbage.

For you, I think the issue is that you simply didn't watch too many Pats games that year so, when Tebow became a central part of the argument and the 2011 defense was referenced, you went to NFL.com/FO/whatever and grabbed whatever good statistic you could find about the team, then used it without context. Context, my friend. It's very important.

Correction it should be third worst now considering the Saints surrendered over 7000 yards of offense in 2012.

 

[Oinko]

And this is why I lumped you guys all in together. If you disagreed with his point, why didn't you voice it?

Because I don't want to. Don't care enough to. I don't subscribe to the "someone on the internet is wrong" theory of internet discussion. For one thing, I could be wrong. For another, there's so many wrong people that correcting wrong opinions is not a worthwhile task.

I see posts on a constant basis that I disagree with. Constantly. And I just let them roll right off my back.

In order for me to post, there has to be something extra -- that is, something about the topic interests me, or the post. And I don't even have any hard and fast rules about that.

 

[Oinko]

You have a blasphemous picture in your sig, therefore clearly you do have a problem with Christianity.

What has Tebow ever done to you to make you hate Christianity that much?

Dude, he's a troll. Just to spell that out more explicitly, "troll" in this setting doesn't mean "Tebow fan sharing provocative opinions." It means "fake Tebow fan posting in an un-authentic way to get a rise out of you." He's purposely pretending to be a serious poster, nudging up to the line, saying things that sound just close enough to real that people bite and argue with him. His goal is to get you to argue -- i.e. troll.

The word "troll" has gotten tossed around so much that every now and then we need to remember the internet-dictionary definition.

 

[sb1]

Dude, he's a troll. Just to spell that out more explicitly, "troll" in this setting doesn't mean "Tebow fan sharing provocative opinions." It means "fake Tebow fan posting in an un-authentic way to get a rise out of you." He's purposely pretending to be a serious poster, nudging up to the line, saying things that sound just close enough to real that people bite and argue with him. His goal is to get you to argue -- i.e. troll.

The word "troll" has gotten tossed around so much that every now and then we need to remember the internet-dictionary definition.

I know. Just having a little fun, if you couldn't tell by my responses....

 

[chumpchange]

Amazing how some qbs who don't have a .500 record in the NFL or a playoff win on their resume get overrated meanwhile Tim Tebow who has both isn't even considered an NFL qb by know-nothing haters.

It's his stats. That's what indicates that his contributions were not what propelled his team to victory.

 

[chumpchange]

I have no problem with Christianity unlike alot of the Tebow-haters. I am a born-again Pentecostal who loves freedom.

And I agree that that picture is awful. Mimicking the Crucifixion, as if he's some Christ stand-in? Poor, poor taste.

 

[Brock Samson]

posts

Every time you post I keep wondering who got ahold of my account because I know I didn't write that

 

[Demosthenes]

Red zone defense alone doesn't make a team a good defense. Case in point: Miami's defense was tops in the red zone in the league last season. Would you take them over Seattle's defense? How about San Francisco's?

The fact of the matter is that there's more to evaluating a defense than just points. The order that I would put it in is this...

1. Points

2. Turnovers

3. Yards allowed

Most defenses tighten up in the red zone. That's a fact that's widely known throughout the NFL. So to give the Patriots credit for something that every defense in the NFL has a propensity to do because the field gets shorter is simply bad logic. The Patriots did decently in points allowed and turnovers that year, but too many people (such as yourself) dismiss yards because it doesn't work out in their argument's favor. But when you're gaining yards, you're moving the chains. When you're moving the chains, you're taking more time off the clock. When you're taking more time off the clock, you're keeping Brady and the Pats offense off the field. That's what happened in the Super Bowl. Brady's brilliance passing through some of the tightest windows I've ever seen kept us in the game, but in the end the Giants had simply chewed up too much clock, controlled T.O.P. and we were out of the time at the end... after our defense had just had it's hand in blowing the game. You also saw a microcosm of that in the Pittsburgh game earlier that year.

Chad Henne, Ryan Fitzpatrick, Rex Grossman, and Dan Orlovsky all put up career games against that defense. Their teams lost in the end because of the inability to stop the Pats offense. When the Pats played a team whose defense could get stops against the Pats offense (i.e. - winning teams), the Pats lost those games. In the AFCCG, they would have lost if Flacco found the open man in the end zone on one play and if Sterling Moore didn't have the play of his life on another. Why? The defense fell apart at the end of the game.

Further, again, you're ignoring everything the Pats did on that side of the ball in the 2012 draft simply because that pass defense sucked so bad. Since I don't feel like typing it out again, I'll simply copy and paste my reply to Oinko...


For you, I think the issue is that you simply didn't watch too many Pats games that year so, when Tebow became a central part of the argument and the 2011 defense was referenced, you went to NFL.com/FO/whatever and grabbed whatever good statistic you could find about the team, then used it without context. Context, my friend. It's very important.

Thanks for the breakdown. I appreciate a good discussion/debate. I saw what you said in reply to Oinko about improvements on defense the next year. Teams tend to try and make improvements every year, so as an outsider, I didn't view it as "OMG the defense sucks, let's completely blow it up and rebuild it". I saw it as more of a "where/how can we make some improvements".

As for 2011, I watched the Pats D in the first game against Denver and wasn't impressed as Denver went through them at will at the outset. I'm still convinced that turnovers decided that game. I looked forward to facing the same defense in the playoffs and was saddened to see that they did much better. Ninko and Wilfork seemed to spend more time in the Denver backfield than the RBs did. Didn't matter what Denver did, the Pats had an answer for it.

As an insider and long time fan, would you agree that the Defense played much better in the playoff game against Denver than they did in the previous game ?

After Denver got bounced, I missed the AFCC but watched the SB. Defense didn't look bad there either in my opinion.

WRT that, was there divided opinion here on the forum after that game as to how the defense did ?

 

[Kontradiction]

Thanks for the breakdown. I appreciate a good discussion/debate. I saw what you said in reply to Oinko about improvements on defense the next year. Teams tend to try and make improvements every year, so as an outsider, I didn't view it as "OMG the defense sucks, let's completely blow it up and rebuild it". I saw it as more of a "where/how can we make some improvements".

Of course. But teams don't usually draft heavily on one side of the ball unless they viewed it as an issue. In the case of the 2011 squad, the pass defense was a major issue.

As for 2011, I watched the Pats D in the first game against Denver and wasn't impressed as Denver went through them at will at the outset. I'm still convinced that turnovers decided that game. I looked forward to facing the same defense in the playoffs and was saddened to see that they did much better. Ninko and Wilfork seemed to spend more time in the Denver backfield than the RBs did. Didn't matter what Denver did, the Pats had an answer for it.

Belichick had a better look at Denver's offense... and Tebow. We're not going to agree on the way that it was defended (we've had that debate before), but it was pretty obvious that he knew what Tebow's weaknesses were... and took advantage of them.

As an insider and long time fan, would you agree that the Defense played much better in the playoff game against Denver than they did in the previous game ?

They did. After the first quarter of the first game, it was obvious that the Pats made the right adjustments, knew they made the right adjustments, and got aggressive with it. In the playoff game, they were aggressive from the get-go and Tebow couldn't make them pay.

After Denver got bounced, I missed the AFCC but watched the SB. Defense didn't look bad there either in my opinion.

Eli went 30-40 and controlled the T.O.P. You and I have two different definitions of "bad". I will say that it wasn't their worst game by any stretch of the imagination... but it still wasn't good.

WRT that, was there divided opinion here on the forum after that game as to how the defense did ?

Naturally. It was mostly by the usual suspects, though, that had argued all year as if New England had an elite defense (citing points allowed) and that no changes needed to be made. Of course when the defense allows the opposing quarterback, who is not even really that good, to go 30-40 and also allows the back breaking final scoring drive when the opposing offense starts from the shadow of their own goal post, I don't think there's any way that you can argue that it was good. But people did. Then came the draft and a lot of changes were made on that side of the ball. That same sect seemed to get pretty quiet around that point in time.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Wrong yet again. Most here who disagree with me just have different opinions and view things differently than I do. That said, there are a select few here who don't come across as all that bright. I leave it to you to decide which group you fall into.





WRONG. Your construct was flawed from the get go. You restricted consideration to ONLY what was seen in the two preseason games that Tebow played in.

Anyone with a lick of sense readily understands that roster decisions aren't going to be made solely based off of performances in preseason games. You don't have to take my word for it, Belichick has said so himself.







It's not unfair to ask the question. Rather, the WAY you have asked the question, framing it so narrowly, is what makes it a loaded or unfair question. This has been explained to you repeatedly.

Flat out lie and anyone who actually read the op knows it. I never limited the criteria to the 2 preseason games I simply asked people whether or not Tebow had earned a roster spot and to back up their position, which not one Tebow supporter has done. You and the other Tebowites shrieked foul repeatedly and claimed that asking if he earned it was a loaded or gotcha question, when in truth it is debate we have every year about the end of the roster spots, who should get them, and why.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Serious question. There are those on this site claiming that Belichick will keep him on the final roster, so the real question is whether they actually believe he has earned it or if they simply think they should keep him because they like Tim Tebow?

There is the op, show us where the criteria is limited?

 

[Kontradiction]

Every time you post I keep wondering who got ahold of my account because I know I didn't write that

It was probably George Zimmerman.

 

[Huckleberry1]

So you lied about what I said, constructed your response according to that lie, and claimed that the premise was flawed when it was actually your premise, not mine, which was completely open ended and allowed people to make their own argument.

 

[Demosthenes]

Of course. But teams don't usually draft heavily on one side of the ball unless they viewed it as an issue. In the case of the 2011 squad, the pass defense was a major issue.



Belichick had a better look at Denver's offense... and Tebow. We're not going to agree on the way that it was defended (we've had that debate before), but it was pretty obvious that he knew what Tebow's weaknesses were... and took advantage of them.

They did. After the first quarter of the first game, it was obvious that the Pats made the right adjustments, knew they made the right adjustments, and got aggressive with it. In the playoff game, they were aggressive from the get-go and Tebow couldn't make them pay.



Eli went 30-40 and controlled the T.O.P. You and I have two different definitions of "bad". I will say that it wasn't their worst game by any stretch of the imagination... but it still wasn't good.



Naturally. It was mostly by the usual suspects, though, that had argued all year as if New England had an elite defense (citing points allowed) and that no changes needed to be made. Of course when the defense allows the opposing quarterback, who is not even really that good, to go 30-40 and also allows the back breaking final scoring drive when the opposing offense starts from the shadow of their own goal post, I don't think there's any way that you can argue that it was good. But people did. Then came the draft and a lot of changes were made on that side of the ball. That same sect seemed to get pretty quiet around that point in time.

I guess one difference that I would highlight is that I wasn't claiming that the Pats had an "elite defense". Rather, I just said that they weren't as bad as some people think.

Anyways, just wanted to clear up why I said what I did about the defense. If you want me to go through why I thought the defense did a pretty good job in the SB, I'll be happy to. Or, we can let it go. All depends on if you want to rehash it or not. I'm fine either way.

 

[Oinko]

Every time you post I keep wondering who got ahold of my account because I know I didn't write that

I love the show, and Brock is my favorite character.

Although Venturestein is a close second.