Should the Pats use Tebow as a TE now ?

Regarding the previous use of other players such as Troy Brown, Julian Edelman and Mike Vrabel at other positions:

- Brown and Edelman playing defense was a different circumstance, one of necessity; they were pressed into service in mid season due to injuries and the team was handcuffed by the 53-man roster limit. This is the off season we are in right now with a 90-man roster limit, making this a completely different situation.

- Vrabel was used at TE in goal line situations, not unlike how a lineman like Dan Connolly might be used as a FB, or an extra lineman like Marcus Cannon might be used as an additional TE on a 3rd and one. Using those players for a couple of specific down and distance plays is not the same as a player changing positions full time.

- Edelman was signed out of college with the idea that he would be a WR and not a QB. He had six months to learn the position, whereas Tebow would only have six weeks to learn how to play TE.

I just want to reiterate a point about Tebows blocking.

That gif of him diving at the legs of Aldon Smith. That is absolutely horrible blocking. Yes, he got lucky and tied up Aldon, but that does NOT make it a good block. Imagine Solder trying that technique on anything but a designed slant. I would be absolutely horrified to see that.



Tebow never will be even a mediocre TE. In a league full of the best athletes in the world, there have been guys who have played TE for their entire lives and aren't good enough. Tebow is not that great an athlete (arguably even below average), and people expect him to just play TE with zero real experience on any level?

The only reason this is even a conversation stems from people's idiotic belief that "he's just a winner" and ridiculous obsession with seeing Tebow make it onto the field because of his name. Why don't we discuss putting Ninkovich at RB? Why don't we put McCourty at WR? Why don't we put Spikes at RB?

Because it's freaking stupid to think players can just switch positions willy nilly and play at a high level.

I'm sure BB will give Tebow a chance or two against the Jets but that is it. He will not play a single significant snap this entire season.

BradyBunch1224 said:

Tebow shouldnt be a full time TE. he should sit on the bench and learn and improve at QB from Tom Brady, arguably the best QB of all time.

Click to expand...

If this is true, why did we sign him? If he's QB with no playing time, he'll be gone before Brady retires and we already have Mallet as backup.

So you think we're just being nice and helping him improve his qb skills so he can go and use it against us in 2 years?

voluntarysaftey said:

If this is true, why did we sign him? If he's QB with no playing time, he'll be gone before Brady retires and we already have Mallet as backup.

So you think we're just being nice and helping him improve his qb skills so he can go and use it against us in 2 years?

Click to expand...

I would suggest that Tebow is an upgrade over Kafka, and leave it at that. To be more specific he could be competition to Mallet; he could be insurance in case either QB1 or QB2 is injured; he could be learning the playbook just in case another team has an injury and wants to trade for either him or Mallet; he could be a diversion to how teams prepare to play the Pats; he could have been signed to be a diversion to all the talk about Gronk (and now that he is with the Pats, another former TE)... etc.

If we were to simply focus on 'why did the team sign (fill in name of player) when the team has (fill in name of starter)', then the Patriots would head into camp with about thirty fewer players than will actually be there three weeks from now. Just because a player has a slim chance of making the 53-man roster, that does not mean that he should not be a part of the 90-man roster.

Tebow has a better chance to contribute than Kafka did. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think the naysayers seem to be assuming the extreme - that some are asserting Tebow would be an every down TE

No one is suggesting that - but Belichick and McDaniels WILL get him on the field - and when they do, in situations where they view it advantageous, it may very well be at TE

voluntarysaftey said:

If this is true, why did we sign him? If he's QB with no playing time, he'll be gone before Brady retires and we already have Mallet as backup.

So you think we're just being nice and helping him improve his qb skills so he can go and use it against us in 2 years?

Click to expand...

Team needs a #3 QB for practice/scout team.

Armchair Quarterback said:

Team needs a #3 QB for practice/scout team.

Click to expand...

He's not eligible for the practice squad, so.....

mcmurtry86 said:

He's not eligible for the practice squad, so.....

Click to expand...

Wasn't talking about the practice squad, if he makes the team he'll likely run the other teams offensive plays in practice for the D to practice against and he'll QB the 3rd team offense in TC.

voluntarysaftey said:

If this is true, why did we sign him? If he's QB with no playing time, he'll be gone before Brady retires and we already have Mallet as backup.

So you think we're just being nice and helping him improve his qb skills so he can go and use it against us in 2 years?

Click to expand...

Although I would have put him at TE from the first day he practiced with the team, my expectation is that if he sticks, it's with the plan of him being the primary backup in 2014 after Mallett is traded.

JoeSixPat said:

I think the naysayers seem to be assuming the extreme - that some are asserting Tebow would be an every down TE

No one is suggesting that - but Belichick and McDaniels WILL get him on the field - and when they do, in situations where they view it advantageous, it may very well be at TE

Click to expand...

Which is better?

- the Pats keep 3 QB, including Tebow --- or:

- the Pats keep a 7th WR while both Dobson and Boyce develop (e.g., retain the best three of Jenkins/Jones/Edelman/Thompkins, etc. rather than just two of them)

- the Pats keep an additional TE while Gronk gets ready to play as a game day inactive rather than go on PUP; or, if he does go on PUP, they need to retain another TE such as Sudfeld rather than cut him

- the Pats keep another RB on the roster (both Bolden and Blount, rather than one or the other) as they shift more of their focus to the running game; this also keeps Ridley from being overused

- the Pats add a real FB (Develin, Bartholomew, Vonte Leach, etc.)

I have always been dead set against a 3rd QB on the roster. It just seems like a waste of a roster spot that can always be used in a position that usually gets depleted over the season, WR, TE, DL etc. I think it is even a larger waste now with the rules in place to protect QBs. Players are probably a little hesitant to blast QBs like they used to.

Plus, we just happen to have a QB who does not want to ever come out of games, which I can respect.

However, TB is now 36. And I think I am not the only one who is tired of hearing after the playoffs that TB was banged up in some way. Banged up because he might have taken a hit in garbage time during the season, or have been playing in a meaningless game....Or, even more likely just the wear of a 16 game schedule on a 36 year old QB.

So... is this the year the FO starts planning on a way to reduce the risks and wear and tear? I think they should. The only way to do it is have a competent if not adequate alternative to take snaps.

Bruins29 said:

I have always been dead set against a 3rd QB on the roster. It just seems like a waste of a roster spot that can always be used in a position that usually gets depleted over the season, WR, TE, DL etc. I think it is even a larger waste now with the rules in place to protect QBs. Players are probably a little hesitant to blast QBs like they used to.

Plus, we just happen to have a QB who does not want to ever come out of games, which I can respect.

However, TB is now 36. And I think I am not the only one who is tired of hearing after the playoffs that TB was banged up in some way. Banged up because he might have taken a hit in garbage time during the season, or have been playing in a meaningless game....Or, even more likely just the wear of a 16 game schedule on a 36 year old QB.

So... is this the year the FO starts planning on a way to reduce the risks and wear and tear? I think they should. The only way to do it is have a competent if not adequate alternative to take snaps.

Click to expand...

Brady will never let Belichick take him off the field when the game is in question. The game has been well out of question before and he's refused.

And this whole false rumor mongering? Was he nicked up? Yeah I'm sure, everyone in the NFL is by the playoffs. It's impossible not to be. But this ridiculous idea that we should just play him less is absurd.

The solution to any additional wear and tear is just run the ball more and more effectively; not put a crappy backup QB on the field.

All the choices are better than carrying a 3rd QB.

The only thing worse would be if we activated 3 QB's on Game Day.

jmt57 said:

Which is better?

- the Pats keep 3 QB, including Tebow --- or:

- the Pats keep a 7th WR while both Dobson and Boyce develop (e.g., retain the best three of Jenkins/Jones/Edelman/Thompkins, etc. rather than just two of them)

- the Pats keep an additional TE while Gronk gets ready to play as a game day inactive rather than go on PUP; or, if he does go on PUP, they need to retain another TE such as Sudfeld rather than cut him

- the Pats keep another RB on the roster (both Bolden and Blount, rather than one or the other) as they shift more of their focus to the running game; this also keeps Ridley from being overused

- the Pats add a real FB (Develin, Bartholomew, Vonte Leach, etc.)

Click to expand...

JMC00 said:

I'll go with Ballard, Fells, Hooman, Sudfeld, Ford and even Mark Harrison (in Hernandez's role) before I'd use Tebow as a TE

Click to expand...

Yup. :rocker:

jmt57 said:

There are six guys who have been playing the TE position at a high enough level that they are already on an NFL roster to play TE. It took them years of practice with a proven track record of performance to earn those roster spots.

As athletic and competitive as Tebow is, I just don't see him suddenly becoming a better TE in six weeks of training than any of those other six players.

The most likely candidate to adapt and change his position to become a TE is WR Mark Harrison, but even that would most likely be a project with an eye on 2014, not 2013.

Click to expand...

Agreed, even with Gronk sidelined, and AH in jail, we still have a league average (at worst) TE crew. Add back in a healthy Gronk and you have the best TE in the league as a starter again.

Do people think just any ole' athlete can play TE at the NFL level?

afaik, NO ONE in the Patriots organization has said that Tebow is anything but a #3 QB at the moment. But somehow, fans and media like to beat the Tebow-Tight End drum and it's simply ridiculous imo.

jmt57 said:

Which is better?

- the Pats keep 3 QB, including Tebow --- or:

- the Pats keep a 7th WR while both Dobson and Boyce develop (e.g., retain the best three of Jenkins/Jones/Edelman/Thompkins, etc. rather than just two of them)

- the Pats keep an additional TE while Gronk gets ready to play as a game day inactive rather than go on PUP; or, if he does go on PUP, they need to retain another TE such as Sudfeld rather than cut him

- the Pats keep another RB on the roster (both Bolden and Blount, rather than one or the other) as they shift more of their focus to the running game; this also keeps Ridley from being overused

- the Pats add a real FB (Develin, Bartholomew, Vonte Leach, etc.)

Click to expand...

How about a slightly different calculation ? The Pats keep 3 QBs including Tebow and they use him as needed for each role. Then, they don't need to keep an additional TE, an additional RB, an additional WR and add a FB ?

That frees up quite a few roster spots. The slots in question are all bottom of the depth chart for their position, so it's not like your getting "prime" talent in those positions to begin with. Rather, you will be getting someone "serviceable".

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that they could or should try to turn Tebow into TE1 or TE2. But he could serve as TE 3,4, or 5, or WR 7 in a slash type role, or a RB3 or FB2 on a fill in basis, if only to spell others at the position and give them a breather.

It's a case where he might not (and probably wouldn't) be better than any one individual that he would be replacing, BUT, his versatility could more than make up for it as it frees up roster slots.

(BTW, I should add that I'm personally against this as I'd prefer that he just be a QB3 and spend time developing at that position. But Bill and company aren't knocking on my door asking for my input, so it's a moot point )

tonyto3690 said:

Brady will never let Belichick take him off the field when the game is in question. The game has been well out of question before and he's refused.

And this whole false rumor mongering? Was he nicked up? Yeah I'm sure, everyone in the NFL is by the playoffs. It's impossible not to be. But this ridiculous idea that we should just play him less is absurd.

The solution to any additional wear and tear is just run the ball more and more effectively; not put a crappy backup QB on the field.

Click to expand...

Brady has never pulled a Peyton and sent someone off the field so he could stay. Brady wants to play the full game, but it's not up to him to 'let Belichick take him off'.

When the game is in question, Brady should play. When it's out of question, I'm completely for letting Mallet take over -- whether that's with 3 minutes left, or 30 minutes.

Brady has consistently had some injury in the playoffs the last 5 years. If we can minimize that while also not affecting our record, that's a good thing. And playing less = less nicked up.

Demosthenes said:

How about a slightly different calculation ? The Pats keep 3 QBs including Tebow and they use him as needed for each role. Then, they don't need to keep an additional TE, an additional RB, an additional WR and add a FB ?

That frees up quite a few roster spots. The slots in question are all bottom of the depth chart for their position, so it's not like your getting "prime" talent in those positions to begin with. Rather, you will be getting someone "serviceable".

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that they could or should try to turn Tebow into TE1 or TE2. But he could serve as TE 3,4, or 5, or WR 7 in a slash type role, or a RB3 or FB2 on a fill in basis, if only to spell others at the position and give them a breather.

It's a case where he might not (and probably wouldn't) be better than any one individual that he would be replacing, BUT, his versatility could more than make up for it as it frees up roster slots.

(BTW, I should add that I'm personally against this as I'd prefer that he just be a QB3 and spend time developing at that position. But Bill and company aren't knocking on my door asking for my input, so it's a moot point )

Click to expand...

If that is the case then there may be other alternatives: for example, use James Develin as a RB/FB/TE, plus he's available for all four special team units. Mark Harrison has been brought up as a possible WR/TE too.

I am just not sold on the concept that Tebow would be a better TE4 or WR7 or RB5 than any of the other players available to fill those roles; he has experience running the ball but virtually none at all as a TE or WR. On top of that backups are counted on to contribute to special teams and I am even more skeptical that he would be of comparable worth on any of those units - and we know that Belichick places a lot of emphasis on special teams for bottom of the roster players.

We know throughout the years that Belichick has placed a lot of value on players that can contribute in multiple ways at multiple positions, so I wouldn't say that this is out of the realm of possibility. However, there are other players that may be better options to be a 'jack of all trades' type of contributor.


About three weeks to go until veterans report to training camp. It will be interesting to see and hear how this all plays out.

The open question is whether Tebow can make the team as a quarterback. IMHO, if he is the #3 QB and/or a utility player, he will be inactive in every game.

The real question is whether he can beat out Mallett as the #2 QB.

I keep on wondering why fans want to make him a TE or an h-back. He has a much better chance to make the patriots as the #2 QB.

mgteich said:

The open question is whether Tebow can make the team as a quarterback. IMHO, if he is the #3 QB and/or a utility player, he will be inactive in every game. The real question is whether he can beat out Mallett as the #2 QB.

Click to expand...

Why do you jump to that conclusion? The old QB3 rules are no longer extant.

I get it. I believe that Tebow is next to useless on the field as other than as a backup QB. So, I believe that he would be inactive unless he was the #2 QB or if there were several injuries at other positions.

Deus Irae said:

Why do you jump to that conclusion? The old QB3 rules are no longer extant.

Click to expand...