Player Signing Why did this team sign Tebow?

[TruthSeeker]

That is true.

Although as I said before Tom Brady was not a viable QB prospect until his training camp in 2001. Based on his scouting report it's understandable why 32 teams passed on him again and again until the sixth round.

Actually, BB kept Tom Brady after the 2000 training camp making it 4(!) QBs on the roster because he thought TB was a significant (better than viable) QB prospect even though it would be a wasted roster spot for the entire season.

 

[DarrylS]

Lets see if Tebow can throw for positive yards this week.

Or achieve a quarterback rating greater than 0...

 

[sb1]

Actually, BB kept Tom Brady after the 2000 training camp making it 4(!) QBs on the roster because he thought TB was a significant (better than viable) QB prospect even though it would be a wasted roster spot for the entire season.

The Patriots were the only team to even talk to U of M about Brady...and that was even in a weak draft class for QBs.

He was absolutely not a viable QB prospect in 2000 and if Bill thought that highly of him he would have gone higher than a 6th round flyer. Sure they thought he was worth a look (hence keeping him on the roster instead of exposing him on the practice roster) but there were no signs that he would turn into something special. His scouting report was dead on accurate.

It's hard to resist the temptation to look at the pick in 20/20 hindsight but he was what he was, a guy who could be good in the right system and that's it. That's why it's disingenous for anyone to say he sat and learned from Bledsoe. He didn't do that any more than Curtis Painter sat and learned from Manning.

 

[Boomer B]

It makes me laugh that all the Tebow supporters say he is a developmental player and needs to be taught how to be a QB. This is the NFL and it's his 4th year, it's not high school or 1st year college. A roster spot on an NFL team is valuable and we do not need to waste it on a QB who can't throw. I like Tebow as a person and what he stands for but he's a horrible NFL QB. You either have things like accuracy and pocket awareness or you don't. He isn't going to be magically taught these talents at this point. Cut him now.

 

[detpatsfan]

Actually, BB kept Tom Brady after the 2000 training camp making it 4(!) QBs on the roster because he thought TB was a significant (better than viable) QB prospect even though it would be a wasted roster spot for the entire season.

Exactly and now some pats fans are complaining about keeping 3 qbs on the roster (the norm in the NFL). Tebow gives us depth plus we can use him in the wildcat and can play tight end and fullback and special teams.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The Patriots were the only team to even talk to U of M about Brady...and that was even in a weak draft class for QBs.

He was absolutely not a viable QB prospect in 2000 and if Bill thought that highly of him he would have gone higher than a 6th round flyer. There were no signs that he would turn into something special. His scouting report was dead on accurate.

It's hard to resist the temptation to look at the pick in 20/20 hindsight but he was what he was, a guy who could be good in the right system and that's it. That's why it's disingenous for anyone to say he sat and learned from Bledsoe. He didn't do that any more than Curtis Painter sat and learned from Manning.

What I hear you saying is that TB was not a viable QB prospect in April, 2000.

What BB's actions clearly say is that TB was a viable QB prospect in early September, 2000.

 

[SDI_Gator]

What I hear you saying is that TB was not a viable QB prospect in April, 2000.

What BB's actions clearly say is that TB was a viable QB prospect in early September, 2000.

And if BB keeps Tebow into sept this year does that mean Tim is a viable qb prospect?

It is a big if at this point, but that is the logic you're putting forth. And I'm not sure he does stick..

 

[Joker]

Hahaha, not me buddy. There's a rule against having more than one board account.

Actually, you are wrong about a few things;
--Using many aliases. Remarker (or a slight, hardly noticeable variance when the simple 'Remarker' is already taken) is the only username I've used for years. Your claim that I brag about using aliases is just another one of the things that falls victim to your propensity to pretend.
--How long our shrine has existed. Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:41 pm is the creation date and that makes it NOT to have existed for years as is another pretend notion you posted in one of your comments.
--Whether I troll boards. I go to our board and I come here, which happens to be the only NFL team that can claim me as a fan. It is also true that if BB became HC of a different team, I would be a fan of that team too. I do go to other boards (not necessarily sports boards) but I participate as Remarker. You see, I have nothing to hide like some jokers I know...particularly my ignorance.

Btw, your reference to some of the lines in Blazing Saddles reminded me of how funny that movie is. It's Brooks' best.

Re: Hey Remarker!

Post by Remarker on Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:42 pm

Remarker wrote:You guys are having to much fun at Slime. Maybe I'll start posting with one of my other accounts. Twisted Evil Wink



There are several ways to ban someone from message boards. The one most frequently used is a user account ban. Another way to ban someone is to ban their IP address.

On a casual visit to Slime, I learned they recently have banned my most frequently used IP in addition to my user account. I had only a user account ban until I made the post I quote at the top of this comment. I have to use a proxy IP to view the drivel on the Slime board now. I may go to a internet cafe (random IPs) and register multiple times just so I can mess with them. Nah, I've got a life. I'll just register through a proxy IP if I decide I want to waste some time.

I want to take this opportunity to say Hi to our stalker from Slime's Admin/Mod bunch (probably LTJF). You know...one of the corrupt/stalker types.

Hiya big guy. What the hell are you spending time stalking us for? Don't have a love life or enough interesting things to do in your life but to stalk our board? Don't bother answering. Those are rhetorical questions. I know the answers. Twisted Evil

Edit:
Thank you Slime Admin/Mod stalker for unbanning my IP today. That saves me the time it take to make an extra click. Sarcasm

Remarker - Hey Remarker!

Not only are you a complete liar and a total fraud poster, you obviously have severe Alzheimer's, Granpa-rker.

I have to use a proxy IP to view the drivel on the Slime board now. I may go to a internet cafe (random IPs) and register multiple times just so I can mess with them.

I have to use a proxy IP to view the drivel on the Slime board now. I may go to a internet cafe (random IPs) and register multiple times just so I can mess with them.

I have to use a proxy IP to view the drivel on the Slime board now. I may go to a internet cafe (random IPs) and register multiple times just so I can mess with them.

Maybe I'll start posting with one of my other accounts. Twisted Evil Wink

Maybe I'll start posting with one of my other accounts. Twisted Evil Wink


Maybe I'll start posting with one of my other accounts. Twisted Evil Wink



Have a nice day, toothless....

 

[SDI_Gator]

Re: Hey Remarker!

Post by Remarker on Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:42 pm

Remarker wrote:You guys are having to much fun at Slime. Maybe I'll start posting with one of my other accounts. Twisted Evil Wink



There are several ways to ban someone from message boards. The one most frequently used is a user account ban. Another way to ban someone is to ban their IP address.

On a casual visit to Slime, I learned they recently have banned my most frequently used IP in addition to my user account. I had only a user account ban until I made the post I quote at the top of this comment. I have to use a proxy IP to view the drivel on the Slime board now. I may go to a internet cafe (random IPs) and register multiple times just so I can mess with them. Nah, I've got a life. I'll just register through a proxy IP if I decide I want to waste some time.

I want to take this opportunity to say Hi to our stalker from Slime's Admin/Mod bunch (probably LTJF). You know...one of the corrupt/stalker types.

Hiya big guy. What the hell are you spending time stalking us for? Don't have a love life or enough interesting things to do in your life but to stalk our board? Don't bother answering. Those are rhetorical questions. I know the answers. Twisted Evil

Edit:
Thank you Slime Admin/Mod stalker for unbanning my IP today. That saves me the time it take to make an extra click. Sarcasm

Remarker - Hey Remarker!

Not only are you a complete liar and a total fraud poster, you obviously have severe Alzheimer's, Granpa-rker.

I have to use a proxy IP to view the drivel on the Slime board now. I may go to a internet cafe (random IPs) and register multiple times just so I can mess with them.

I have to use a proxy IP to view the drivel on the Slime board now. I may go to a internet cafe (random IPs) and register multiple times just so I can mess with them.

I have to use a proxy IP to view the drivel on the Slime board now. I may go to a internet cafe (random IPs) and register multiple times just so I can mess with them.

Have a nice day, toothless....

Oh man, like I said.. this thread just gets better all the time. I have no idea how, but it does.

 

[Demosthenes]

The Patriots were the only team to even talk to U of M about Brady...and that was even in a weak draft class for QBs.

He was absolutely not a viable QB prospect in 2000 and if Bill thought that highly of him he would have gone higher than a 6th round flyer. Sure they thought he was worth a look (hence keeping him on the roster instead of exposing him on the practice roster) but there were no signs that he would turn into something special. His scouting report was dead on accurate.

It's hard to resist the temptation to look at the pick in 20/20 hindsight but he was what he was, a guy who could be good in the right system and that's it. That's why it's disingenous for anyone to say he sat and learned from Bledsoe. He didn't do that any more than Curtis Painter sat and learned from Manning.

Your post actually highlights and supports exactly what I am saying. "There were NO SIGNS that....."

That's because the "SIGNS" that people were using to measure QB qualifications were wrong. And Brady absolutely was a viable QB prospect in 2000 which is why Bill carried him as QB4 on the roster instead of running the risk of losing him if he had gone to the practice squad.

 

[sb1]

What I hear you saying is that TB was not a viable QB prospect in April, 2000.

What BB's actions clearly say is that TB was a viable QB prospect in early September, 2000.

Correct on the first point, and I disagree with the second. If BB thought that highly of him, we would have known. He would have been higher on the depth chart ahead of two guys with no future in the league and not the 4th string QB. Yes BB liked him but that doesn't mean he was a viable QB prospect with a future in the league. It took him working very hard all that year and in the offseason to become one.

 

[sb1]

Your post actually highlights and supports exactly what I am saying. "There were NO SIGNS that....."

That's because the "SIGNS" that people were using to measure QB qualifications were wrong. And Brady absolutely was a viable QB prospect in 2000 which is why Bill carried him as QB4 on the roster instead of running the risk of losing him if he had gone to the practice squad.

Yes Bill liked him. But...

BB liking him =/= a QB prospect with a future in the league

BB liking him =/= every team liking him

Brady's pre draft scouting report speaks for itself. A "system" guy. And it was dead on accurate.

And BB liked Ochocino too. How did that work out?

No the "signs" weren't wrong at all except in hindsight. Nobody knew that Brady was going to work that hard to get to where he is that day. If they did he would have gone a lot sooner than the 6th round. Can't look at things with the hindsight glasses on.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Re: Hey Remarker!

Post by Remarker on Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:42 pm

Remarker wrote:You guys are having to much fun at Slime. Maybe I'll start posting with one of my other accounts. Wasted Evil Twink

I think he is on the wrong messageboard.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Now i get it, Belichick brought Tebow in to boost Ryan Mallett's self esteem.



He's a fricking genius!

 

[chasa]

Exactly and now some pats fans are complaining about keeping 3 qbs on the roster (the norm in the NFL). Tebow gives us depth plus we can use him in the wildcat and can play tight end and fullback and special teams.

1.) we have the number 1 offense in the league, and that offense is gimmick free, why take the GOAT QB off the field in order to run a draw play?

2.)Tebow is not a good QB, he is not a developmental QB, He is a bust. plain and simple a BUST, all caps, who could not find a single team that wanted to sign him, until the patriots offered him league minimum, no bonus, no guarantees.

3.)half the teams last year carried only 2 QB's. Of the teams that carried 3 5 of those were because of rookie qb's, one of which had 2 rookies. so realisticly you are looking at 11 teams that carried 3 QB's none of which were rookies. Of those 11, one of them made the playoffs(houston).

4.)Tebow can't catch


5.) Tebow is not a good enough runner to replace blount/Boldon.

 

[Demosthenes]

Yes Bill liked him. But...

BB liking him =/= a QB prospect with a future in the league

BB liking him =/= every team liking him

Brady's pre draft scouting report speaks for itself. A "system" guy. And it was dead on accurate.

And BB liked Ochocino too. How did that work out?

No the "signs" weren't wrong at all except in hindsight. Nobody knew that Brady was going to work that hard to get to where he is that day. If they did he would have gone a lot sooner than the 6th round. Can't look at things with the hindsight glasses on.

You're kidding, right ? So Bill carried a guy who wasn't even a QB prospect at QB4 for an entire season ?

You're really trying to sell that ??



As for hindsight, that's incorrect. There are some things that you can only see using hindsight. What you don't do is beat yourself up over it.

 

[Huckleberry1]

You're kidding, right ? So Bill carried a guy who wasn't even a QB prospect at QB4 for an entire season ?

You're really trying to sell that ??



As for hindsight, that's incorrect. There are some things that you can only see using hindsight. What you don't do is beat yourself up over it.

Belichick carried Brady on a bad team, that isn't the case anymore. Keeping Tebow makes absolutely no sense at all for this team.

 

[sb1]

You're kidding, right ? So Bill carried a guy who wasn't even a QB prospect at QB4 for an entire season ?

You're really trying to sell that ??



As for hindsight, that's incorrect. There are some things that you can only see using hindsight. What you don't do is beat yourself up over it.

Not incorrect at all and I don't need to sell what is fact. Facts are facts.

Just like the fact that it's disingenuous to claim that you know for sure Belichick used some (non-existent) benchmark to somehow know that a QB was going to be a good one despite a less than favorable scouting report and physical talent that just didn't exist at the time.... hindsight really is 20/20 and that is certainly true here.

 

[Demosthenes]

Belichick carried Brady on a bad team, that isn't the case anymore. Keeping Tebow makes absolutely no sense at all for this team.

Perhaps so, but if you bothered to follow the discussion instead of just jumping into the middle of it, you'd see that we were discussing whether or not Brady was a viable QB prospect in 2010. That's part of a larger discussion concerning "conventional wisdom" in the NFL.

 

[Huckleberry1]

Perhaps so, but if you bothered to follow the discussion instead of just jumping into the middle of it, you'd see that we were discussing whether or not Brady was a viable QB prospect in 2010. That's part of a larger discussion concerning "conventional wisdom" in the NFL.

I actually thought Brady was a very good prospect in 2010, but I can see where some here might disagree.