Damning words from Demaryius Thomas about Tebow

[Jvig43]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

[troll]It was the offensive coordinator's fault.[/troll]

Hell, if we can use that lame excuse for every other qb on this forum, we can use it for Tebow too.

If it's the OC's fault that *insert qb here* threw that INT, doesn't throw it deep, keeps getting sacked, etc, then let it apply to him too.

Now that he's with the jets of course were going to have to listen to that excuse. Were still hearing it for Sanchez.

[jsagan77]

Originally Posted by MI_Buckeye

Listen, I agree the Broncos D was massively overrated. I agree they couldn't play with top-flight offenses, and their production was inflated against the dregs of the league.

However, they were very productive over the eight-game stretch where they went 7-1. They were responsible for keeping the Broncos in all those games, even if they weren't that great themselves. They went 8-5 down the stretch while only scoring 20 points three times.

Again, this was against the dregs of the league (or for the most part)--No one disagree's with that so what's the issue? . People are using the defense against Tebow when they were more holistic than apart--which is one of the main points. If Tebow weren't so clutch at the end of games, what impact did that have on the D to make them feel like keeping it close would result in a W? I think it's an easy assumption that the D felt that if they kept it close that Tebow would somehow pull it out (and he proved that by doing it over and over). So while the team as a whole wasn't very good, they did win games with a solid D effort (most weeks) and clutch QB play when it counted most.

The problem was that people were making excuses as to WHY the wins were occurring by making it look like it was entirely the defense when in fact it was a combination of both clutch QB play during the time it counted, solid D and good special teams (on occasion). If the D were to buckle and give more points then Tebow would have had no chance at coming back. If Tebow would have faltered in the clutch they would have no chance to win or tie. The point is, that both of those things happened and were dependent on each other. The reason people took exception is because the detractors were giving NO credit to Tebow and just crediting the D which was a huge falsification.

[MI_Buckeye]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

Again, this was against the dregs of the league (or for the most part)--No one disagree's with that so what's the issue? . People are using the defense against Tebow when they were more holistic than apart--which is one of the main points. If Tebow weren't so clutch at the end of games, what impact did that have on the D to make them feel like keeping it close would result in a W? I think it's an easy assumption that the D felt that if they kept it close that Tebow would somehow pull it out (and he proved that by doing it over and over). So while the team as a whole wasn't very good, they did win games with a solid D effort (most weeks) and clutch QB play when it counted most.

The problem was that people were making excuses as to WHY the wins were occurring by making it look like it was entirely the defense when in fact it was a combination of both clutch QB play during the time it counted, solid D and good special teams (on occasion). If the D were to buckle and give more points then Tebow would have had no chance at coming back. If Tebow would have faltered in the clutch they would have no chance to win or tie. The point is, that both of those things happened and were dependent on each other. The reason people took exception is because the detractors were giving NO credit to Tebow and just crediting the D which was a huge falsification.

Very fair point. Each camp on this issue was probably oversimplifying the issue. However, when came to the core issue of whether Tim Tebow is good enough to be a starting QB in the NFL, supporters would point to his record and nothing else. They were ignoring all the other confounding factors like the defense and the softness of their schedule during that stretch.

[WinslowBodden]

If you're a player and you're dumb enough to listen to the media, you're dumb.

[jsagan77]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

I watched everyone thank you very much. Sunday ticket and DVR is a beautiful thing. Not saying the defense didn't play well during that stretch too, and that they weren't good against poor competition but they were completely murdered by descent offenses. It's easy too look good against backups and guys just taking over.

Just tell me one good offense they stifled besides the Chargers 2nd game.

Figured the crickets would be chirping...

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

Figured the crickets would be chirping...

i don't think people are saying the broncos D was stifling and top 5, but it was damn good and the broncos wins were because of the defense way more than they were because of Tebow. That's the reason they won, not using fullback pass 25 times a game.

[jsagan77]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

i don't think people are saying the broncos D was stifling and top 5, but it was damn good and the broncos wins were because of the defense way more than they were because of Tebow. That's the reason they won, not using fullback pass 25 times a game.

You did watch Christian Ponder tear them a new one right? How about Brady twice? Maybe Stafford? How about Rodgers? Their D was atrocious against every team they played except for teams with crap offenses. So no their D was not "damn good". They were the complete opposite so unless they played a Cutlerless Bears team, Orton with like one week in the system, Palmer with a week in the system (Still threw for 300+ yards and 3 TD's), Sanchez, Tyler Palko, and Rivers in his funk they were mediocre at best. They were the 20th ranked D for Christ sake and probably would have been much worse if they didn't luck out and have a softer schedule due to QB injuries during that win streak.

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

You did watch Christian Ponder tear them a new one right? How about Brady twice? Maybe Stafford? How about Rodgers? Their D was atrocious against every team they played except for teams with crap offenses. So no their D was not "damn good". They were the complete opposite so unless they played a Cutlerless Bears team, Orton with like one week in the system, Palmer with a week in the system (Still threw for 300+ yards and 3 TD's), Sanchez, Tyler Palko, and Rivers in his funk they were mediocre at best. They were the 20th ranked D for Christ sake and probably would have been much worse if they didn't luck out and have a softer schedule due to QB injuries during that win streak.

You do realize you just listed 3 of the best passing offenses in the league, right?

And after all this crap you just spewed, they still were more the reason for Denvers wins than Tebow was

[njx9]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

Figured the crickets would be chirping...

Originally Posted by njx9

that's hilarious. luckily for me, i'm not feeding the trolls today.

reading tends to be a massively useful skill. but if it makes you feel better, you can tell your friends you totally 'pwned' me again.

[jsagan77]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

You do realize you just listed 3 of the best passing offenses in the league, right?

And after all this crap you just spewed, they still were more the reason for Denvers wins than Tebow was

So because you say so? That's a good argument. This site is full of people like you and NJX who have absolutely no way to support your argument besides "Because I said so" type dross and when you can't explain something you just try to insult people or call them trolls. It's like debating with a 3 year old.



HOW were they so lights out? Why were they so good in your view? How did they

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

So because you say so? That's a good argument. This site is full of people like you and NJX who have absolutely no way to support your argument besides "Because I said so" type dross and when you can't explain something you just try to insult people or call them trolls. It's like debating with a 3 year old.



HOW were they so lights out? Why were they so good in your view? How did they

wait...I said they were lights out? When did I say that? You're seriously making up arguments to argue against. The fact is, Tebow is not a good NFL quarterback. You do realize that the team scored 19 points a game, right? When you're scoring 19 points a game and some how win games, then it's because of your defense.

but then again, no offense to njx, we're arguing over the success of a mediocre team that went 8-8 and made the playoffs because they played in a dogshit division, so the "success" isn't much.

you know what's really like arguing with a 3 year old? the tebow fan boys who will twist everything to make Tebow look good. everything

[jsagan77]

Originally Posted by njx9

reading tends to be a massively useful skill. but if it makes you feel better, you can tell your friends you totally 'pwned' me again.

I don't need to tell anyone, they can all read.

And keep telling yourself that you're awesome despite your obvious lack of football knowledge, your inability to debate, and your severe lack of ability to present any sort of substance to back your up your opinion.

You do have an uncanny ability to spell troll though so I'm sure every ****** on here will + rep you.

[jsagan77]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

wait...I said they were lights out? When did I say that? You're seriously making up arguments to argue against. The fact is, Tebow is not a good NFL quarterback. You do realize that the team scored 19 points a game, right? When you're scoring 19 points a game and some how win games, then it's because of your defense.

but then again, no offense to njx, we're arguing over the success of a mediocre team that went 8-8 and made the playoffs because they played in a dogshit division, so the "success" isn't much.

you know what's really like arguing with a 3 year old? the tebow fan boys who will twist everything to make Tebow look good. everything

When did I ever say Tebow was a good NFL QB? You know that the defense gave up 24.4 PPG right? You know that team was one of the worst teams in the NFL prior to Tebow taking over, and they made the playoffs, right? It's not one thing or the other, it's a combination of Tebow rising to the occasion when he had to and the defense playing well against crappy opponents. How is it that the Defense had more to do with that than Tebow? I'm still waiting.

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

When did I ever say Tebow was a good NFL QB? You know that the defense gave up 24.4 PPG right? You know that team was one of the worst teams in the NFL prior to Tebow taking over, and they made the playoffs, right? It's not one thing or the other, it's a combination of Tebow rising to the occasion when he had to and the defense playing well against crappy opponents. How is it that the Defense had more to do with that than Tebow? I'm still waiting.

so what exactly are you trying to argue then? You're calling everyone out acting all high and mighty when you're just running around in circles. The stats in PPG for the Broncos are inflated with a couple of ugly, ugly losses. They got shat on numerous times by the likes of the Pats, Packers, Lions, Bills and the ugly win against the Vikings.

But on the flip side, how about that 7-3 loss to the chiefs? the 16-13 OT win against the chargers? 18-15 OT win against miami? Scoring 10 against the Lions? come on now.

The defense had more good games and kept them in games more times than they didn't. The only time the offense bailed out the defense was Oakland, Minny and the regular season Pats loss where they scored a good amount but the D got face ****** and perhaps the chargers loss.

Perhaps, "damn good" on my part was an over-statement, but they kept the team in more games more time than the offense did, especially against mediocre defenses where the offense was just horrendous.

[jsagan77]

This is typical post from someone who can't 'get it'. Ur trying to argue something that mostly everyone agrees with. Id like to know what 'circles' im going in. Also im not the one that said anything about 'trolls' so i have a right to defend myself and other's point considering we knew who he was talking about.

[elway=goat]

Tebow was a terrible QB last year. Yeah he made some clutch plays, sure. But he wouldn't of had to if he wasn't so awful the first 45-55 minutes of every game. It's not like these were shoot outs either. A lot of these games he was coming up clutch it were low scoring.

As clutch as Tebow was at times, so was the defense. It seems more often than not, the entire reason why Tebow and the offense was in a position to come up clutch or to close ot a game is because the defense. So many times there was a sack, a pick, a forced fumble.. Or are we all going to forget about those plays?

Jsagan77.. I dont even see your point, and you do see to be bitching just to *****.

[jsagan77]

Originally Posted by elway=goat

Tebow was a terrible QB last year. Yeah he made some clutch plays, sure. But he wouldn't of had to if he wasn't so awful the first 45-55 minutes of every game. It's not like these were shoot outs either. A lot of these games he was coming up clutch it were low scoring.

As clutch as Tebow was at times, so was the defense. It seems more often than not, the entire reason why Tebow and the offense was in a position to come up clutch or to close ot a game is because the defense. So many times there was a sack, a pick, a forced fumble.. Or are we all going to forget about those plays?

Jsagan77.. I dont even see your point, and you do see to be bitching just to *****.

Not bitching at all.

[the decider13]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

When did I ever say Tebow was a good NFL QB? You know that the defense gave up 24.4 PPG right? You know that team was one of the worst teams in the NFL prior to Tebow taking over, and they made the playoffs, right? It's not one thing or the other, it's a combination of Tebow rising to the occasion when he had to and the defense playing well against crappy opponents. How is it that the Defense had more to do with that than Tebow? I'm still waiting.

Well timed turnovers and well timed defensive stands. The defense was solid and showed up when it needed to bail out Tebow.

The only person that Tebow bailed out was himself. He played terribly all game, then has a halfway decent final drive (where all the passes are off target by the receiver slides for them) and everyone thinks he did an awesome job. He put the team in that situation with his sub par play. While he might have won some close games, it was his fault they were in that position.

If anyone deserves credit for making the broncos a good team, it's Colquitt and Prater. Colquitt had to punt 10 times a game because of the excessive amount of 3 and outs that Tebow committed and Prater had to hit 50 yard game deciding field goals because that's as close as Tebow could get him. The special teams deserves more credit for the teams record last year than their QB play.

[WCH]

I didn't realize this until I looked up Britton Colquitt's stats just now, but his father and uncle were NFL punters, his brother is an NFL punter, and he has a cousin who's a college punter.

Who would have guessed that punting would ever be a family trade.

[CashmoneyDrew]

Originally Posted by WCH

I didn't realize this until I looked up Britton Colquitt's stats just now, but his father and uncle were NFL punters, his brother is an NFL punter, and he has a cousin who's a college punter.

Who would have guessed that punting would ever be a family trade.

Yes. And UT could really use another Colquitt right now.

I remember watching Dustin in college and his punting actually won them a game or two.