New take on Tebow

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

     

     

     



    1. I don't think understanding the English language and word differences means I made "an assumption".

     

     

    2. That's correct. I felt that was the official and complete NFL rule, as did Sheldong. I am not on trial here. I told him I appreciated the second source because it clarified it. All I was saying was what he sourced didn't' clarify it based on how it was worded.  It's true. It didn't.  My job isn't to research the official NFl rules which is why I asked YESTERDAY if anyone knew. 

    Your belligerence on this board since you had your Welker induced meltdown has been atrocious, PatsEng.

    You also thought I was Phat Rex yesterday with the Phat Rex version of Bunker Spreckels. I get your embarrassed about that a bit and now are following me around, but just drop it. I have made myself ABUNDANTLY clear above.

     




    You stated something as fact when you admit it was confusing and needed clarity is the very definition of assumption:

    "the act of taking for granted or supposing"

    You took for granted that your definition of the statement was true without varifying your claim. That's assumption.

    Additionally I don't know what other thread you asked but you did not ask on this thread for clarification and this is the thread you made the statement in so I responded to that statement in this thread. If you wished to point to another thread in which you made that statement provide a link.

    since Welker I have not been banned once for attacking posters, how about you? So maybe I'm not the one being belligerent here

    You are right I mistook the fact Bunkers with the real one. I should have known the real one got banned while the fact one still exists. How embarrassing for me that I didn't realize the real one getting banned

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    Rusty, try taking your own advice and just say "I didn't know that. Good point." like you tell everyone else to do.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptainZdeno33. Show CaptainZdeno33's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    Another thread taken over with the back and forth garbage....

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:


    Remember, their scedule was based off that 2-14 season.



    That affects only TWO games.  All the others are already set.  I don''t know how they did in those two games, but lets say they won them and had they had the best record, and played the harder teams, and lost both, they still would have been 9-7.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

     

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

     

     

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    You're a real piece of work Rusty. You are quick to call people wrong (usually in caps but not this time) and when you are proven wrong you say that the rule isn't clear enough. BTW you didn't ask for clarification you assumed we were wrong and went with it. You know what they say when you make assumption as truth.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     



    The NFL is known for re-wording rules when so schamuck on a forum can' understand what it means.  Team lawyers be damned - this stuff need to be clear to the mentally challanged of the world.

     

     

     



    Sounds great Phat Rex. Say, are you enjoying trying to wiggle  in here posing as a Pats fan?  bawhaha

     

     

    The fact you think people will believe you aren't Phat Rex is beyond comical. Can't be made up. 

    You're Dahmer Jr.  Strong effort changing a bit how you write and type, also by ignoring me. But, you lose. A dead giveaway.

     



    A Pats fan?  I can see why everyone makes fun of you here.  You're kinda dumb.  I suppose you think FoxboroFred is a Jets fan?  Sorry, not Rex, but I did enjoy him making you his beeech the other day when you got banned.  That was pretty funny.  DO you get banned often?  I see you have 100+ posts in the last day, that is pretty sad.  

     

     


     

     

    Uh-oh, Phat Rex! See, this is the part where it truly appears I have you cornered with your new poseur Pats fans name, as generic as your board names are when you go that route, and now you're getting a little testy.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, look no further:  Phat Rex (posing as  Pats fan)

    What happened to Waldorff? Banned out of the gate, too quickly, Phat Rex? Hmm?

    [/QUOTE]

    Not sure what you're deal is chief, but it looks like you're on your way to another banning.  Let me be clear.  I am not a Patriot fan.  Anyone with barely half a brain might consider a name like Meadowland Mike something other than a Patrtiot fan.  But not you.  It's clear why you are the forum jester made fun of at every turn.  

    By this time tomorrow, will you have a new name and 100 new posts accusing everyone of being someone else or how they are not understanding all of the complexities of football that you want to believe that you do?

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MeadowlandMike. Show MeadowlandMike's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

     

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

     

     

    In response to BurtonMercer's comment:

     

    In response to MeadowlandMike's comment:

     

     

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

     

    You're a real piece of work Rusty. You are quick to call people wrong (usually in caps but not this time) and when you are proven wrong you say that the rule isn't clear enough. BTW you didn't ask for clarification you assumed we were wrong and went with it. You know what they say when you make assumption as truth.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     



    The NFL is known for re-wording rules when so schamuck on a forum can' understand what it means.  Team lawyers be damned - this stuff need to be clear to the mentally challanged of the world.

     

     

     



    Sounds great Phat Rex. Say, are you enjoying trying to wiggle  in here posing as a Pats fan?  bawhaha

     

     

    The fact you think people will believe you aren't Phat Rex is beyond comical. Can't be made up. 

    You're Dahmer Jr.  Strong effort changing a bit how you write and type, also by ignoring me. But, you lose. A dead giveaway.

     



    A Pats fan?  I can see why everyone makes fun of you here.  You're kinda dumb.  I suppose you think FoxboroFred is a Jets fan?  Sorry, not Rex, but I did enjoy him making you his beeech the other day when you got banned.  That was pretty funny.  DO you get banned often?  I see you have 100+ posts in the last day, that is pretty sad.  

     

     

     


     

     

     

    Uh-oh, Phat Rex! See, this is the part where it truly appears I have you cornered with your new poseur Pats fans name, as generic as your board names are when you go that route, and now you're getting a little testy.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, look no further:  Phat Rex (posing as  Pats fan)

    What happened to Waldorff? Banned out of the gate, too quickly, Phat Rex? Hmm?



    Not sure what you're deal is chief, but it looks like you're on your way to another banning.  Let me be clear.  I am not a Patriot fan.  Anyone with barely half a brain might consider a name like Meadowland Mike something other than a Patrtiot fan.  But not you.  It's clear why you are the forum jester made fun of at every turn.  

     

    By this time tomorrow, will you have a new name and 100 new posts accusing everyone of being someone else or how they are not understanding all of the complexities of football that you want to believe that you do?

     



    How would you even know I've been banned, banned more than once or who I am here, if you JUST registered here and started posting? You would't know the back story. You've also just started responding once I called you out as Phat Rex, which is also not a coincidence. If you weren't, you'd say you weren't and prove you aren't.  Instead, the accusation itself bothers you. lol

     

    So, nice try, Phat Rex. As stated, many here know your game. You also think by admitting you aren't posing as a Pats fan, that somehow clears you.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Who said I just registered and started posting?  I did watch your sad attempt at posting for hours after your bunker impersonation was banned.  It was really pathetic.  You had no idea.  How sad.  100 invisible posts.  I doubt anyone missed much. 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    Tebow could serve a purpose as the goal to go QB, especially without Gronk.  I don't want to see Brady taking huge hits sneaking it in from the 2 anymore.  Let Tebow run it in.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to sheldong's comment:

    My son pointed this out to me and it makes sense.  There are now quite a few teams out there with highly mobile qbs who like to run more than pass.  There are even two in our division.  Using Tebow as the scout QB all week gives our defense a chance to practice against a real QB playing that positioninstead of a db playing that position in practice

    In the meantime, if they can get him to correct his throwing motion and to look for pass first before running, he might develop into a good QB over time.  Remember, he will only be 27 in 2017.  One thing to remember is that the guy *is* a winner and he *is* big.  he won't get a single snap this season in a game unless (I hate to even say this) Brady goes down and Mallet sucks wind.

    So, all in all, I think BB made a great move -- if only for paragraph #1 above.



    Wait, you're saying Tebow's not there to compete for Brady's job?

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    "You drifted from my point of being the scout squad QB to just putting a knock on Tebow.  There are enough threads here about that.  How about keeping this thread on track and discuss the scout team QB idea?"

    OK sure. 

    Julian Edelman can already do that, has QB experience, and is faster and more disruptive than Tebow as a runner so is better prep for RG3, etc. 

    Tebow was a dumb distracting move and I have yet to see a good reason otherwise. 

    I'm prepared to be surprised but so far nothing I see changes my view.

       
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from krismk. Show krismk's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow


    I want to see Tebow on special teams...don't really care what else happens with him.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to UD6's comment:

    In response to sheldong's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    My son pointed this out to me and it makes sense.  There are now quite a few teams out there with highly mobile qbs who like to run more than pass.  There are even two in our division.  Using Tebow as the scout QB all week gives our defense a chance to practice against a real QB playing that positioninstead of a db playing that position in practice

    In the meantime, if they can get him to correct his throwing motion and to look for pass first before running, he might develop into a good QB over time.  Remember, he will only be 27 in 2017.  One thing to remember is that the guy *is* a winner and he *is* big.  he won't get a single snap this season in a game unless (I hate to even say this) Brady goes down and Mallet sucks wind.

    So, all in all, I think BB made a great move -- if only for paragraph #1 above.

     



    Wait, you're saying Tebow's not there to compete for Brady's job?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Surely you jest!  No one, not even Peyton, could take Brady's job away from him while he is still at the very peak of his game.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from sheldong. Show sheldong's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    I sure wish some posters would learn how to delete most of what was quoted.  It is a real pain in the rear wading through a ton of he said, he said to get to the bottom to see what was added.

    Hear that BurtonMercer and MeadowlandMike?

    Now let's get back to football, please.


    ---------
    Loyal Pats fan since '67

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from UD6. Show UD6's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to sheldong's comment:

    In response to UD6's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to sheldong's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    My son pointed this out to me and it makes sense.  There are now quite a few teams out there with highly mobile qbs who like to run more than pass.  There are even two in our division.  Using Tebow as the scout QB all week gives our defense a chance to practice against a real QB playing that positioninstead of a db playing that position in practice

    In the meantime, if they can get him to correct his throwing motion and to look for pass first before running, he might develop into a good QB over time.  Remember, he will only be 27 in 2017.  One thing to remember is that the guy *is* a winner and he *is* big.  he won't get a single snap this season in a game unless (I hate to even say this) Brady goes down and Mallet sucks wind.

    So, all in all, I think BB made a great move -- if only for paragraph #1 above.

     

     



    Wait, you're saying Tebow's not there to compete for Brady's job?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Surely you jest!  No one, not even Peyton, could take Brady's job away from him while he is still at the very peak of his game.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    SurelyCool

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from part-timer. Show part-timer's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow


    I see one problem where the Pats have not been able to close out games late with the running game, especialy when it is expected. Also because of this problem TB has stayed in games longer than we would like to see , taking chances of unnessisary injury..

    So the signing of TT may have an impact on that. In an instance where the Pats are obviously running the ball to kill the clock at game end TT may present more options in the running game and still present a reasonable threat of the pass. Simply the threat of the QB running, which you will not see TB doing,will complicate the defences options. You have to figure that with our stable of RB's and TE's the running game should be more effective with the threat of a running QB....

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to PatsEng's comment:

    You're a real piece of work Rusty. You are quick to call people wrong (usually in caps but not this time) and when you are proven wrong you say that the rule isn't clear enough. BTW you didn't ask for clarification you assumed we were wrong and went with it. You know what they say when you make assumption as truth.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus



    The rule is perfectly clear if you just read the CBA, which is easily available on both the NFL and NFLPA web sites:

    The Practice Squad shall consist of the following players, provided that they have not served more than two previous seasons on a Practice Squad: (i) players who do not have an Accrued Season of NFL experience; and (ii) free agent players who were on the Active List for fewer than nine regular season games during their only Ac-crued Season(s). An otherwise eligible player may be a Practice Squad player for a third season only if the Club by which he is employed that season has at least 53 players on its Active/Inactive List during the entire period of his employment. 

     

    The definition of "accrued season" is:

    For the purposes of calculating Accrued Seasons under this Agreement, a player shall receive one Accrued Season for each season during which he was on, or should have been on, full pay status for a total of six or more regular season games, but which, irrespective of the player’s pay status, shall not include games for which the player was on: (i) the Exempt Commissioner Permission List, (ii) the Reserve PUP List as a result of a nonfootball injury, or (iii) a Club’s Practice Squad. 

     

    The six games in full pay status that earn a player an "accrued season" can be on any team (or on multiple teams).  Tebow has two accrued seasons at this point (one in Denver, one in New York), so he's long past practice squad eligibility.

    Nothing unclear and the rule doesn't need to be rewritten (and won't be, unless they amend the CBA).

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    doesn't matter Pro because Rusty does his homework by making an assumption on the wording from a single source he admits is confusing to him instead of going to the rule book directly.


    I swear by lil 10 pound bearded baby Jesus

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to part-timer's comment:


    I see one problem where the Pats have not been able to close out games late with the running game, especialy when it is expected. Also because of this problem TB has stayed in games longer than we would like to see , taking chances of unnessisary injury..

    So the signing of TT may have an impact on that. In an instance where the Pats are obviously running the ball to kill the clock at game end TT may present more options in the running game and still present a reasonable threat of the pass. Simply the threat of the QB running, which you will not see TB doing,will complicate the defences options. You have to figure that with our stable of RB's and TE's the running game should be more effective with the threat of a running QB....



    how will that prevent the D from loading up against the run? It would prevent Brady from getting hurt but you just reduced the risk of an actual pass and greatly increased the likely hood of a run. It would make things easier on D's to defend late in games because they could put 8 in the box with contain edges and make it more difficult to close out games instead of making it easier

     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: New take on Tebow

    In response to pcmIV's comment:

    In response to BabeParilli's comment:

    [QUOTE]

    I didn't say anything about religion.

     

     

     

    You said not to judge him based on his off the field stuff.  As far as I know that is the religious stuff which I don't care about.

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    And Tebow's stats are comparable to Luck's across the board.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    No they aren't.  You've just massaged a few of them.

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

    Denver went 1-4 with Orton and 7-4 with TT. What's the debate here?

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    The debate is that Tebow won 5 of 8 games where they scored under 20 points.  Orton lost 2 out 3 where they scored 20 or more.  The Tebow led offense was nothing special in most of Denver's wins.

    [/QUOTE]


    Nonsense.

    Other than the last game against KC with that ridiculously low score Tebow averaged around one point per game less scoring in the other 10 than Orton did in 5. Insignificant.

    And Tebow managed six 4th quarter comeback drives for a win in 11 starts to Orton's... none.

    CLEARLY, TT turned a struggling team around. To say otherwise is either to have some kind of axe to grind or suffer from extreme obliviousness.

    It is equally clear that objectivity isn't your strongest suit.

     

     

Share