TV Tropes Org

Forums

On-Topic Conversations:
The NFL Thread
search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [4,198]  1 ...  4  5  6  7  8
9
10 11 12 13 14 ... 168

The NFL Thread:

 201 Major Tom, Sun, 13th Nov '11 8:52:00 PM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
^^ Like he did today and last week in Oakland? Play him to his strengths (he's mostly a running quarterback) and he wins.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
[up]

My point is, the broncos seem deadset against playing him to his strengths on a constant basis, and he's an awful passer half the time.

as one of the local coaches put it on tv tonight. Tebow runs a college gameplan. That any football team in the NFL loses to a college game plan is more proof of the other teams incompetence than Tebow's greatness.

edited 13th Nov '11 9:33:17 PM by Midgetsnowman

Going Forth!
Long Live the King
[up]I would agree, if the spread offense wasn't a "college gameplan."

The Triple Option isn't used in the NFL not because it doesn't work, but because it requires a QB who is willing to get hit all the time(because he's a running back, essentially), and wide receivers who care more about winning than their receptions/yardage(not to mention Running Backs who find their carries cut because the QB is taking them).

Getting such personnel is rare, and thus the triple option isn't used. It's not because a "college system" doesn't work.

Also don't forget, both of Tebow's wins this season came against bad teams. I'll be more willing to entertain the notion that Tebow is a good quarterback when they win against a team that has a winning record.

Tebow has 3 wins. One against Oakland(who is 5-4, and thus has a winning record...), one against KC(who is 4-5) and one against Miami(2-7)...

And, it should be noted, with the "QB passer rating" that the stats people love to go by, Tebow had a 102.6 rating, with his 2-8, 69 yard, 1 TD performance. Honestly, the fact that it hasn't hit the "experts" that the only "stat" that matters is the win-loss number is baffling to me... Don't believe me? Ask Cam Newton whether he'd keep his 300 yard/game performances or trade them for crappy numbers but wins for Carolina(or any other "good QB" who's team has a poor record right now)...

edited 14th Nov '11 1:15:09 AM by Swish

[up]

The point is though. the big flaw in the QB being a Running back is it opens up the reason why RB's have the shortest careers. Running backs get hit hard. CONSTANLY.

Tebow's not a good investment if he wins them games and gets a career ending injury early on. I'd imagine thats why even the Broncos are reticent to run Triple Option. It seems to work well with Tebow, but at the cost of potentially catastrophically injuring him.

edited 14th Nov '11 7:41:50 AM by Midgetsnowman

Going Forth!
 205 Major Tom, Mon, 14th Nov '11 8:21:25 AM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
^ That risk is pretty low however. Unlike some quarterbacks (Elway, Manning, a number of others), he ain't a twig who easily breaks. He's 245 lbs and built like an ox. He's built heavier and stronger than many linebackers.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
...Size doesnt matter much where momentum is concerned. You get knocked on your ass or driven to the ground by a hard tackle, it takes a toll on your body no matter your size. I'd think a military person like you would at least know that much about basic anatomy, Tom.
Going Forth!
 207 Major Tom, Mon, 14th Nov '11 8:25:58 AM Relationship Status: Barbecuing
Eye'm the cutest!
I do, and I know how football injuries work. (I played the sport in high school as a lineman so I know all too well how contact is.)
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."
Long Live the King
Tebow's not a good investment if he wins them games and gets a career ending injury early on. I'd imagine thats why even the Broncos are reticent to run Triple Option. It seems to work well with Tebow, but at the cost of potentially catastrophically injuring him.

If any player, in any position who is given a contact of more than $1 Million/year(Tebows is $6/year for 5 years) were to have a career ending injury early in the contract, they would have been "not a good investment." So you can't say this just about Tebow... But injuries happen in football(and some of them are seemingly unavoidable)...

And, honestly? Running backs have the fewest career ending injuries in the league. Yes they have seemingly short shelf-lives(due to wear and tear on their knees) compared to other positions, but this primarily depends on the amount of action a running back gets(it's usually the "speedy" backs that find themselves out of jobs early because their knees won't allow them to go that fast anymore. Whereas the "bruising" backs stick around a long time in comparison due to their ability to still get those 3 yards they were expected to)...

Tebow isn't a "speedy" back in any comparison...

edited 14th Nov '11 10:19:28 AM by Swish

The Trope Seeker
What about Roethlesberger? He's also pretty tall and the only injuries he's suffered were out of football. He's pretty durable other than that.
Have you ever danced with tropes on the pale moonlight?
Grin and bear it
Also, how about that ejection in the Bears-Lions game? Stay classy, Bears.

Wait, what? There was an ejection during that game? When was that?
 211 Linhasxoc, Mon, 14th Nov '11 2:51:45 PM from Floating Island Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
I don't quite remember who, but it was during an interception return. I think. Really bad late hit.

basically, Stafford sorta threw a bear to the ground via the helmet..said bear responded by getting back up and leaping at stafford with a full on fists out late tackle.
Going Forth!
 213 Linhasxoc, Mon, 14th Nov '11 6:05:58 PM from Floating Island Relationship Status: RelationshipOutOfBoundsException: 1
Hey, the Packers actually have a defense today. So far. I'm Tempting Fate, aren't I?

Grin and bear it
[up][up]Oh, that? He got ejected for that?

I didn't think it was ejection-worthy, but whatever.
Picture not related
So, the Packers win an absolute laugher and are 9-0. Wasn't a bad game, really. I came away a bit impressed.

edited 14th Nov '11 9:39:08 PM by Quarterman

Now Neon Moon

 216 Buscemi, Tue, 15th Nov '11 5:12:03 AM from a log cabin
I Am The Walrus
Still not buying into the Raiders hype. They play in an incredibly weak division (seriously, the winner of this division could be under .500) and any chance of them dominating was killed when Campbell got hurt. With an underachieving Palmer, they will stumble at the gate and let the Chargers pass them.

And there's no doubt about it, the Chiefs will cut Cassel at the end of the year. He is not worth the $14 million he's being paid.

edited 15th Nov '11 5:12:33 AM by Buscemi

Long Live the King
[up]Considering the Chargers can't seem to consistently beat any team in the division save for the Broncos, I don't see the Chargers winning the division.

Oakland may choke their position away, but the idea that the Chargers will suddenly start winning games is a tad laughable(specifically, the 4 games needed to reach 8 wins, though they'll need 9 to win the division. Mostly because Oakland has 3 wins all but guaranteed — Miami, Minnesota, and one of their home games against Chicago or Detroit).

Besides... the real "worst division in the NFL" is the AFC south. Especially since Schaub is out for the rest of the season... Looking at their schedule, I could absolutely see Houston ending the season 8-8, and either barely winning the division, or losing it to Tennessee.

 218 Buscemi, Tue, 15th Nov '11 8:28:40 AM from a log cabin
I Am The Walrus
As I said, Palmer underachieves. He threw three interceptions and got shut out in his first game as a Raider (against the Chiefs, who will probably win just one more game this season). They are extremely vulnerable and will falter.
Long Live the King
While I agree that Oakland is prime to falter, your problem is that the Broncos have a better chance than San Diego of racking up 4 more wins to take the division...

I don't disagree with passing on Oakland being "good." I disagree with the idea that San Diego is... Oakland doesn't have to be good to win 3 more games (I mean, look at Denver* )... But San Diego will have to be good to win 4 of their remaining games to overtake Oakland. And I really don't see it happening.

Grin and bear it
And the Redskins still suck. sad

In all seriousness, I don't see them winning another game. Not with the injuries they've sustained, and not with the current Q Bs they have.

And I'm being totally serious when I say I think Shanahan's going to get fired at the end of the season.
Long Live the King
So... Who's on board for the Broncos making the playoffs? It's apparently Tebow Time.

Edit: Meanwhile, the Jets lost their chance at a playoff spot, and gave it to the AFC North...

edited 17th Nov '11 9:12:36 PM by Swish

Picture not related
The Broncos looked good on that final drive. If they play like that more often, they have a chance. But I think the Raiders still have a chance, depending on how they play on Sunday.
Now Neon Moon

Grin and bear it
I have to give Tebow credit on something: That boy does not know when to give up.

He may not play very well right now, and his wins are ugly, but the bottom line is that he wins. And now the Broncos are back at .500.
He's bad news.
Kyle Orton has the exact same same team Tebow has and despite having great mechanisms, the team goes 1-4, with a bad offense and a bad defense.

Tebow takes over the team and while being merely a glorified fullback with determination, the Broncos now have a .500 record and a stellar defense.

I can somewhat understand the offense improving, but someone has to explain to me how the defense suddenly goes from an absolute joke to a good defense.

UTINNI!
[up] A boost in leadership, inspiration, and confidence?

Total posts: 4,198
 1 ...  4  5  6  7  8
9
10 11 12 13 14 ... 168


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy