Source: Tim Tebow named Broncos' starter

#126
#126
nbakerld said:
Tebow did a 180 this week. My bet is many of the haters don't visit this thread this week. He looked great. His accuracy needs improvement.
Click to expand...

Great? He didn't look awful. That is about all. It was definite improvement, but one half of good play answers nothing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#127
#127
Astonishing that the Tebow lovers are giving him credit for this win. Dude completes less than 50% of his passes, running back runs for 160 yards and punt returner takes one to the house. Some how Tebow is being credited for the win? Because he didn't turn it over? He put up better numbers running the ball than passing. Isn't that what everyone said all along? The dude can't pass. Passing is the definition of what quarterbacks do

And in response to the Broncos losing at home and winning on the road against the Raiders... Tebow wasn't the only QB change. Palmer threw three interceptions, Cambell threw 0.

Congratulations to Tebow for 3 ints that the defense picked off, a punt return on special teams and 181 yards rushing from the backs. All Tebow does is win... when other people carry the load. Kind of like Percy Harvin at Florida and Florida's defense holding Oklahoma's record setting offense that averaged 60 to 14 points. They only gave up 14 despite Tebow's 2 ints in that game

The people who ride Tebow's sack are worse than the "haters"
 
Last edited:
#129
#129
But when he loses, it is his fault.

The truth is Denver/Fox mixed went to Tebow's Florida offense and it worked for him. And the option work really well for McGahee as well.

I didn't watch all of that first loss to Oakland (see SI article about 22 of 30 minutes being commercials in the first quarter). But I remember Denver getting a turnover on the first drive at Oakland's 15. Orton went three and a FG with some awful QB'ing. That set the tone for the game while also defining Orton's Denver career (awful in the red zone).
 
#130
#130
Calculon said:
Great? He didn't look awful. That is about all. It was definite improvement, but one half of good play answers nothing.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

He won an NFL game against a good team. I watched the whole game (we get all Broncos games in Utah, pretty much). He looked a hell of a lot better than "not awful".
 
#131
#131
The_Orange_Pearl said:
Astonishing that the Tebow lovers are giving him credit for this win. Dude completes less than 50% of his passes, running back runs for 160 yards and punt returner takes one to the house. Some how Tebow is being credited for the win? Because he didn't turn it over? He put up better numbers running the ball than passing. Isn't that what everyone said all along? The dude can't pass. Passing is the definition of what quarterbacks do
Click to expand...

You just can't give credit where it's due. He didn't make any big mistakes. He wasn't accurate, but he was efficient. He also ran for 117 yards. Willis McGahee ran for 160 yards which was the most any Denver RB had in like 7 years. Most of his yards came off the read option sweep, so the defense was respecting Tebow opening things up for McGahee. Without the punt return they scored 31 points, which should be more than enough to win most NFL games.
 
#132
#132
Tebow is still a crappy passer, yesterday didn't prove otherwise. A bad defense got caught off guard with an option attack they weren't prepared to defend. There's a reason nobody runs the option in the NFL anymore -- when they do and other teams know it's coming, it gets crushed.

They should do enough to win at KC next week, then go right back to getting crushed against the Jets.
 
#133
#133
Weezy said:
Denver put Tebow in his old offense. It was successful and should have been done his first start, but Oakland also helped by starting Curry (lol). Orton lost at home against Oakland...just saying.
Click to expand...

He still looked pretty bad. And give a team a week to watch film of that offense and see what happens. There is a reason no one runs that **** in the NFL.
 
#134
#134
nbakerld said:
He won an NFL game against a good team. I watched the whole game (we get all Broncos games in Utah, pretty much). He looked a hell of a lot better than "not awful".
Click to expand...

Since when is Oakland a "good team?" They have an awful defense and a QB who has managed to throw 6 picks in his last two games.
 
Last edited:
#135
#135
nbakerld said:
He won an NFL game against a good team. I watched the whole game (we get all Broncos games in Utah, pretty much). He looked a hell of a lot better than "not awful".
Click to expand...

I got the game on satellite. I saw him. He wasn't anything special. The jury is still out on Oakland.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#136
#136
Glad I gave Tebow one more week and didn't bench him. Flacco has just about earned himself a cut from my roster.
 
#137
#137
emainvol said:
Since when is Oakland a "good team?" They have an awful defense and a QB who has managed to throw 6 picks in his last two games.
Click to expand...

Well, I believe they were 4-2 with an average QB (only losing to competitive teams like Buffalo and NWE). Palmer is better than average once he knows the ropes, and after 3 weeks in a familiar offense he should know the ropes.

Tebow's Broncos scored more on the Raiders (in Oakland) than anybody all year (Bills did 38 as well, in Buffalo). More than Tom Brady, Matt Schaub, Mark Sanchez, and Matt Cassel.
 
#139
#139
nbakerld said:
He won an NFL game against a good team. I watched the whole game (we get all Broncos games in Utah, pretty much). He looked a hell of a lot better than "not awful".
Click to expand...

Oakland is NOT A GOOD TEAM. At best, they are mediocre. Tebow is a gamer, but he will never be a successful QB in the NFL. Doesn't have the proper skills. Make him a RB or TE

BTW, he didn't look anything remotely close to great.
 
#140
#140
He outrushed half of the NFL, but I don't think he could do it if he were the running back. It's easier to run from the QB position.
 
#141
#141
nbakerld said:
Well, I believe they were 4-2 with an average QB (only losing to competitive teams like Buffalo and NWE). Palmer is better than average once he knows the ropes, and after 3 weeks in a familiar offense he should know the ropes.

Tebow's Broncos scored more on the Raiders (in Oakland) than anybody all year (Bills did 38 as well, in Buffalo). More than Tom Brady, Matt Schaub, Mark Sanchez, and Matt Cassel.
Click to expand...

The Raiders rank 20th against the pass, and still held Tebow to under 50% completion percentage. They are also 29th against the run. You think that might have something to do with the success on the ground?

I am tired of all this, "he's just a winner, even if his passing stats suck" crap. Where did that get the Titans with Vince Young? The league adapted to that pretty quick, didn't they? They will in this case, too. Especially when he plays good defenses. You know, like the Lions?

Also, Carson Palmer hadn't played football or practiced in how long until the Raiders signed him? Yet, in less than a month he picked up the entirety of the Saunders offense and "knows the ropes" now? I fully expect Palmer to excel there, and he is getting closer, but he was helped out a ton by a dreadful passing D, and still managed to throw three picks.
 
#142
#142
2ironVol said:
Oakland is NOT A GOOD TEAM. At best, they are mediocre. Tebow is a gamer, but he will never be a successful QB in the NFL. Doesn't have the proper skills. Make him a RB or TE

BTW, he didn't look anything remotely close to great.
Click to expand...

I don't know how anyone can look at any team from either conferences West division, outside of the 49ers and MAYBE the Chargers and say, that's a good football team. Because they aren't good football teams. They are all godawful football teams. Hell, that good Oakland team he is talking about ranks 30th in scoring defense on top of all those other lofty ratings I mentioned. Simply put, that defense is ****ing terrible.
 
#143
#143
emainvol said:
The Raiders rank 20th against the pass, and still held Tebow to under 50% completion percentage. They are also 29th against the run. You think that might have something to do with the success on the ground?

I am tired of all this, "he's just a winner, even if his passing stats suck" crap. Where did that get the Titans with Vince Young? The league adapted to that pretty quick, didn't they? They will in this case, too. Especially when he plays good defenses. You know, like the Lions?

Also, Carson Palmer hadn't played football or practiced in how long until the Raiders signed him? Yet, in less than a month he picked up the entirety of the Saunders offense and "knows the ropes" now? I fully expect Palmer to excel there, and he is getting closer, but he was helped out a ton by a dreadful passing D, and still managed to throw three picks.
Click to expand...

It's the same system he already knows....he just needed to get up to game speed and get to know his WR's. 3 weeks isn't going to have him at his full potential, but my friends who are Raiders fans were guaranteeing me it was enough time for him to be better than Campbell.
 
#144
#144
nbakerld said:
It's the same system he already knows....he just needed to get up to game speed and get to know his WR's. 3 weeks isn't going to have him at his full potential, but my friends who are Raiders fans were guaranteeing me it was enough time for him to be better than Campbell.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but he also didn't have Darren McFadden. Bush filled in admirably, but I would say there is still a big difference there. Especially against a team like Denver who is mediocre against the run anyway.
 
#145
#145
emainvol said:
I don't know how anyone can look at any team from either conferences West division, outside of the 49ers and MAYBE the Chargers and say, that's a good football team. Because they aren't good football teams. They are all godawful football teams. Hell, that good Oakland team he is talking about ranks 30th in scoring defense on top of all those other lofty ratings I mentioned. Simply put, that defense is ****ing terrible.
Click to expand...

You didn't think the Raiders were good after week 6? 4-2 with losses against the Pats and Bills, and wins over Houston and NYJ? I'd say that's a good team.
 
#146
#146
nbakerld said:
You didn't think the Raiders were good after week 6? 4-2 with losses against the Pats and Bills, and wins over Houston and NYJ? I'd say that's a good team.
Click to expand...

The Jets and Texans lit that defense up, especially the secondary. Hell, the Texans did it without Andre Johnson. Yeah, the offense showed up in both games, just like it did against Denver. The Raiders were a surprising team from a W-L standpoint, with a horrific defense at that point.
 
#148
#148
emainvol said:
The Jets and Texans lit that defense up, especially the secondary. Hell, the Texans did it without Andre Johnson. Yeah, the offense showed up in both games, just like it did against Denver. The Raiders were a surprising team from a W-L standpoint, with a horrific defense at that point.
Click to expand...

416 yards and 2 TD's is getting lit up, but when you factor Schaub having 51 attempts, 2 picks, and scoring only 20, I change my tune. Jets only scored 24. Not exactly getting lit up either.

If you don't count the Broncos game, Raiders move up from 29th in the league against the run to 16th. So there goes the theory that they have a horrible run D. Broncos just abused them with Tebow (first meeting with Orton at QB, Broncos rushed for 38 yards).
 
#149
#149
nbakerld said:
416 yards and 2 TD's is getting lit up, but when you factor Schaub having 51 attempts, 2 picks, and scoring only 20, I change my tune. Jets only scored 24. Not exactly getting lit up either.

If you don't count the Broncos game, Raiders move up from 29th in the league against the run to 16th. So there goes the theory that they have a horrible run D. Broncos just abused them with Tebow (first meeting with Orton at QB, Broncos rushed for 38 yards).
Click to expand...

Well, you can't take out the Broncos game, because it happened. Also, even allowing close to 120 a game is a pretty damn bad run D. They have also had exactly one game in which they didn't allow at least 20 points. Still not looking good for the Raiders. Again, Schaub did what he did without Andre Johnson, who is one of the three best receivers in the game, which was obviously a factor. Finally, Mark Sanchez, who has averaged around 192 yds/game in his career, and 221 on the season, managed to throw for 369 against the Raiders. That is not to mention a yds/attempt that was a yard and a half better than his season average, and the best mark he has put up this year.

Point is, you can keep trying to argue that that defense is not that ****ty, but given its performance this season, you would be dead wrong.
 
#150
#150
And since you want to bring up the Broncos last game skewing the average, if you take out the first Broncos game, they are allowing 154 yds/game, which would be the worst in the NFL.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top