SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

I think I'm beginning to understand where the gap lies between the two sides of this argument. You Tebow detractors think that Tebow must be an exceptional passer to be an exceptional QB in the NFL. I contest that Tebow only needs to be an adequate passer to be an exceptional QB in the NFL, and he is more than adequate. Tebow will shred NFL defenses in exactly the same way he shredded college defenses - by running first and using the pass to burn teams that try to cheat against him. Granted, Tebow is not playing against collegiate players. But, neither is he standing in the huddle with collegiate players. NFL players on defense and NFL players on his team is no different than playing against college players with college teammates. The only variable there is is Tebow. And Tebow is going to be Tebow. I will be accepting any and all admissions of wrongness for the remainder of the season.

The whole point is that Tebow does not need to change anything. What he has always done WILL work. You don't need pretty passes to win games when the defenders have to leave their coverage to pursuit a mobile quarterback who will lower his shoulder and plow anyone. Ugly passes that are complete still count (see Ryan Fitzpatrick....). Now, if you were saying "Tebow will never be a successful QB because he will get injured" I could understand that argument. Perhaps that will be the case. I believe Tebow will be just fine taking hits at the pro level. That is the freakish-athlete thing he has going. But at least that argument would make logical and/or empirical sense. And yea, I'm sure that you hardly ever watch ESPN. The fact that you have the same flagrantly biased opinions as virtually every ESPN pundit is most likely coincidence. I'm sure when you were flicking through the channels one fateful Saturday afternoon and landed on Tim Tebow blowing the doors off of some very good defensive team in the SEC, your immediate first thought was "my god - that delivery will never work at the pro level." Yea - I'm sure that is exactly how it went.

Is there anyone who doesn't? The guy is obviously a stud (of course I've known this for a while - I watched almost every college game he played in. ) That being said, there is no way you can justify picking a WR over a blue chip defensive lineman, considering the Bills needs. Now, if you already have Warren Sapp and William Perry on your roster, then yea, I can at least understand if you draft for need. But if you have any need whatsoever at DL (even if it is just a need for depth), take the lineman. Every day of the week and twice on days that end in Y.

Look, the bottom line is this: if the only threat that Tebow brought to the game was his ability to run, doesn't it seem like any pop-warner football coach could develop and effective game plan against him? Instead, he proceeded to SHATTER most of the major collegiate passing records, in what has to be the strongest defensive conference in the history of college football. How do you Tebow haters reconcile this obvious logical fallacy? Can one of you please explain this to me? And how about you do so with your own thoughts and words, not some crap you plagiarized from ESPN or NFL.com.

You are flat out incorrect on many of these points. Again, yes, his throwing mechanics are not good - see Tim Lincecum...how's he doing again? Other than that, you are literally regurgitating the same tired, and flat out untrue BS that you have seen on ESPN. He's never been asked to read defenses? Are you kidding? He was an option quarterback - he was required to read defenses on EVERY play. He never played in a pro style offense? Big deal. Neither did Sam Bradford. Neither did Colt McCoy. Neither did Michael Vick. It doesn't seem to have hindered these players in any way. He's not a good pocket passer? Wrong again. Did you ever even watch him play at Florida?. He passed from the pocket PLENTY, and to devastating effect. You don't think that he SHATTERED all the existing collegiate passing records by throwing exclusively on the run do you? You are not that obtuse. You can't be. Nobody is. Surely you don't expect him to come into the NFL as a rookie and stand in the pocket like Peyton Manning do you? Surely you don't expect Andrew Luck to stand in the pocket like Tom Brady next year, do you? Comon man. Your arguments are completely absurd. So do you have anything other than his throwing mechanics that is not a flat out fabrication that you heard some talking head spouting off and just decided to regurgitate to the chagrin of us all that you can offer to the conversation? Don't even bother answering that. It was a rhetorical question. Of course you do not, or you would be posting that instead of this recycled nonsense that the anti-Tebow conspiracy has been propagating for some time now. Look, anyone can make up stuff to make a point. Just because you do that does not make it valid.

Tebow had a far, far better college career in a far, far better conference. What makes Andrew Luck such a prodigious QB prospect? Obviously it can't be his on-field performance, because it simply pales in comparison to what Tebow did in college (again, in a MUCH stronger conference). So are we saying Andrew Luck is the greatest prospect of all time because of...his throwing motion? Can you shed any light on this?

But did you account for barometric pressure? I think not! Damn you. Now its bugging me too. I'm going to have to edit my post Thank you very much for pointing out how my sarcastic hypothetical scenario was not imagined to scale. Dang it. Now I can't even be sure that the completely fictitious super-hot chick that I imagined in my dreams last night really had size DD breasts. What a killjoy.

I also found it amusing, which is why I said it

Eh it was just a general indictment of the negativity that I've seen around here. But I had to throw that specific allusion to the one thread that really irked me.

WR is the least important position in the NFL. DT is the most important defensive position. Under no circumstances would I ever prefer A.J. Green to Marcell Dareus.

You know, I would make a better NFL QB than what you just described. You probably would too for that matter. And I'm curious where you are getting your information from. Are you sleeping with a Broncos scout?

I noticed several FG and XP attempts where Lindell kicked the ball at LEAST 4 feet (not yards) off center of the goalposts. This is inexcusable. If there had been a mere 7mph more wind blowing south by southwest, and the Earth's gravitational field had been distorted due to an interstellar object passing in too close proximity to Jupiter, he would have missed those for sure. THESE KINDS OF FIELD GOALS ARE UNSUSTAINABLE. We must cut Ryan Lindell RIGHT NOW.

Yep. You have to play soft coverage if you want to make breaks on the ball. It's impossible to break on a ball if you are sticking with a receiver stride for stride. It's pretty obvious at this point that our defensive philosophy is to create turnovers, and soft coverage allows us to do that. It's also pretty obvious that the Bills do not mind giving up yardage to go for turnovers - and it is equally obvious that so far, its been very effective. I think it is beyond time that many of the fans on here begin to examine their paradigms regarding playing defense in the NFL, because turnover differential is by far the biggest factor in winning and losing of any metric.

I'm pretty sure that the primary factor for making it to the post-season is your overall record, and I'm pretty sure non-division and non-conference games count for that just as much as division games. Your whole premise here is just silly.

Hmm tough defense? The Giants have given up more points that we have...to bad teams...I'm not sure what you are referring to.

I think you should offer a compelling argument as to why his skill set won't be effective other than to say "you can't succeed with that throwing motion..blah blah blah" That is the biggest crock of crap I've heard regarding Tebow. Who says you can't be successful the way Tebow throws? What because some scouts said it, it must be true? They said the same BS about Tim Lincecum. How did that work out for them? And the comparison to Fitz is NOT AT ALL asinine. Are you !@#$ing kidding me? Fitz passes are very very ugly. But he is successful. Why is it so hard to even grant that maybe, just maybe, in spite of a quirky throwing motion, Tebow could be successful? I'm not even asking you to grant that he will be a good QB, only that he could be - but to sit here sanctimoniously saying that he NEVER will is pretty dumb. They said Drew Brees would never succeed as an NFL quarterback because he was too small (which really seems like it would be a much greater hindrance than a quirky throwing motion really), and how has that worked out? But Tebow will NEVER be a good QB? Please man. You are talking straight out of your sphincter. And I'm just curious, what makes you think Tebow can't read and dissect an NFL defense? Has he had a fair opportunity to do so? Do you expect him to do so immediately upon entering the NFL, despite the fact that even the best QBs of all time need some time to learn the pro game? I mean he did these things prodigiously in college. There is no reason to assume he can't do it in the NFL. I believe you just have NO CLUE what Tebow brings to the table. You read some crap on yahoo.com and formulated your opinion. You clearly do not have an ounce of empirical knowledge regarding Tebow. Nobody is sitting here implying that Tebow's quirky motion is what will make him successful, so for anyone to sit there and exclusively use that argument as to why he won't be successful, well that is actually quite asinine. But that is the ONLY argument you have. The only one. And unfortunately for you, you are wrong. Time will prove that out. What *will* make Tebow successful in the NFL, aside from his stellar intangibles (game intelligence, leadership, etc) is the fact that he can extend plays. It doesn't matter how quirky his throwing motion is when he is rolling out of the pocket and causing defenses to break down. The guy will get his passes off, they will be complete, he will win games because of it. I mean if you think about it, he is a more athletic version of Big Ben. Big Ben certainly isn't known for his Tom Brady like arm. It isn't standing in the pocket picking apart defenses that makes Rothlisburger so effective. It's because he is hard to tackle and can move well out of the pocket. Tebow is that too, only much better. He's faster, quicker, and more athletic. He's a big dude who can run with the ball, throw it well, and read defenses like a book. I know these things, not because I watched some 3 minute video on espn.com, but because I watched him do it time after time after time over a four year span. And also, the argument that what you did in college does not matter in the pros is possibly the stupidest sentiment one could offer. I mean when they do the NFL draft, do teams not make their picks based on what each player did in college? I mean...Andrew Luck is going to be picked because of WHAT HE HAS DONE, not because they like his throwing motion. So let's just get real about it. College performance ABSOLUTELY has a correlation to the NFL level, and to suggest otherwise is beyond absurd. But I really get the feeling that explaining all this is an utter waste of my time. Your opinion is based exclusively on the fact that, for whatever ASININE reason, you just don't like Tebow. There is no logical argument that will change your mind. So instead, you can sit here and post and repost every ridiculous sentiment that you possibly can until the day you are choking crow. And when that day comes, you will just pretend you never said any of these things. But yea, other than that, perhaps you have a point. Then again, perhaps not.

We never had too much trouble with Dan Marino. And chances are very very slim that Luck will ever be the QB Dan Marino was. I don't know man. I think the Dolphins should be very happy if they win 1 game.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we've gotten consistent pressure on the QB in every game this season. Sure he has one. His career just has nothing to do with making meaningful contributions to winning NFL games.

I imagine Tebow would make a damn good linebacker too.

The NFL is not college...But we are talking about the most prolific PASSER in NCAA HISTORY, and by a very wide margin. I'm sick of all the Tebow hate, and I am thoroughly looking forward to rubbing everyone's face who jumped on the anti-Tebow bandwagon in it for a long long time. Look up Tebow's passing statistics...even Peyton Manning, even Andrew Luck have to bow down to him. Was his college career a function of the system he played in? Perhaps in part. But you simply cannot ignore the fact that even against the greatest collegiate spread passers of all time, Tebow stands as a giant among them. Such as? Or do you just want to post a bunch of garbage and not even offer any kind of supporting statement?

Tebow is not a scrambler. Most of his runs are by design. He is a running quarterback. And his passing issues are dramatically overstated. He was precise and methodical in the passing game at Florida. There is NO reason to think he won't still be that.

I think that if you have a choice between gain several inches in one play to win the game now, or punt and try to hold them from driving the length of the field to preserve the win, you go for it. Personally, I'd rather control my own destiny. If you cannot gain < 1 yard to win the game, you simply don't deserve to win anyway. Also, I think way too much criticism is being heaped on that tackle for jumping offside. He knows that we need about 4 inches to win the game - he has to respect that we might go for it in my opinion. To assume automatically that there was no play just seems like total erroneous folly to me. And it is NOT easy to stop someone for less than a yard - you have to be off the ball like a flash. He should have stayed onside, but geez, the guy is trying to give his team a chance to win and knows that one play can end it right now. I think he should get a little slack on that basis.

If you have 2 stud tackles, your defense is automatically solid, simply by the fact that you are taking away important dimensions of the offense (the ability to run inside, the ability to stand in the pocket while deep pass plays develop, etc). If our offense is still this good, and our defense has those 2 stud tackles, we will contend without a doubt. So don't worry too much about the future.

Or if we just play a complete game? I mean what happens if we play 4 quarters against the Patriots, considering we utterly and completed dominated them to the tune of 34-10 over 2.5 quarters. Extrapolating those 2.5 quarters over a 4 quarter time period (which is unrealistic, I understand, but the point is to demonstrate just how dominant we were during that time) yields at WORST somewhere around a 50-20 beat-down, against one of the best teams in the NFL. Again, extrapolating the 2nd half of the Raiders game over a 4 quarter period would yield a whopping 70-28 victory, against a team that by all rights appears to be a legit contender in the AFC west. The only game of the season we did play a complete game yielded a lopsided 41-7 margin. These are substantial time periods of total domination against some pretty solid competition - which explains IMO why we are 4-1 better than anything else. We aren't talking about just squeaking out wins here. We are talking about using complete domination to overcome inconsistent play and nearly insurmountable leads. Once this team learns how to play consistently for four quarters, I see absolutely no reason to think we can't go all the way and even win the SB. And considering turnovers is BY FAR the most influential statistic on the outcomes of each and every game played from high school all the way to the NFL, to simply brush them off seems just silly to me. The number one tactical goal of every team in the NFL is to win the turnover battle - and we are killing everyone in this most important area. So yea, these negative people can really just blow it out their many orifices.

You mean you pose baseless questions to the effectiveness of critical players without demonstrating an ounce of understanding of how those players impact the game, despite what their stats are (which are, btw, not AT ALL comprehensive, which is why wins and losses still determine standings), on a board full of Bills fans watching what will in all likelihood be the best season in over a decade, and don't understand why people don't like it? Your social skills are comparable to your comprehension of football.