2013 Jets: Rex back for 2014
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
If they put him on waivers, I hope the Pats make a claim. That will induce a state of mass hysteria on whatever Jets fans remain.
So the whole thing really was about (unsucessfully) scaring Sanchez into actually doing his homework.
Nope. It was about selling jerseys and stealing the headlines back from the Giants after they won the superbowl. The entire trade was a PR stunt.
The NYC part. If you build a winner in NYC, you are building a winner on the world's biggest stage. If you got a decade of success from the Jets the same way the Patriots have gotten a decade of success, you would be one of the most powerful figures in sports.
It's a mess, but someone will bite. It's New York, man.
I think it would cause real grief if the Pats actually picked him up, and actually used him successfully. Turn him into a tight end, and then one day Brady pitches back to Tebow for a gimmick play long bomb to Welker beating Revis deep. That would make jets fans spontaneously barf, and possibly kill fireman Ed.
Playing QB in the spread in 2011 he was able to scramble well against nickel and dime packages. He certainly wasn't impressive in 2012 as essentially a running back running up the middle against base defenses that expected the run.
I think he was very close to the worst QB in the league in 2011 but I think he was a hell of a lot of fun to watch.
Except that play is more likely to end up as an INT for Revis, or Tebow pulling it down and getting tackled for a 3 yard loss.
What is Tebow's value as a straight TE or FB? Is he any better than a replacement level player at those positions? I doubt it.
It's the "successfully" part that doesn't have SB and other Jets fans in mass hysteria. Sense of inevitability maybe, but not hysteria.
And the exodus continues:
http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/source-sutton-d-coordinator-gig-chiefs-article-1.1238224
Bob Sutton, assistant head coach and the LB coach to become DC for the chiefs.
http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/football/jets/source-sutton-d-coordinator-gig-chiefs-article-1.1238224
Bob Sutton, assistant head coach and the LB coach to become DC for the chiefs.
Yup, 9th assistant/coach to leave in 12 days:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/12/jets-lose-another-assistant-weaver-goes-to-buffalo/related/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/12/jets-lose-another-assistant-weaver-goes-to-buffalo/related/
.
Quiet, you!
Rational thought be gone from me!
(even if Tebow caught one pass in the flat for a 3-yd gain for a 1st down would be enough for me)
Well, if Tebow fully and publically embraces the idea that he is not a realistic option on the QB depth chart, he's certainly find suitors; even if replacement level talent he's got every tiebreaker imaginable.
The scary thing is I look at him and I absolutely 110% think that he'd fit right in as a skill player with what the Pats are trying to be on offense. Hell, they could line Brady up in shotgun in between Tebow and Edelman and have the world's first Variable Snap offense. No, not really, but it's hard to deny he's an interesting piece if your goal is one personnel package that can run multiple offensive styles.
So, I'll be the first person in the entire universe to say this...
Tim Tebow would not make a good positional player.
There is a different mentality between "I have the football, I'll lower my shoulder and take this hit" and initiating contact play after play. I don't think he has the mental or physical makeup to lead a running back through a hole 25 times a game, nor do I think he has the ability to run block as a tight end on a consistent basis. To expect him to play reasonably well in the NFL at a position he's never played in his life is absurd to me. I hear everyone and their mother say it. "He's athletic enough to play tight end or fullback. If he just commits himself, he could make the transition." I call bullshit. I don't think he has the skill to run block consistently, and I've watch him sneak out for passes and look incredibly awkward when the ball is actually thrown his way (it happened against the Pats).
There are so many techniques that each player learns by the time they get to the NFL, and it's why players who transition (Edelman) or play two roles (Troy Brown) are so unique and fun to watch. Asking Tim Tebow to play tight end is like asking Jon Lester to play first base. I mean, he's been playing baseball for years, the transition should be easy enough for him, right?
First? Not exactly.
But it is pretty awesome that you imagined the Return of the Single Wing, with Tebow leading us back to a more ancient, purer and superior form of snapping the football, one lost in antiquity but to which we may look forward to to rejuvenate the sport.
Does anyone who says he should play another skill position thinks he can do any of those things now? I think the implicit assumption is that he'd be a project with a lot of potential to successfully make the shift with a good coaching staff. It's not an automatic, although just because he doesn't do those things now doesn't mean he can't learn them.
If he's willing to work cheap, he'll get the chance from someone to stay in the NFL. If he wants to be a QB, well, Toronto is a lovely city.
I think Westhoff's comments yesterday pretty much establish that Tebow's stay with the Jets doesn't come close to a fair test of the hypothesis that he can succeed with proper coaching. Westhoff, no one's idea of a starry-eyed fanboi, also seemed to think there was some talent there.
My issue with KFP's post, such as it was, is that there's a bit of "he can't succeed because he hasn't yet" along with "he can't succeed because the NFL is hard!", neither of which really fall in the category of "rigorous analysis." Maybe he can't learn how to run a route or position himself to catch a pass properly. Who really knows, though?
First, Westhoff said Tebow cant succeed as a drop back passer and could be succesful in other facets of the offense, a completely generic statement that could be taken many ways. Second, I could give a shit what the special teams coach thinks of offensive game planning.
Third, I think saying "hes never played that position and throwing him into it and expecting success at the highest level" is infinitely less stupid then saying "why cant a 25 year old with slightly above average athleticism learn a position hes never played and succeed at the highest level?"
Youre right, of course. Well never know until we see it first hand. I suppose I should have just said, "Yup, Tebow could succeed or fail." Oh well. If Tebow turns into a power fullback who relishes laying the lumber, I guess I'll have egg on my face. Or something.
Third, I think saying "hes never played that position and throwing him into it and expecting success at the highest level" is infinitely less stupid then saying "why cant a 25 year old with slightly above average athleticism learn a position hes never played and succeed at the highest level?"
Youre right, of course. Well never know until we see it first hand. I suppose I should have just said, "Yup, Tebow could succeed or fail." Oh well. If Tebow turns into a power fullback who relishes laying the lumber, I guess I'll have egg on my face. Or something.
Of course somebody will eventually say yes, regardless of where they play - it's the NFL. But things don't look good right now in Sanchez Nation says Jay Glazer:
http://profootballta...-position-away/
A quick question on the Jacksonville GM saying he has no interest in Tebow. Isn't he not allowed to comment on a player under contract to another team? And even if he can, why would he express an interest in a player that he can only get in a trade now as opposed to waiting out the Jets and picking him up after the eventual release?
Both participants have reached back-to-back AFC Championship games. Canton, OH might spontaneously combust.
This jackass thinks that Tebow is getting run out of the league simply because a lot of people like talking about him:
Here's his great analysis of why the NFL is so unfair:
[quote name='Kenny F'ing Powers' timestamp='1358087278' post='4502606']
Tim Tebow would not make a good positional player.
There is a different mentality between "I have the football, I'll lower my shoulder and take this hit" and initiating contact play after play. I don't think he has the mental or physical makeup to lead a running back through a hole 25 times a game, nor do I think he has the ability to run block as a tight end on a consistent basis.
[/quote]
Tebow is a round peg; every position on offense, is a square hole. I agree - Tebow could not lead a running back through the hole 25 times a game and could not run block as a tight end on a consistent basis. There are many roles Tebow cannot do and is not a good fit for - he would not make a good positional player.
A wise man once said, don't tell me what he can't do, tell me what he can do. Focusing on weaknesses is a good scouting idea; fixating on weaknesses and ignoring strengths is a bad scouting idea.
If you were going to bring in Tim Tebow, you would do so to maximize the obvious skills he does have and to minimize the things he doesn't. If you used him as a FB, you would have him lead block a few times so that the other plays you want to run from that formation/package are more effective. If you were going to use him as a receiver, you would want him as TE on screen plays so he doesn't need to seal off an edge against a DE and instead has to OLE! the LB and get downfield on a safety. If you were going to use him on direct snaps, you would want him to line up next to the QB and then pick up blitzers a few times so that the direct snap play(s) were more effective.
So, no...you can't think that Tebow could become a positional player that could compete for time against guys who are FB or H-backs by trade and training. But you COULD design plays to take advantage of Tebow's skills and use him in those positions without exposing him or the team too much. The question then becomes...is it worth it?
I got this stupid tagline for insisting that IF someone were to build an offense around what he does well, Tebow would win games. He is not a traditional QB, he is a bad fit in a West Coast offensive system (for example), he does not have great mechanics, etc. His limitations are known and are boring. His lack of sharp edges, his "round peg in a square hole" issues are known, and boring. Everyone fixates on what they think he cannot do.
Fact is, the Patriots OC - one of the "bright young minds" in the game - thought he could use Tebow's strengths. Could be that Josh McDaniels is an idiot who cannot evaluate talent. But the fact is that McDaniels has earned a reputation as an offensive coach and he thought Tebow had usable strengths. Some other coach will, too. If you built a roster maximized to hide Tebow's weaknesses and emphasize his strengths, he'd win games. Whereas if you maximized a roster for Blaine Gabbert, you'd still finish 3-13. All the words wasted on Tebow as "terrible" and very little about how conclusively, indisputably awful Blaine Gabbert was as a QB. Maybe because Blaine Gabbert doesn't have a fan club and the resulting backlash from who dislike the fan club?
Tim Tebow would not make a good positional player.
There is a different mentality between "I have the football, I'll lower my shoulder and take this hit" and initiating contact play after play. I don't think he has the mental or physical makeup to lead a running back through a hole 25 times a game, nor do I think he has the ability to run block as a tight end on a consistent basis.
[/quote]
Tebow is a round peg; every position on offense, is a square hole. I agree - Tebow could not lead a running back through the hole 25 times a game and could not run block as a tight end on a consistent basis. There are many roles Tebow cannot do and is not a good fit for - he would not make a good positional player.
A wise man once said, don't tell me what he can't do, tell me what he can do. Focusing on weaknesses is a good scouting idea; fixating on weaknesses and ignoring strengths is a bad scouting idea.
If you were going to bring in Tim Tebow, you would do so to maximize the obvious skills he does have and to minimize the things he doesn't. If you used him as a FB, you would have him lead block a few times so that the other plays you want to run from that formation/package are more effective. If you were going to use him as a receiver, you would want him as TE on screen plays so he doesn't need to seal off an edge against a DE and instead has to OLE! the LB and get downfield on a safety. If you were going to use him on direct snaps, you would want him to line up next to the QB and then pick up blitzers a few times so that the direct snap play(s) were more effective.
So, no...you can't think that Tebow could become a positional player that could compete for time against guys who are FB or H-backs by trade and training. But you COULD design plays to take advantage of Tebow's skills and use him in those positions without exposing him or the team too much. The question then becomes...is it worth it?
I got this stupid tagline for insisting that IF someone were to build an offense around what he does well, Tebow would win games. He is not a traditional QB, he is a bad fit in a West Coast offensive system (for example), he does not have great mechanics, etc. His limitations are known and are boring. His lack of sharp edges, his "round peg in a square hole" issues are known, and boring. Everyone fixates on what they think he cannot do.
Fact is, the Patriots OC - one of the "bright young minds" in the game - thought he could use Tebow's strengths. Could be that Josh McDaniels is an idiot who cannot evaluate talent. But the fact is that McDaniels has earned a reputation as an offensive coach and he thought Tebow had usable strengths. Some other coach will, too. If you built a roster maximized to hide Tebow's weaknesses and emphasize his strengths, he'd win games. Whereas if you maximized a roster for Blaine Gabbert, you'd still finish 3-13. All the words wasted on Tebow as "terrible" and very little about how conclusively, indisputably awful Blaine Gabbert was as a QB. Maybe because Blaine Gabbert doesn't have a fan club and the resulting backlash from who dislike the fan club?
Tebow makes virtually no sense a player because he creates no mismatch problem. He's a below average blocker, a below average receiver, a below average runner, and a below average thrower. There are no strengths on which to scheme. We're not talking about Kaepernick or Newton or RG3 when it comes to being a QB. He doesn't have any of the skills to be a TE other than "being kind of the right size" (which also happen to be his qualifications for being a fullback I guess).
Tebow was a monster QB in college because he was more athletic than the guys on defense and because he was throwing to NFL caliber weapons (Herb, Harvin, Riley Cooper, etc) behind a NFL caliber OL (Pouncey, Pouncey, etc). The Florida defense also started like 6 NFL starters. He ran a system with a lot of misdirection and play action that gave his receivers time and space to get incredibly open. If you watch Tebow highlight reels he's slinging passes to guys that are ten yards uncovered.
I'm not sure what world Tebow would win games in. What system would you run? What other players would you get to compliment him? It's easy to say "draw up a gameplan to maximize his strengths and hide his weaknesses!" What is it?
Tebow was a monster QB in college because he was more athletic than the guys on defense and because he was throwing to NFL caliber weapons (Herb, Harvin, Riley Cooper, etc) behind a NFL caliber OL (Pouncey, Pouncey, etc). The Florida defense also started like 6 NFL starters. He ran a system with a lot of misdirection and play action that gave his receivers time and space to get incredibly open. If you watch Tebow highlight reels he's slinging passes to guys that are ten yards uncovered.
I'm not sure what world Tebow would win games in. What system would you run? What other players would you get to compliment him? It's easy to say "draw up a gameplan to maximize his strengths and hide his weaknesses!" What is it?
But why would you do these things? How is it worth the effort?
Where is the ROI on tailoring systems and rosters to him when he is not exceptional in any sense of the word? Isn't the goal here winning Super Bowls?
Say what you want about Gabbert, but one of his virtues is his dispensability. You bring him in, try him out, and if he sucks, you turn the page without having morphed the organization to suit him.
All of the things Tebow does well other QBs -- KAP, RGIII, Wilson, Newton -- do exceptionally well. The things that Tebow does horribly, they do well. And don't go the intangibles route because although Tebow may have them over Newton, the first three above, judged on their first year, are smart as hell and fine leaders.
There are people like Wilson (I didn't say as good) in the college pipline. There are more conventional college QBs as well.
So again, what's the point -- which, I think, explains why Tebow will be in Canada unless he's open to a position switch. This entire discussion is tail wagging dog.
As for McDaniels, he plainly made a mistake.
Trevor Matich also says hello.
While with Denver, Tebow was better than Kyle Orton. My guess is that he could be better than Blaine Gabbert or some of the other 2nd/3rd string QB's on NFL rosters today. Then again, he may not be, and it's still unlikely he'll be successful at a new position.
As for McDaniels, maybe Josh thought with some good coaching Tebow's mechanics would improve enough to be a decent QB with above average mobility. McDaniels' opinion of him 3 years ago is irrelevant now, IMO.
Michael Robinson out of Penn State was a good QB (5th in voting for 2005 Heisman) who has turned himself into a Pro Bowl back for Seattle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Robinson_(running_back)
I think I covered this as thoroughly as possible in the 2011 Broncos thread. If you're interested, it's probably about 5 pages deep in the archives by now.
Really? The 10th pick of the draft is "dispensable"? Gabbert is a massive bust at a position littered with busts. And bust, in this case, means "cannot play in or win games". Let's not get into a semantics discussion about what the Jets were doing and why Rex was doing it and stick with actual results.
Every single one of those guys is running an adapted college offensive scheme, well. RGIII & Newton were both explicitly, per their coach's words, running a system that was adapted to them, their aptitude and skill set. Kaepernick is running a modified (read: slimmed down) version of the run-heavy offensive scheme they installed for Alex Smith - one that incorporated many of the things Smith - a QB reared in Urban Meyer's spread system - did well. Wilson also ran an adapted college scheme and had the passing scheme adapted to fit his needs.
Every QB in the NFL these days has the offensive scheme "morphed" to fit his talents/skills/strengths. Over the past 25 years the "running QB" of Randall Cunningham has morphed into the "future of position" with every guy you listed as a direct descendant of Cunningham and the way they adapted the expectations and template of the QB for him and others who have followed him (Steve Young, Mike Vick, etc.)
And none of them has a winning record as a starting QB in the NFL, nor an NFL playoff win. And every single one of them will need to have the system "morphed" to fit what particular skills that player brings to the table.
Be sure to take precautions against a Scanners-like incident when/if McDaniels gets BB to counter-sign his mistake into a Patriots uniform.
Wow, that would be a shocker. I can't imagine this offense, geared as it is to a pocket passer, being a fit for Tebow. He would be much better suited to a team that has an injury-prone college style running QB offense in place. Those teams really need backups, and Tebow knows how to play that style.
Yeah, on second thought, probably the only thing worse than reading such stupidity would be to go searching for it.
Initially this GM search was funny...then it became embarrassing...and now, well now I'm actually starting to feel sorry for them.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/15/marc-ross-withdraws-from-jets-g-m-contention/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/15/marc-ross-withdraws-from-jets-g-m-contention/
Can we just stop talking about a backup QB at this point? I mean, it's obvious that he'll never be anything more than a gimmick QB who occasionally squeaks out a diamond. There are so many more interesting things about the Jets at this point; for example, the moles on Rex Ryan's body. Or anything else.
Deal. Let's revert to the starter. New Yorker's effort this week to explain sunk cost to a literate, non-football audience:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2013/01/21/130121ta_talk_surowiecki
The interesting aspect of this to me is not the present problem but the double down on Sanchez last year.
The article suggests, accurately I think, that the problem won't be sorted out until there is a new guy in charge who doesn't carry responsibility for the earlier decision and can look at the situation objectively. The dilemma is shown above. No one you'd really like to have will take the job -- even though it's only 1 of 32 and even though it's in NYC -- primarily because of the Woody/Rex combo.
Everybody gets the logic behind the extension wrong and I'm not quite sure why--it's pretty obvious when you look at the numbers. Of course expecting the New Yorker to get football right is like hoping you'll get good opera criticism from football outsiders.
The extension freed up about $6 million in 2012 cap space. For all of the talk about how they were apologizing to Sanchez for flirting with Manning or what not, the bottom line is they desparately needed to create cap room, and because of all the tricks they'd pulled off over the years restructuring Sanchez's deal was one of the only ways to get the money. They largely pushed what they owed into 2013, didn't take big hits if they cut him 2013, and more or less just locked him in as the QB for 2012 and 2013 but no later. It was a pretty reasonable deal for a returning stater; the only way it wouldn't make sense is if Sanchez was so putrid that you couldn't possibly bring him back for the 2013 season.
Ooops.
I don't think anyone buys the extension as psychological booster shot for Sanchez. Surowieki doesn't go there. Bringing Tebow in destroys that rationale.
You can make sense of everything the Jets have done, at least from Favre on, by ownership's obviously felt need to remain front page in NY -- and sell out the new crib, including, critically, PSLs. That requires, as you note, Danny Snyder's approach of maxing out the salary cap credit card.
But beyond that, I think they believed that they could marry this to the mission of putting together and running a football team. As you note, the money seemed reasonable for an NFL starter. I think they thought that the Sanchez who played well in the postseason was the real Sanchez.
Here's the problem. He might be, but only when surrounded with those players. And there was no way to keep those players, or substitutes for them, consistent with the cap UNLESS ... unless the Jets really hit it out of the park over several years in the draft. They obviously didn't.
I
You can make sense of everything the Jets have done, at least from Favre on, by ownership's obviously felt need to remain front page in NY -- and sell out the new crib, including, critically, PSLs. That requires, as you note, Danny Snyder's approach of maxing out the salary cap credit card.
But beyond that, I think they believed that they could marry this to the mission of putting together and running a football team. As you note, the money seemed reasonable for an NFL starter. I think they thought that the Sanchez who played well in the postseason was the real Sanchez.
Here's the problem. He might be, but only when surrounded with those players. And there was no way to keep those players, or substitutes for them, consistent with the cap UNLESS ... unless the Jets really hit it out of the park over several years in the draft. They obviously didn't.
I