The Tebow Zone
- Thread starter Shelterdog
- Start date
Shelterdog said:
Yeah, I was thinking about that too, especially with the new salary cap. And since Brady's paid almost entirely in bonus, they don't get much relief from cutting him anyway, so there is the possibility that the game has changed and will alter QB salaries. But then again, I don't think it's changed that much since February when Brady signed the new extension... on the other hand, the extension was designed to give cap relief from the previous contract.
Thinking about it, coaches certainly have a strong financial incentive to find a way to run the offense in a way that reduces the importance of the QB; anyone who pulls it off could radically improve their cap flexibility. Interesting thought.
Reverend said:
I don't think teams with awesome QBs should bother with the strategy, my thought process is that if you don't have a franchise QB maybe shuffling through young guys (and running more read option stuff because who really gives a shit if Geno Smith's long-term prospect are diminished because he's getting drilled a lot) may be a more viable option than spend a ton of resources to get Carson Palmer of Matt Schaub or even Joe Flacco.
bakahump said:
Who were both not only NFL caliber but Pro Bowl caliber talents.
One of the reasons that I can't watch college football is because, not growing up on it, it looks too weird to me because there's a few guys on the field who are so much better than everyone else. The game just strikes me as incredibly uneven, and it looks strange to see a guy run out to an open space, turn, stop, catch the ball and then run off on a play that would get a receiver killed in the NFL.
sleepyjose03 said:
simplyeric said:
This experiment is officially crazy if they are doing it for the post-Brady years and keep Tebow on the 53 man roster. I am not one to suggest maximizing the window by trading say future 1sts, but it seems ridiculous to experiment with the real active roster and real actual practice snaps on a scenario we hope doesnt materialize for years.
I also dont understand is what they are learning. They can watch tape on all the various types of read option and pistol offenses that are being played at the moment and get an idea of what they can do, do they really need to simulate it in practices and games to project what we could do with it? Thats like suggesting we sign Jason Piere Paul so we can evaluate if we should draft Jamie Collins so we could simulate exactly what the defense might be like with Collins.
The reasons you describe are certainly rationale reasons for doing this, but they are just so complex and advanced it just seems like a lot of focus is being shifted away from winning Game1 of 2013 and thinking about 35 games from now.
Stitch01 said:
I agree with your last point completely. I think there's a decent chance that BB thinks that if TB were to go down, he'd stand a better chance at winning games with Tebow running the read option or some variant of his Florida offense over asking Ryan Mallett or the other QBs that are available as FAs to try to emulate Tom Brady. I know that our last exposure to a backup QB trying to run the Pats offense was awfully damn successful, but maybe they just don't think the offense can be executed by the mere mortals available. At that point, maybe the Patriots would truly be better off letting Tebow do Tebow things, even if that is a semi drastic (or more) change to the playbook. To counter the points made by others, when viewed through this lens, I don't think BB is searching for a "fungible" QB at all, it may be more of a tacit admission that you can't win in the NFL with a generic QB any more, with Tebow being more of a "at least really good at some things" option that maybe they could build around to win some football games.
And for the record, I am far far far from a Tebow guy and sort of feel like I need to shower after writing this post.
Reverend said:
Agreed. I'm thinking different strategies for haves and have nots with respect to QB. Have a Great QB and less money or a JAG QB and more money. The optimal is a the Brilliant Rookie Contract QB, of course, but winning the lottery is always cool.
It occurs to me to wonder what Brady's cap hit was around 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 seasons... :blink:
bakahump said:
The full quote was he's not accurate and doesn't make quick enough decisions. Don't know what to tell you if you think otherwise. He's a sub 50% passer in his NFL career and he gets sacked a bunch. We've all seen him play.
As for the bolded, BB definitely thinks Tebow can do more to win than Mike Kafka as the third QB. In an emergency, running the read option with the Pats personnel, its certainly possible.
Not sure how its become Brady rules or Tebow rules for anyone, pretty sure there isnt a single person on this board gone down that road.
simplyeric said:
Right, but how much value would have been created if Cassel was taking 50% of the practice snaps? Even when he looked like garbage in the preseason they coached him up to the point that he was adequate. The same way they trust Dante to make chicken salad out of chicken s**t with at least 1 starter a year on the line, they should plan for the backup QB that way too. Basically if it comes down to it, they will find a way to get by but realistically if that happens the rest of the team needs to step up big time if they want to have a deep run
teddykgb said:
While "new style" QBs have certainly had some recent success, I don't think the bolded is supportable. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "generic." If by generic you mean standard style and average, it's always been hard to win with such a guy. If you mean standard style but very good play--especially in the playoffs--then those guys are clearly still having success in the playoffs.
Does everyone remember the evisceration of Denver's Tebow-Lead offense the second time they went up against Belichick's Cast of Misfits defense? Because while I'll grant you not every opponent is led by a Belichickian defensive mind seeing them for a second time, but it was a whalloping.
Reverend said:
I'm not sure it's supportable, either. I just wondering if BB feels this way. By "generic" I guess I mean a relatively simplistic game manager -- Matt Cassel if you'd like. I agree with you completely that it's always been hard to win with a relatively "average" QB, but it's entirely plausible that in today's game BB feels it is even harder than ever, perhaps to the extent that he'd be willing to switch to an entirely different offense mid season if he had to replace his all world QB.
Mallett would still get first crack as backup, although you'd be more likely to see Tebow packages.teddykgb said:
EDIT: Sort of semantics since the Pats lose something like 95% of their current Super Bowl equity for the next few years if Brady goes down anyways. Crazy runs happen, but there's no likely path being a top contender without 12 at the helm.
Reverend said:
I'd say that is a rather inaccurate way to portrait that game. Belichick in both games against the Broncos that year opened with guns blazing offensively because he knew a few key facts about the Broncos that season:
1. John Fox didn't like playing Tim Tebow and didn't have any faith in Tim Tebow.
2. Tim Tebow as a QB works best when the defense has to respect the run at least as much as the pass.
In game 1 he handled Fox like a fool when Fox played for field goals in the first half while Belichick was looking for TDs. As soon as the Broncos tripped up (a fumble by the RB, believe it was Lance Ball) the momentum shifted as the Pats offense started building too much of a lead to field goal your way back from.
In game 2 the Pats came in firing on all cylinders offensively, the Broncos had no one who could cover Hernandez, Gronkowski, or Welker when Brady was on, and a 14 point first quarter followed by a 21 point second quarter had the Broncos forced to pass all game long.
But as many teams found that year, including the Steelers #1 defense that season, Tebow is a dangerous guy when he has the option to run or pass and the offense gives him the right progressions for his passing toolset. His deep ball is every bit as dangerous as his legs, as crazy as that might sound. He's a hot mess from the 10-20 yard range but you have him throwing deep and he can put it in a bucket better than most NFL starters, which is just plain weird. The Steelers didn't respect that and watched their vaunted defense get demolished by Tim Tebow near single handed.
My guess as to why he's on the Patriots: Without Hernandez and with an off-injured Gronkowski red zone production looks shaky at best. Tim Tebow is by far at his best in the red zone. If you have a semi-competent OL and need 3-5 yards there isn't a better human on this earth to get it for you than Tim Tebow running a QB dive up the gut. I think Belichick realizes the value in that and will gladly trade one extra special teamer for someone who can turn 3 into 7 even just a handful of times this year.
He won't be replacing Brady between the 20's, but down in the red zone there are a lot of things he can do that no defense really has a good answer for.
Dick Pole Upside said:
I think that this is an incorrect way to think of the 53rd man on the roster. To follow up on:
wutang112878 said:
In and ideal world where everyone is always healthy and productive, how many players see playing time? 25 starters (including P, K, and LS), plus 2 WR (for 5 WR sets), 1 TE (for 2 TE sets), a 3rd down back, nickel and dime backs, a coverage LB to replace the run stuffer on passing downs, and 1 or 2 rotation DL to keep them fresh, and maybe a return specialist or something. So, around 35 or less. The other ~18 or so are insurance policies. That said, due to the nature of the game, they are insurance policies that you can be almost completely certain that you will use many if not all of.
As positions in the NFL are so specialized, it unwise to just keep the best ~18 players. Rather, they need to cover as many positions as possible. Maybe they keep an extra player at position X instead of a third QB and they never need to call upon him to play important minutes, but they can't know a priori what position will suffer from injuries and/or ineffectiveness. Another way of saying what I'm trying to say is that the "53rd" player kept could turn out to be more important than the "45th" (or whatever) player kept.
Shelterdog said:
Russell Wilson will be paid big $ if he continues to perform, and so will Kap.
I think nobody in a position of decision making authority thinks along these lines. If they did, they would not endure the heartache of finding the next great QB, worrying if he will pan out, paying him more if he does, then worrying about the cap hit of a career ending injury. Teams have been doing this forever. And the economics of doing this have improved with the recent CBA.
If people in the NFL viewed this as a viable model -- "good enough" is good enough to win a championship -- they have been over Alex Smith like locusts. They weren't.
The SB is the holy grail for these people. They look at the record and see that Rex Grossman was the last mediocrity to appear in one (in which his team was devoured by Manning) and Trent Dilfer the last mediocrity to win one, with the aid of an historically great defense before Polian screwed with pass defense rules and recent changes in the name of safety that make QBs immune from punishment routinely dished out when we were all growing up.
That's easy to say after a year where we saw Luck, RGIII, and Wilson enter the league and become above-average QBs year one, but historically that is not the norm or close to it. In 2011 we saw Locker, Ponder, and Gabbert all taken in the top half of the first round. In 2010 the second QB taken was ... Tim Tebow, and he's been better than Jimmy Claussen, (arguably) Colt McCoy, and Mike Kafka, the three guys taken after him. In 2008 the second and third QBs taken were Mark Sanchez and Josh Freeman, both fighting for their jobs - and the fourth QB taken was Pat White, who lost his long ago.Shelterdog said:
If I have a garbage team anyway, I'm rolling the dice on a draft pick, but if I have anything resembling a contender, I'm paying (or overpaying) for the devil I know.
And special teams is a huge factor here. Aside from Gostkowski / Mesko / Aiken, the Pats were typically dressing Bolden, Slater, Ebner, Cole, Rivera, White, Koutouvides, Scott - that's eight more guys who were contributing on the game-day roster week in and week out. EDIT: and just to put a bow on that, between the 35 you mention, plus the 8 special teamers above, plus a backup QB and two backup OL, and there's your 46 game day actives. You might be able to duplicate at points, and you're also going to have injuries week-to-week that force you to juggle, but there isn't a lot of fat on the game-day roster.dbn said:
There is space, though, in the 7 inactives on the 53-man that are not on the 46-man, to carry a developmental prospect or two that you expect to be inactive pretty much the whole year. The Pats did this with Jake Bequette (only active for 3 games) and Markus Zusevics (only active for 1 or 8 games after coming off PUP) last year. Tebow could be a guy like that.
Super Nomario said:
No big disagreement from me: QB is clearly an amazingly important position and you virtually never see a team with even average QB letting the QB go. But the economics have changed (veteran QB salaries up, rookie QB salaries down) to the point where I think it's possible some teams might let their guys go for cheaper alternatives. In particular
* Jay Cutler is a free agent after this season. Would you pay Cutler 5/75 or more?
* Josh Freeman is a free agent after this season. Would you pay Freeman big bucks?
* Dalton and Kaepernick become free agents after 2014 but can't re-sign until after this season. Would you be willing to offer either of them large contracts to avoid the franchise tag, etc. (I probably would with CK but might not with AD).
Ultimately, signing a non-franchise QB to a franchise QB contract is going to kill a team for years, but it's the safe move and that's why teams do it over and over.
The rookie QB salaries are down ... but that really only affects the top few picks in the draft. Andrew Luck makes much much less than Sam Bradford or Matt Stafford did at the same stage of their careers. But in absolute dollars, there's not a huge difference between middle-of-the-first-round picks now and under the old CBA. So teams picking at the top of the draft (i.e., the very worst teams in the NFL) have more incentive to draft a signal-caller, but they did a lot anyway before. Usually you're only picking there if you have lousy QB play anyway.Shelterdog said:
As for your scenarios, I'm probably no on Cutler and Freeman (don't think they or their teams are very good), yes on Kaepernick, with Dalton as the toughie. I don't think he's very good, but that Bengals team is talented. If you ditch Dalton for a new guy, he's probably going to be a downgrade. But can you win with Dalton? And can you keep your team together if you have to pay Dalton market value? That's why the GMs make the big bucks, I guess. I probably would have taken a QB in this year's draft in the later rounds, but instead they loaded up with Eifert and Bernard to try to give Dalton weapons. If he doesn't take a step forward this year, they at least have to consider other options.
Shelterdog said:
This is an interesting idea.
There's one market/salary cap point here that hasn't been explicitly mentioned. That is that rookie salary slotting distorts some positions more than others, and quarterback the most since they're the most highly paid.
So even though a 'quarterback rookie premium' is possible, the rookie slotting may have tilted teams calculations for quarterbacks more than other positions. In the past the Jets may have discounted Geno Smith because of lack-of-focus rumors, and bid for Alex Smith instead. Now the salary difference is so much bigger than before rookie slotting, they might roll the dice on a rookie.
SN: you're right that an experienced high-accuracy good-read quarterback still gives you the best chance to win. Actually, the statement is that a good quarterback still gives you the best chance to win.
But, if you're a team and not clear about who is the best quarterback between the draft and in free agency, Shelterdog is saying here that the rookie slotting has changed the calculation, and tilted it in favor of rookies. Because their salary is so highly suppressed relative to what a veteran QB gets paid.
Super Nomario said:
I don't claim to be a CBA expert, but this article claims that all first-round picks now get 5-year contracts instead of 4 at their rookie salary, which increases first-round QB value.
Checking 2nd rounders -- Again I'm not staking this to the wall, I'm just doing a little skim-the-web research to see if it might be true. Looks like Brees was drafted 2nd rd 32 overall in 2001 (compared to Geno Smith 2nd 39 overall). Brees got 4 years/$3.6M + incentives vs Geno's 4/$5.0M. Given inflation and salary cap expansion, seems like 2nd round QBs aren't doing much better, N=1.
The salary difference between Alex Smith and Geno Smith was huge under the old CBA, too. The dramatic changes are at the top of the first round.crystalline said:
The rookie slotting has dramatically affected the top of the first round. The effect has been much less drastic later in the draft. It has been true for years that if you could replace a mediocre veteran with a second-round pick, you would save a boatload of money. Unfortunately, the bust rate for second-round QBs is probably 70%.crystalline said:
They get five as opposed to the four that second-rounders get; it's not a comparison to the old CBA. You could actually sign players to longer contracts under the old CBA; Matthwe Stafford got a six-year contract under the old CBA.crystalline said:
Thanks for this. This is exactly my point: there's a huge difference between the contracts Luck and Newton got versus Stafford and Bradford. For later in the draft, the difference is pretty small, especially in absolute dollars.crystalline said:
Super Nomario said:
What is Dalton's market value? IIRC, it would take a second application of the franchise tag to any QB (Dalton, Kaepernick, Newton, Wilson, Luck, etc.) to get into Romoville, giving the team leverage for two seasons beyond the expiration of the rookie contract. The changes to the CBA that lowered salaries and terms on rookie contracts also aids the teams in the first years after contract expiration by providing a fluctuating franchise number.
FWIW, I'd be more comfortable giving Dalton an extension than I would have been giving Stafford or Ryan his extension. And yes, I know it's apples and some-very-expensive-fruit-that-isn't-apples because of the CBA/contract issues.
Abysmal -- at least until someone views tape overnight and attempts to rehabilitate his ass tomorrow. Not close to NFL quality. Period.
How do you look that 54th guy in the eye when Tebow is on the roster? And is McDaniels as deluded now as he was 3 years ago? A team needs to have inner integrity -- every player knows who can play and who cannot.
I'm just grateful he didn't dispatch one of our young WRs to IR.
How do you look that 54th guy in the eye when Tebow is on the roster? And is McDaniels as deluded now as he was 3 years ago? A team needs to have inner integrity -- every player knows who can play and who cannot.
I'm just grateful he didn't dispatch one of our young WRs to IR.
The arm strength seemed better than I thought he was capable of, but either the accuracy was really off or the decision to throw was bad. Absolutely brutal.
I'm still not sure why he threw to Dobson (I think it was that one). He was double covered and not remotely open.
I'm still not sure why he threw to Dobson (I think it was that one). He was double covered and not remotely open.
He looked absolutely abysmal against Tampa's 75th string defense tonight. His Patriots release should be faster than his actual release.
soxfan121 said:
soxfan121 said:
soxfan121 said:
soxfan121 said:
soxfan121 said:
soxfan121 said:
soxfan121 said:
soxfan121 said:
That's the sound of me having a full release.
I mean, I was working tonight and one of the TVs had on the game. I would look away for two minutes while the Pats were on offense only to see Tampa's offense on the field. Again and again.
What a difference of two QB's last night. Mallet looked about as good as one can expect a back-up QB to look and Tebow looked like an emergency 3rd QB who didn't know the play book thrust into action.
I'm fairly confident Julian Edelman can give you the same level of QB play at this point that Tebow can. No reason to continue the media circus and waste the roster spot.
Free the Tebow
I'm fairly confident Julian Edelman can give you the same level of QB play at this point that Tebow can. No reason to continue the media circus and waste the roster spot.
Free the Tebow
The thing that strikes me the most about Tebow in addition to the fact that he cannot throw is that it appears as if the game is happening too fast for him. Given that he was out there against Tampa's scrubs that is kind of a huge issue.
Ralphwiggum said:
Check this article out: http://smartfootball.com/quarterbacking/tim-tebows-last-chance
"So the issue is not that Tebow “can’t throw,” though clearly the tightness of his mechanics and his overall accuracy need continuous improvement. But Tebow’s problem has instead been his ability to calmly but efficiently go through his progression. Of course, while Tebow might technically have a stronger arm than Tom Brady, the reason Brady is a Hall of Fame quarterback is precisely because his greatest skill is Tebow’s greatest weakness. If there’s an open receiver, Brady will find him and put the ball where it needs to be, whereas Tebow far too often is stuck watching his first receiver or “drifting and scanning”: just shuffling and reshuffling while waiting for a receiver to “come open.”
It was beyond frustrating seeing Tebow out there last night, because he was so bad, and so much of a distraction, that you lost a chance to evaluate the other players. Which is the whole point of preseason football.
I really want to know what the young receivers have to offer... But impossible to tell when the team get practically no first downs, is on and off the field so quickly, and what balls are intended for receivers aren't remotely catchable half the time. His incompetence also left few running opportunities aside from 1st and 10 (one of which Bolden didn't let slip by). And the "Tebow package" of designed QB runs is a total diversion...not plays the Pats will be running in season.
Having only 3 QBs in camp strikes me as a bad mistake now, as one of them is unqualified, and 2's not enough for a training camp
I really want to know what the young receivers have to offer... But impossible to tell when the team get practically no first downs, is on and off the field so quickly, and what balls are intended for receivers aren't remotely catchable half the time. His incompetence also left few running opportunities aside from 1st and 10 (one of which Bolden didn't let slip by). And the "Tebow package" of designed QB runs is a total diversion...not plays the Pats will be running in season.
Having only 3 QBs in camp strikes me as a bad mistake now, as one of them is unqualified, and 2's not enough for a training camp
I'd start a poll but I can't on my phone:
Remainder of preseason?
-Tebow as QB
-Tebow as other. (RB, TE, gimmick, ST$
-Tebow doesn't see field
-Tebow cut.
At start of season?
-Tebow as backup QB.
-Tebow as other
-Tebow IR'd or something
-Tebow cut and later signed in Canada.
-Tebow cut, signed elsewhere.
-Tebow cut and picked up by ESPN.
-Tebow cut and never heard from again (in football terms)
-Tebow runs for office, is speaker of the house in 2030.
Remainder of preseason?
-Tebow as QB
-Tebow as other. (RB, TE, gimmick, ST$
-Tebow doesn't see field
-Tebow cut.
At start of season?
-Tebow as backup QB.
-Tebow as other
-Tebow IR'd or something
-Tebow cut and later signed in Canada.
-Tebow cut, signed elsewhere.
-Tebow cut and picked up by ESPN.
-Tebow cut and never heard from again (in football terms)
-Tebow runs for office, is speaker of the house in 2030.
dcmissle said:
Other than it's customary is there another reason that Mallett couldn't play most/all of Game 4 if they're going to cut Tebow anyway? It seems to me like the lack of live playing time is one of Mallett's big problems and he starts to settle down and play better once he gets over initial rust/jitters/whatever.
Do teams just not want to take a chance at losing their back-up QB right before the season?
You could kill the thread...CaptainLaddie said:
But it would just come back to life three days from now.
