Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

Tebow isn't ready

Posted on: October 11, 2011 10:17 am
Edited on: October 11, 2011 11:06 am
 
This isn't about Tim Tebow hate, as the myriad of unreasonable Tebow supporters will say. This isn't about Gator hate, either. Or about Tebow's faith. Or any of the other ridiculous excuses Tebow supporters predictably trot out.

This is about facts: Tim Tebow isn't an NFL quarterback. Not yet, at least, and if he starts this week -- and I've spoken to a source on the team who confirmed the coaching staff has informed players on the Broncos it will likely be Tebow -- it will be officially the beginning of the end of Tebow.

Tebow is one of the most unprepared quarterbacks for this moment I've ever seen and the Broncos will be doing him a great disservice simply because he doesn't have the tools to play the position. I'm not saying he'll never have them but he doesn't now. Not even close.

Throw Tebow out there as a starter at this moment and disaster awaits.

The biggest problem is how John Fox and the organization totally caved to fan pressure. That is never a good sign for a coaching regime.

Again, this isn't personal, as so many of his supporters always claim. It's just the way it is.

Tim Tebow plays hard. Well, hell, all players in the NFL play hard. But nothing can fix what will be the main problem for Tebow and that's throwing accuracy. An NFL offense doesn't exist on bootlegs alone.

Good luck to Tebow.

He's gonna' need it.
Category: NFL
Tags: Broncos
 
Comments

Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: October 23, 2011 3:11 am
 

Tebow isn't ready

Your first statements is accurate.  Your second comment is a fair a legitimate opinion.  Your comment about Quinn is a semi-relevant.

If you are Fox are you really going to throw Quinn out there?  He's legimately up to par with Orton but again...is he going to give you anything more than Orton provides...probabaly not.   You answered that with your first question...Orton's deficiencies are outlined by his situation...a poor set of recievers and weak running game. Quinn is the same guy with less experience a little better but without the pocket presence.
Tebow is a completely different dynamic.   No telling whether it will work...the guy could be a complete bust...but he could also be a shock to the offense.

As to the Evangelical argument...it's fair comment-- you're basically asking why Tebow gets so much more backing from Evangelical type people-- I think the answer is that Tebow is as genuine as they come--whether you like Religion or not...Tebow is a great example of someone who is true and genuine and I think that's why he gets so much support.  There are countless example of relegious hypocrites...countless.  But Tebow lives it.  I don't care what your thoughts are on relgion, it's hard to argue that he's not an amazing person, leader and etc.  He embodies what we should all strive to be as a person.  PS===I write this drunk as a skunk so I am not trying to act as some definition of perfection.

That is simply why people stand up for him and want him to succeed. I cant see how anyone can truly route against a guy treats life the way he treats it.  I wish Kyle Orton well...bad situation and he will step up elsewhere.



Since: Oct 22, 2011
Posted on: October 22, 2011 10:40 pm
 

What happened to Brady Quinn?

It doesn't make any sense to start Orton anymore.  His weaknesses (primarily poor mobility) are amplified by the lack of both a running game and an elite corps of receivers.

And, regardless of whether or not San Diego played soft defense, the most exciting 30 minutes of Bronco's football this season were in the second-half of the last game.  And while I don't care for what I perceive to be the primacy of Evangelical Christianity in driving many people to lobby for Tebow, at least he can get outside the pocket and provide time for defensive schemes to break down.

What I do find curious, though, is the absence of Quinn in this debate.  He was second on the depth chart.  Shouldn't he get a shot before Tebow?  (Interestingly, Quinn is also deeply religious and is reported to include Biblical quotes along side his autograph…but he's not as public about his faith as Tebow.)

 





Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: October 18, 2011 11:10 pm
 

Tebow isn't ready

You became a lot more rational as this went on.  Cheers to the debate.  Have a good one.



Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: October 18, 2011 9:06 pm
 

Tebow isn't ready

But the topics and misinformed persons that you select clearly highlight your bias.
I think you're forgetting where we are. Sports fans (in particular, football fans who come here to post) are notoriously right of center. I don't rip these people because they are conservative; I rip them because they are pretty much all there is here. It's a numbers game here at CBSSports. You should have seen how I was greeted at DailyKos. That was fun.
If you can show me a position you've taken where you've defended somebody held in high esteem by people who are right of center, I'll admit defeat and just shut up.
Again, I point to where we are. Nearly every player in the NFL is someone held in high esteem by people right of center, so it's pretty much pick your guy.

But here's an example from a while ago (and the one that specifically targeted people on the left): Reggie White made numerous public statements denouncing homosexuality, and the left did pretty much what the right does every time a celebrity speaks on an issue - namely, loudly proclaim that celbrities should shut their pie-holes. I pointed out that Reggie White is still a citizen of the United States of America whether or not he's famous, and as such, he gets exercise his right to free speech. Was he to be sheltered from backlash? No. But he has the right to say it, at least, and I ripped the lefties a new one for the hypocrisy of railing on the right for their anti-Hollywood bent and then doing the very same thing to Reggie White.

Same goes for Tebow's Super Bowl ad. Personally, I thought it was just as stupid as 99% of all advertisements. But he had every right to do it, and I'll gladly shred anyone - left or right - who says otherwise. Come to think of it, I did.



Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: October 17, 2011 10:30 am
 

Tebow isn't ready

"It hardly takes bias or an agenda to amuse myself with the hilariously misinformed."  This is absolutely one hundred percent accurate and the entire reason people like you and I come on these boards to debate.

But the topics and misinformed persons that you select clearly highlight your bias.  You're correct, I haven't looked through your entire body of work on CBS and I don't plan to- but what I have seen is an obvious intent to select a certain type of argument only.  A great example would be Michael Vick who you also chose to defend. 

Is it shoehorning?  Yes probably, but any objective person knows that these are all individuals defended or criticized by people who are left of center.  You've essentially already admitted that you're left of center...and that's cool, because I've clearly indicated that I'm leaning right.

That being said, an objective person should be able to to expand beyond left or right ideology and defend a position by the argument and not simply by the individual involved in the argument.  For instance, I've defended Michael Vick as well.  I believe he's paid his dues, taken responsibility and stood up like a man.  The fact that the vast majority of his supporters lean left of center does nothing to detract from my opinions or ability to be objective on the subject

Basically what I'm doing is holding you to a higher standard than the average poster and I'm also asking you to simply stipulate to the obvious.  If as you say you are simply attacking the "hilariously misinformed" can you not see that the "hilariously misinformed" are present on a wide scale basis? 

If you can show me a position you've taken where you've defended somebody held in high esteem by people who are right of center, I'll admit defeat and just shut up.




Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: October 17, 2011 1:17 am
 

Tebow isn't ready

It is so funny to see that whenever there is an article about Tebow, lotsumaglite is nearby to conduct his drive-bys.
Happy to amuse, as long as you continue with the even more hilarious demand that anyone who doesn't think putting Tebow in this early is a good idea "hates" him. Your comment reeks* of your usual hypocrisy.

*Note the word usage for future reference. I'm also always happy to help people use the right words. I'm sure I do that out of hate, too.



Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: October 17, 2011 1:08 am
 

Tebow isn't ready

However, if you have a plethora of evidence suggesting bias toward people who essentially qualify as conservative mouthpieces such as Hank Williams Jr or Tim Tebow (Countless statements on record via your CBS profile), I believe it's at least fair to assess that your arguments are going to be slanted in one direction against these people or anyone who argues for these people.  In fact, I don't necessarily think your bias centers around Tebow in this instance, but is more of an ardent desire to disprove the type of people that support him.
LOL "ardent desire". It hardly takes bias or an agenda to amuse myself with the hilariously misinformed. Seriously, did you read some of the ludicrous "free speech" claims by some of Hank Williams Jr's fans? It's not my fault if he has a ton of fans who don't undertand the 1st Amendment. Nor do I need a calling to point out the many flaws with the Denver Broncos that have nothing to do with who is behind center, and why blaming one person is just foolish.

The only "fair" prediction to make about my comments is that they are going to be in favor of either the facts or what the evidence most suggests.

Let me ask you this.  If you aren't biased as you say and are simply an objective person, than why spend so much time on the Tebow/Orton issue?  Obviously there are countless stories to follow, much much more compelling than this issue in itself.  What draws you to the Tebow argument so frequently anyways? Based on your posts, you've clearly spent a lot of time enthralled with this debate.
How does my interest in the QB situation in Denver (which predates Tebow, by the way) indicate "bias"? Again, amusing myself for twenty minutes every other day or so by arguing with people who think that one person can be blamed for an entire team's woes is not quite enthrallment.

I think Kyle Orton is a good QB on a bad team, and I say so. This has proved to be an unacceptable to a lot of people. It's not enough to be disappointed with Denver's performance, or - in this case - to be a Tebow fan, for some. No, Orton needs to be vilified. I argue against that. Pretty simple, there. As for Tebow, I have the temerity to suggest that he's what all the scouts said he was: a project who will need time to make good on his potential. This has also proved to be unacceptable to a lot of people. Thus, the many comments. When those comments are particularly vicious, stupid, or filled with things that aren't true, I'm not always nice about it. I'm hardly alone in this.

I guess if you want to focus on the fraction of comments I've made on the subjects of Tebow/Orton and HWJ and call them "countless", that's your business. I get interested in a topic, I talk about it. Then I move on, unless it comes up again. You obviously didn't read far into my history, to come to the conclusion that the Tebow/Orton situation is anything more than a passing interest. I have had long chains of arguments on a lot of subjects. Often, I get into arguments that have spread out from football and included the rest-of-the-world implications of the topic (this was particularly true during the lockout).

I suppose I understand your attempt to shoehorn me into the role of the "Tebow hater" or the "liberal"; it's clearly the way you want to see me. But you'll just have to forgive me if I don't take up the yoke willingly.



Since: Sep 7, 2006
Posted on: October 16, 2011 10:25 pm
 

Tebow isn't ready

We can argue the intricasies of the Logical Fallacies for days.  Clearly what you've done with my arguments is to pay great attention to many trivial points instead of just focusing on the meat.  You've also taken statements out of context by cutting out a portion of the statements that I've made and diluted the arguments. 

Second of all, let me explain why it's completely fair to assume your inherent bias.  You'r right, simply attacking the credibility of a source doesn't automatically invalidate the merits of the source's claims....and doing so CAN be an exercise in logical fallacy....  However, if you have a plethora of evidence suggesting bias toward people who essentially qualify as conservative mouthpieces such as Hank Williams Jr or Tim Tebow (Countless statements on record via your CBS profile), I believe it's at least fair to assess that your arguments are going to be slanted in one direction against these people or anyone who argues for these people.  In fact, I don't necessarily think your bias centers around Tebow in this instance, but is more of an ardent desire to disprove the type of people that support him.

Now, is it absolutely possible to knitpick that statement? Absolutely. Obviously we haven't unequivocally established your bias and simply because you went on a tangent about conservatives and then skewered two people who are held in high esteem by the conservative establishment, it does not mean that your opinions are slanted.  Next, as you've stated, you can easily argue that you haven't actually skewered Tim Tebow, are not a Tebow hater and are simply objective person forming a reasonable assessment.  That's fine.

Let me ask you this.  If you aren't biased as you say and are simply an objective person, than why spend so much time on the Tebow/Orton issue?  Obviously there are countless stories to follow, much much more compelling than this issue in itself.  What draws you to the Tebow argument so frequently anyways? Based on your posts, you've clearly spent a lot of time enthralled with this debate.

Normally when I work with the opposing side, they're willing to stipulate on obvious facts so we don't end up debating minor nuances for days.  It would have been easy for you to just say up front-Yes I have some bias here, and that would have just been laid to bed without further discussion. Your bias in no way invalidates the bulk of your commentary (which is actually based on relatively sound logic) however, it would be unrealistic to ignore it completely.



Since: Jun 12, 2009
Posted on: October 16, 2011 9:55 pm
 

Tebow isn't ready

It is so funny to see that whenever there is an article about Tebow, lotsumaglite is nearby to conduct his drive-bys.  His comments wreak of jealousy.  What has Tebow done to make lotusmaglite hate him so much?  Steal his lunch money in school?  Steal his girlfriend?  I am not quite sure.  It is really quite funny.  Still praying for you lotus.



Since: Feb 25, 2009
Posted on: October 16, 2011 8:32 pm
 

Tebow isn't ready

As to your scathing rebuttal and insistence that I've committed numerous Strawman Fallacies, I guess I'll have to ask you to take a closer look at that.

A Strawman fallacy can't be committed unless the writer or responder deviates from the original question.

I can admit and I recognize that I have played my part in twisting the argument in multiple unrelated directions...but so have you.
Yes, I've thrown tangents out there that didn't belong. I figured that since it was your first response to my answering your two basic questions, we weren't going to have anything like a logical argument, anyway. You asked the questions; I answered them, and then you attacked the methodology and genesis of the answer rather than it's content. I defended the source(s) of my impressions, and the train left the rails. Ta-da. We are both aware of the army of straw men marching around. Ad hominem tu quoque; that I've made straw man arguments subsequent to yours doesn't excuse the straw man arguments you've made.

There's no reason to be uncivil.  Your responses are absolutely scathing to the point where the ad hominem attacks trump the actual point that you're trying to make.  I admit my little liberal comment was a low blow, but you don't see me endlessly insulting your intelligence simply because you hold an opposing viewpoint.  Good god man.
And I maintain that adding a "sir" to the end of your "eff you" does nothing to diminish the "eff you". Right out of the box, you blanketed all the critics as "haters", dismissing them out of hand in a textbook case of argumentum ad hominem. Again, more tu quoque excusing of your own offenses. I freely admit I've been rather savage in my replies, and I've done it deliberately. This business of pretending to take the high road while calling people "Tebow haters" and the rebranded epithet "Liberal" is something I find no end of hypocritical, galling, and offensive. I'm well aware that I'm fighting fire with napalm, thank you, and I will continue to do so for as long as you pretend that you've been the model of civility while pointing the finger at others.

Or are we now going to further devolve by arguing the severity of the ad hominem attacks?

And now onto the meat:
My argument again, is despite his deficincies and despite the fact that he fits no mold whatsoever, it is extremely low risk to insert him in the lineup at this time. 
And my argument in response is that the risk is to Tebow himself. I do not disagree that the Broncos are taking no great risks; they're a terrible team who will remain terrible no matter who is in at QB. However, they put Tebow at risk by putting him in before he's ready. You insist that standard measurements of readiness don't apply to Tebow. I disagree. Tebow is not special. He's a mobile quarterback, not some new life form who defies description and demands a whole new system of measurement. The standard ones will do just fine for Tim Tebow, and by those measurements, I maintain that the Broncos are going to hurt rather than help Tebow with this move, for the reasons I've listed repeatedly in other posts.

I do think that your assessment of him is extremely biased and I don't think you'll admit if you end up being wrong about his skills and ability to be an NFL quarterback.
Argumentum ad hominem. Appeal to the man. My arguments are baseless because I'm "biased" (i.e. I am incapable of addressing the issue on it's merits alone), and I don't have the integrity to admit when I'm wrong. This is what you are saying. And you complain that I've attacked you personally. Do you understand yet why I've been "uncivil"?

As for the accusations themselves, they are wrong, of course. Every argument I've made has actually been in Tebow's interest, but because they are against playing him now, they are labeled as "hate" and "bias". I've maintained all along that being thrust into the role before he's ready can damage Tebow. Other than repeatedly insisting that your ad hominem attacks are true, do you have some evidence to support this idea that I'm "biased" (hint: criticism isn't "hate")?

And then there is the attack on my integrity, which is simple ignorance. When the Green Bay Packers traded up into the first round again to take Clay Matthews, I said that they'd just overpaid severely for an AJ Hawk clone: a high-character, high-motor guy with limited ability. I said that they'd just spent a first round pick on a third-round talent, a solid-but-unspectacular role-player who won't embarrass himself, but will do little else. I've been eating crow ever since. Matthews has proved to be a steal, a one-man wrecking crew. Do I sense some projection, here?


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com