Bleedin Green Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Tebow won games for his team as Sanchez ran into the ass of his guard. Tebow came in and replace the starting QB and went to the playoffs. Silly of you to even try and insinuate that. While on a different team during a different season, Tebow was part of an 8-8 team that backed into the playoffs while on a 3-game losing streak, including a 7-3 loss to a league-worst Chiefs team that won one other game the entire season, in the league's weakest division and was mediocre (at best) on offense during his time under center. If that's such an impressive accomplishment, then Sanchez's contributions to the Jets' 11-5 season in 2010 would still have to be considered even better, particularly considering the respective postseason accomplishments, which includes the Jets beating the same Patriots team that thoroughly embarrassed Tebow with their league-worst defense in his last NFL start. Let's be clear, I think Sanchez is absolutely horrendously awful and hated him as Jets' QB, but if you want to use past accomplishments as the measuring stick, Sanchez still wins out. If you want to take the more reasonable approach of allowing a player's actual 2012 performance affect his standing with his team in 2012, then all accounts suggest he was viewed as the 3rd best QB on this team, even in spite of Sanchez's awful play, by the coaches who watched him on a weekly basis for 8 months prior to any QB changes being made. Again, you may feel the Jets should have started him and that's you're prerogative, but I'm still not seeing anything that supports this notion of the Jets in any way screwing over or betraying Tebow. Whether you agree with it or not, the Jets coaches clearly felt he simply wasn't good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Okay, they stuck with Sanchez too long. In his first 3 years he had two AFC championship games and .500 season, so they stuck with him hoping he'd come around. Tebow was brought in to run the wildcat and be the #2. The wildcat did not work all season. As a result, by the time the coach was willing to admit that Sanchez needed to be replaced, Tebow himself had shown himself to be unproductive in the role they had given him so they went with the other guy. McElroy looked pretty good too at the end of the Jacksonville game. They hoped that game would wake up Sanchez so they started Sanchez the next game, with bad results. So the next game they started McElroy, who looked good 2 weeks before. He turned out to be a disaster in that game. However, when the Jets decided to start McElroy, Tebow said that he no longer wanted to run the wildcat, and that he did not want to play for the Jets next year. So when McElroy bombed they gave the last game of the season to Sanchez. Tebow basically took himself out of the running for that last game. Looking back, you could say the Jets stuck with Sanchez too long and Tebow should have been given a chance at some point. But Tebow's own non performance in his role made the Jets look to the third guy when they finally decided-too late in retrospect-to bench Sanchez. And by the time McElroy turned out not to work, (two games), the season was about over. You want to call it a royal screwing-okay. To me it just looks like a case of somebody not working out for an offense that had a lot of problems all over the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Outperformed? Sanchez was the worst in the league dude. McElroy was not any better. Worse Tebow could have done is be just as bad. The Seahawks example is stupid. Nobody outperformed crap. If we had a QB take us to the playoffs I would not be having this conversation. Everyone of our QB's sucked. Why not give him a shot? Yeah our staff could really evaluate talent in practice enough to make a good choice who would do best in the game. Sanchez was practically begging to be pulled by the end of the season. Actually, it could be argued McElroy did play better than Sanchez considering he came back and rallied the Jets to a victory in a game that Sanchez had sucked it up the entire time. Your comment to slats is complete revisionist history, as McElroy was never benched for Sanchez, rather he was out with injury which is what led to the Jets' bringing Sanchez back in. Either way, it's clear the Jets felt McElroy outperformed Tebow in practice and thus he earned the opportunity to start, not Tebow. That is a far more fair of a means of determining a starter than some roster transaction made 8 months earlier for a backup player. Obviously you think the Jets should have given Tebow his chance, but the coaches clearly didn't think he deserved it and I'm not sure how that leads to them screwing him over, which is the entire argument being made. The Seahawks example absolutely qualifies because of the claims that the Jets owed it Tebow to start him simply because they traded for him, which is ridiculous. This entire argument is about people who wanted to see Tebow play, and so are trying to villainze the Jets because they're upset that it didn't happen. Disagree with the Jets' decisions as much as you like, but that does nothing to support these conspiracy theories about the Jets' purposefully not doing what they felt was best for their team because they were plotting against Tebow. Keep in mind, I don't expect to sway your opinion regarding what you wanted to see the Jets do, I'm simply pointing out that that doesn't mean they in any way screwed Tebow. I have yet to see an argument that shows that they did. If you don't see that than so be it, we'll just leave it as is at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 While on a different team during a different season, Tebow was part of an 8-8 team that backed into the playoffs while on a 3-game losing streak, including a 7-3 loss to a league-worst Chiefs team that won one other game the entire season, in the league's weakest division and was mediocre (at best) on offense during his time under center. If that's such an impressive accomplishment, then Sanchez's contributions to the Jets' 11-5 season in 2010 would still have to be considered even better, particularly considering the respective postseason accomplishments, which includes the Jets beating the same Patriots team that thoroughly embarrassed Tebow with their league-worst defense in his last NFL start. Let's be clear, I think Sanchez is absolutely horrendously awful and hated him as Jets' QB, but if you want to use past accomplishments as the measuring stick, Sanchez still wins out. If you want to take the more reasonable approach of allowing a player's actual 2012 performance affect his standing with his team in 2012, then all accounts suggest he was viewed as the 3rd best QB on this team, even in spite of Sanchez's awful play, by the coaches who watched him on a weekly basis for 8 months prior to any QB changes being made. Again, you may feel the Jets should have started him and that's you're prerogative, but I'm still not seeing anything that supports this notion of the Jets in any way screwing over or betraying Tebow. Whether you agree with it or not, the Jets coaches clearly felt he simply wasn't good enough. Jets coaching staff from last year < Crusher. You know it, I know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleedin Green Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Jets coaching staff from last year < Crusher. You know it, I know it. True, at least on offense, but that's not particularly saying much (or anything, really). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Actually, it could be argued McElroy did play better than Sanchez considering he came back and rallied the Jets to a victory in a game that Sanchez had sucked it up the entire time. Your comment to slats is complete revisionist history, as McElroy was never benched for Sanchez, rather he was out with injury which is what led to the Jets' bringing Sanchez back in. Either way, it's clear the Jets felt McElroy outperformed Tebow in practice and thus he earned the opportunity to start, not Tebow. That is a far more fair of a means of determining a starter than some roster transaction made 8 months earlier for a backup player. Obviously you think the Jets should have given Tebow his chance, but the coaches clearly didn't think he deserved it and I'm not sure how that leads to them screwing him over, which is the entire argument being made. The Seahawks example absolutely qualifies because of the claims that the Jets owed it Tebow to start him simply because they traded for him, which is ridiculous. This entire argument is about people who wanted to see Tebow play, and so are trying to villainze the Jets because they're upset that it didn't happen. Disagree with the Jets' decisions as much as you like, but that does nothing to support these conspiracy theories about the Jets' purposefully not doing what they felt was best for their team because they were plotting against Tebow. Keep in mind, I don't expect to sway your opinion regarding what you wanted to see the Jets do, I'm simply pointing out that that doesn't mean they in any way screwed Tebow. I have yet to see an argument that shows that they did. If you don't see that than so be it, we'll just leave it as is at this point. If the Jets were winning this is not an argument in the least. Tebow should NOT have played because the Jets brought him in. If I made that seem like my point I apologize. Tebow should have played because Sanchez sucked and whatever reason McElroy did not stay as a starter. Seattle continued to play the guy that won them games. The Jets continued to play the guy that ran into his linemans ass. I don;t see how it relates. If Wilson sucked balls like Sanchez I would guess they take a different approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 True, at least on offense, but that's not particularly saying much (or anything, really). Small victories are still victories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 Jets coaching staff from last year < Crusher. You know it, I know it. In terms of gravitational pull, nothing > Crusher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 If I'm being honest, I'm willing to go so far as to say the Jets were scared to start Tebow at the end of the year for fear he'd play better than expected and they'd look like idiots for not playing him sooner. Such a thing would've really muddled the QB situation this year, and made it much more difficult for them to get rid of a QB that they did not want to design their offense around. There, I said it. That being said, we're talking about a guy who might be competing for a backup job in the CFL this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsjetsjetss Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 the problem with us not starting tebow or even giving him a half a game is this sanchez sucked ----- mcelroy sucked ----- tebow? idk he completed 6 of 8 passes. idk if he sucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stugotz81 Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 So are you suggesting that the Jets should've given him more chances because of his name recognition? Or just that it's okay that it's a bigger deal because of his name recognition? Because I'll grant you the second point. Tebow's congregation wants Tebow news 24/7, and the media is happy to comply. But I don't see that same name recognition as a reason to start him at QB if he's performing worse than Greg McElroy in practice. The conversation around Tebow now is about whether or not he'll get another shot in the NFL. That's the guy the Jets should've started at the end of the year? I think there are probably enough reasons not to play him without getting into conspiracy theories. I couldn't agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusher Posted May 1, 2013 Share Posted May 1, 2013 In terms of gravitational pull, nothing > Crusher. That is a CTM quality Crusher post. Thank you. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.