|
I'm just happy someone read my half assed Tebow effort post! I really hope he blows up in New York so I can be on the side of thinking it's hilarious and appreciating the insanity rather than hating every second of it because he was doing it for the Broncos.
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
Tebow is also not really "only above average" as an athlete. He's not the fastest QB in the NFL (Vick, Cam, and likely Luck and RG3 are faster (and if Pryor ever takes a snap he'll be faster as well), and Vince Young is only a touch slower), but he's also much more solidly built than most scrambling QBs. He's not just fast, he's big and fast, so converting short yardage situations isn't a problem. He'd be quite a prospect as an H-Back.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:Don't think this part is entirely true. It's not difficult at all for a team using a zone running attack to convert to a zone read based spread option (or from a spread option back to a conventional offense with a zone run game), and the personnel isn't very different. Hell, I think the Broncos pulled it off in two weeks. But what happens when Ray Lewis blows him up and you are not only out your starting QB, but also a huge part of your payroll? Yes you can install option offenses in the NFL, but owners and GM's don't like it since it exposes their QB and thus their most expensive/valuable player to a shitload of more hits then sitting in the pockets.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
drunk leprechaun posted:But what happens when Ray Lewis blows him up and you are not only out your starting QB, but also a huge part of your payroll? Yes you can install option offenses in the NFL, but owners and GM's don't like it since it exposes their QB and thus their most expensive/valuable player to a shitload of more hits then sitting in the pockets. Tim Tebow is about the twentieth highest paid player on the Jets all things considered (and I'd imagine was similarly situated on the Broncos), under contract for three more years at a little under $6m total.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
drunk leprechaun posted:But what happens when Ray Lewis blows him up and you are not only out your starting QB, but also a huge part of your payroll? Yes you can install option offenses in the NFL, but owners and GM's don't like it since it exposes their QB and thus their most expensive/valuable player to a shitload of more hits then sitting in the pockets. This touches on why I don't think an option-centered offense is practical in the NFL. Not only is your QB taking all the punishment that a RB would (and that's a historically short-lived position anyway), but he also takes all the blindside sacks and pocket hits that a QB traditionally takes. The LBs and Ss are just too fast, too strong, and typically too smart in the NFL to run the option as a base offense. As a gimmick or something deep in the red zone, I can see that. It just can't be an every-down offense in this era. The more cynical part of me thinks the Jets signed Tebow to be a media lightning rod as much as anything he could contribute on the field.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:24
|
|
|
Declan summed it up, really. Tebow is an H-back that's been playing quarterback. I think he's talented and versatile enough to be useful in the NFL for some years... if you can get around the ever-present nuisance of legions of fans and media who want him to play quarterback. I think you *can* run an option-style offense in the NFL and sort of get away with it for a little while if you have to. But I have a hard time coming up with any good argument for going out of your way to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2012 14:34
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Declan summed it up, really. Tebow is an H-back that's been playing quarterback. I think he's talented and versatile enough to be useful in the NFL for some years... if you can get around the ever-present nuisance of legions of fans and media who want him to play quarterback. I've heard people say speed is the reason the option won't work in the NFL since DBs and LBs can close on the ball so much quicker than college, but doesn't the speed of an NFL offense in comparison to a college offense compensate for that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Cole posted:I've heard people say speed is the reason the option won't work in the NFL since DBs and LBs can close on the ball so much quicker than college, but doesn't the speed of an NFL offense in comparison to a college offense compensate for that? not compared to how much worse NCAA defenses are, and how much less risk there is against one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Cole posted:I've heard people say speed is the reason the option won't work in the NFL since DBs and LBs can close on the ball so much quicker than college, but doesn't the speed of an NFL offense in comparison to a college offense compensate for that? It isn't just speed though. Its the discipline of the defense. If the man assign the the pith takes his man and the man assigned to the QB takes his, the option doesn't do much, especially since the speeds are going to be about the same. Still, if you want to imagine the speed argument, think of a peewee football game. Everyone on the field is 10 years old. Now imagine both the offense and defense gets a 13 year old who is bigger and faster. The biggest threat to take down the 13 year old is the other 13 year old. When one has the ball, he only really needs to account for the other to make a big play. That is what college football is like. Now in the NFL, everyone is 13 and you occasionally have a 14 year old in the bunch (named Megatron).
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
Cole posted:I've heard people say speed is the reason the option won't work in the NFL since DBs and LBs can close on the ball so much quicker than college, but doesn't the speed of an NFL offense in comparison to a college offense compensate for that? Not nearly enough. The ball can only be snapped so fast; the QB can only get the mesh with the FB done so quickly (he's got to have some time to make the read); the RB has to stay at the QB's speed to stay in pitch relationship. This I think is partly why zone-read is catching on as a wrinkle far more than veer has; you can get the ball moving to the point of attack far quicker.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2012 12:59
|
|
|
The NHL draft made me remember a question I had a couple weeks ago: Is there anything against an NFL drafting the rights to a high school player? I know there is the "3 year removed from high school" rule, but besides being stupid and a waste of a pick, is there a reason a team couldn't do that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 13:52
|
|
|
Hockles posted:The NHL draft made me remember a question I had a couple weeks ago: Yeah it's not allowed. e - you have to declare for the draft to be eligible and you have to be three years out of high school to declare for the draft. ee - also as I recall if you get drafted by a team but don't sign with them you can re-enter the draft the next year and the first team has no rights over you, a la Bo Jackson bigfoot again fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 14:07
|
|
|
How does the waiver wire process work exactly? I get that the order is determined by the previous draft order throughout the pre-season (so Indy is first on the list), but does that change once the regular season starts? Also, how long does a team have to submit a waiver on a guy once he's released? And does claiming a guy off waivers move a team to the bottom of the list? I imagine that the waiver wire gets pretty busy when teams have to downsize their rosters during the pre-season, so how do teams keep track of which guys are available and where they stand on the list? Finally, since New England lost in the Super Bowl I assume they're 31st on the list. So they were the only team to submit a waiver on Jake Ballard?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
I think it's set by last year's record. Not sure. But I know for sure that you're don't go to the back of the line after you claim somebody. Whatever your spot is, that's your spot. And I think you get 48 hours to claim somebody, and if nobody does the guy's a free agent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
I've generally been more of a college fan than pro, but I'm going to make a solid effort this year to follow the NFL more closely. Especially the Broncos. Any Denver fans around that know good boards and/or resources? Same for the Bengals, who have been my favorite team since I was little, thanks to my dad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
WeWereSchizo posted:I've generally been more of a college fan than pro, but I'm going to make a solid effort this year to follow the NFL more closely. Especially the Broncos. Any Denver fans around that know good boards and/or resources? Same for the Bengals, who have been my favorite team since I was little, thanks to my dad. Every other NFL board is terrible, no hope, no info, nose in the playbook, die alone
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
I follow several Broncos/general Denver news people on Twitter. THey're all pretty terrible
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
Rap posted:I follow several Broncos/general Denver news people on Twitter. THey're all pretty terrible Cecil Lammey is ok. He's a fantasy guy but he does cover denver properly and doesn't tend to make poo poo up
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2012 00:01
|
|
|
WeWereSchizo posted:I've generally been more of a college fan than pro, but I'm going to make a solid effort this year to follow the NFL more closely. Especially the Broncos. Any Denver fans around that know good boards and/or resources? Same for the Bengals, who have been my favorite team since I was little, thanks to my dad. I use this for the Bengals. http://www.cincyjungle.com/ The official board is terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2012 16:27
|
|
|
skaboomizzy posted:This touches on why I don't think an option-centered offense is practical in the NFL. Not only is your QB taking all the punishment that a RB would (and that's a historically short-lived position anyway), but he also takes all the blindside sacks and pocket hits that a QB traditionally takes. Sorry to quasi-resurrect this discussion, but is an option QB at more risk of injury in the NFL than he is in college? Coach Meyer was clearly happy to use Tebow as a major running threat at Florida, but when he was running a fairly small amount of the time in Denver people talked about how it was a risky move because he might get injured and ruin the offense. Was this just as much of a risk in college but Meyer just didn't care? Or do running QBs in the NFL actually get injured more frequently than pass-first QBs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2012 22:15
|
|
|
k3nn posted:Sorry to quasi-resurrect this discussion, but is an option QB at more risk of injury in the NFL than he is in college? Coach Meyer was clearly happy to use Tebow as a major running threat at Florida, but when he was running a fairly small amount of the time in Denver people talked about how it was a risky move because he might get injured and ruin the offense. Was this just as much of a risk in college but Meyer just didn't care? Or do running QBs in the NFL actually get injured more frequently than pass-first QBs?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
k3nn posted:Sorry to quasi-resurrect this discussion, but is an option QB at more risk of injury in the NFL than he is in college? Coach Meyer was clearly happy to use Tebow as a major running threat at Florida, but when he was running a fairly small amount of the time in Denver people talked about how it was a risky move because he might get injured and ruin the offense. Was this just as much of a risk in college but Meyer just didn't care? Or do running QBs in the NFL actually get injured more frequently than pass-first QBs? Yes they are more likely to get injured, or at least it is perceived that way. NFL defenders are bigger, faster, and play football full time compared to their college compatriots. The logic is that they hit way harder and are more likely to hurt people. Also in the NFL the qb is the highest paid position on the field. When you invest that much money in one player you want to see results not have him sit on the sideline. Weather or not the injury thing is true it is perceived as a truth in the NFL so much that it will take a big change to have people think a run first qb is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
College football is not exactly "just go out there and have fun". There is still a tremendous amount invested. I suspect it has more to do with there being less of a drop off between starting quarterbacks and reserves in college.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
Odovaucer posted:College football is not exactly "just go out there and have fun". There is still a tremendous amount invested. I suspect it has more to do with there being less of a drop off between starting quarterbacks and reserves in college. Also defensive ends and outside linebackers are so much stronger and quicker in the NFL that options outside the tackles rarely work. A single dominant DE can shut down an option play completely - imagine college kids trying to run that poo poo on Julius Peppers
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 08:24
|
|
|
Odovaucer posted:College football is not exactly "just go out there and have fun". There is still a tremendous amount invested. I suspect it has more to do with there being less of a drop off between starting quarterbacks and reserves in college. I would disagree with your second point. Many teams are basically screwed if their starting QB goes down. A few years back Dennis Dixon destroying his knee cost the Ducks a Pac10 championship and shot at the national title. To be honest I think it is just a culture thing. Like I said the NFL places a high level of value on a starting quarterback, and sees the option as unnecessary risk. Since there are so many more NCAA teams there is much more opportunity for a coach with an oddball offense to thrive. The variety of different offensive and defensive schemes is part of why I prefer college football to the NFL.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
The salary cap and free agency are also issues if you want to run an option offense. You're not going to get an A-list WR to sign on to your option team. Probably not many B-list guys. If your stud option QB (who I assume will take up a huge chunk of salary since he and his agent know that his career will most likely be pretty short) gets hurt and is gone for the season in Week 3, what is the Plan B? Playing the option full-time requires a buy-in from the front office (drafting) and players. Megatron is never gonna play on the same team as Tim Tebow. If you want to go option, you have to go all-in and that requires a very specific skill-set from all the players on the roster. You're not going to get any star WRs. Maybe you find a TE who can block and catch passes and take him in the 1st round while you pass up a half-dozen DBs or LBs or DLs who could help your defense. If/when your starting option QB gets hurt, you better have someone in the same mold to back him up, and that's a very rare breed in the college game... that's a spare part you probably can't get. It's just not practical in today's NFL.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
I'm seriously considering cancelling my cable, but my only hangup is that I'll no longer be able to watch football (really the only thing I watch on it these days). What are some routes for watching football that don't go through me having basic cable (and won't offset the ~ $70-$80/month that I'll be saving)? E: Ideally, something that also lets me utilize the TV I own. C-Euro fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Jul 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:I'm seriously considering cancelling my cable, but my only hangup is that I'll no longer be able to watch football (really the only thing I watch on it these days). What are some routes for watching football that don't go through me having basic cable (and won't offset the ~ $70-$80/month that I'll be saving)? Step 1: Find local sports bar. Step 2: Go to local sports bar. Step 3: Watch football all day every day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
swickles posted:Step 1: Find local sports bar. Wouldn't this actually wind up costing more? I don't think I've spent less than $45 going to sports bars for a day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:I'm seriously considering cancelling my cable, but my only hangup is that I'll no longer be able to watch football (really the only thing I watch on it these days). What are some routes for watching football that don't go through me having basic cable (and won't offset the ~ $70-$80/month that I'll be saving)? Well, if nothing else, hook up an antenna and get everything besides MNF / TNF over the air. The feed's HD and perfectly fine, you're stuck with local market choices, but hey, you were anyway. Beyond that, hook your pc up to your TV, play Adaz's stream roulette and watch some ripping and tearing low res football.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:I'm seriously considering cancelling my cable, but my only hangup is that I'll no longer be able to watch football (really the only thing I watch on it these days). What are some routes for watching football that don't go through me having basic cable (and won't offset the ~ $70-$80/month that I'll be saving)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
Check this website to see if you live within range of any stations. http://www.antennaweb.org/Default.aspx
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:I'm seriously considering cancelling my cable, but my only hangup is that I'll no longer be able to watch football (really the only thing I watch on it these days). What are some routes for watching football that don't go through me having basic cable (and won't offset the ~ $70-$80/month that I'll be saving)? I didn't know this for a while, but I have Comcast for internet and don't pay for TV at all, but they still give me local channels (and a few others) through the cable. Combine that with ESPN on Xbox, and I can see pretty much every football game that I want to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
C-Euro posted:I'm seriously considering cancelling my cable, but my only hangup is that I'll no longer be able to watch football (really the only thing I watch on it these days). What are some routes for watching football that don't go through me having basic cable (and won't offset the ~ $70-$80/month that I'll be saving)? I watch all my sports via streams. They can be spotty in quality, but I grew up with standard definition TV so it doesn't bother me much. I have basic cable for the internet discount. I don't watch actual TV much at all anymore. ESPN3 has tons of games every week. I can usually find a stream for any other major conference game I want to watch. There's even streams of Div2 and 3 games around, from people broadcasting their school's internal feed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Wouldn't this actually wind up costing more? 2 beers and a plate of parmesean garlic wings is like $20 max, and it's usually a fun atmosphere full of jerseys, hot bartenders and maybe even a fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
Pron on VHS posted:2 beers and a plate of parmesean garlic wings is like $20 max, and it's usually a fun atmosphere full of jerseys, hot bartenders and maybe even a fight. 2 beers? Where are you watching football, church?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Declan MacManus posted:2 beers? Where are you watching football, church? Gotta drive back home my man. No real public transit or cabs in northern VA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Chilly McFreeze posted:I didn't know this for a while, but I have Comcast for internet and don't pay for TV at all, but they still give me local channels (and a few others) through the cable. Combine that with ESPN on Xbox, and I can see pretty much every football game that I want to. Is this something standard that they don't advertise for obvious reasons, or is it just an error on their part that they're giving you some of those channels?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Has something to do with the frequencies they use for analog. I have the same thing; in fact until last week I had the standard-def channels up to about 65 (so long to SNY and NESN.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
Pron on VHS posted:Gotta drive back home my man. No real public transit or cabs in northern VA. I'm not sure we live in the same Northern VA? I was also the plate of chicken fingers, a few pulled pork sliders, three beers, a Dr Pepper, and...like pretzels or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 02:14
|
|