Newsflash for you cupcake, Focus on the Family isn't a "hate group", not even according to the ignorant folks over at SPLC. Bwahahahah, that "miserable investment" got the Broncos their first playoff visit AND playoff victory in years. Dude, you are still a frakking joke.
Okay.... ^^^This response has "personal" written all over it...Note the highlighted parts, none of which have anything to do with on field performance.
Nope. It's obvious it's personal when folks go beyond his play (which offers plenty of reasons to be criticized) and his draft status, (which wasn't his decision, and so is a pretty dumb reason to criticize Tebow), and "critics" start saying stupid stuff like there were "reports" that Tebow led the 2006 team to the Championship... Or that he "played an extremely small part," in that year's success, when the facts clearly demonstrate he was a significant player... Or when, for no reason whatsoever relating to his play, "critics" have to wring their hands over a 30 second ad. So yeah, misrepresenting the facts of his contribution at UF and mixing in attacks of his religious views when criticizing his play are clear indications it's personal and that the "critic" suffers from Tebow Derangement Syndrome.
So a far right Christian fundamentalist group that pickets gay weddings is not a hate group. Gotcha. Clearly you are not a finance major, as you have no idea what an investment is. I'll make this easy for you: Lets say you bought a Corvette for $10,000 above sticker price, say $70,000, and kept it in the garage for the first year because you knew it wasn't road worthy. The next summer you take the cover off of it and start driving it around. Sometimes it drives pretty decently, but most of the time its stranded on the side of the highway until AAA can bail it out. Toward the end of the year, it has one full day where it didn't break down. It ran pretty damn good all day, only to have it explode the very next day. You, as the owner, are sick of this Vette, so you put it up for sale. The only problem is, only two people are interested in it, and they are only going to offer you $4,000. That is called a shitty investment.
Faulty logic. Whether something is a bad investment or not depends greatly on when you sell it. A house bought in 2004 and sold in 2005 was probably a good investment. That same house bought in 2004 and sold in 2008 was probably a terrible investment. And like the other poster said, They got an 8-5 record out of him this year and a playoff win against the Steelers, so it was a good investment. They just sold too early. Additionally, we will never know what Tebow may have done this year in Denver. Denver gave the appearance of Tebow being a bad investment because they wanted to get rid of him to avoid putting ANY pressure on Peyton Manning. Best believe that even Peyton Manning would have been hearing chants of TE-BOW TE-BOW TE-BOW if by chance he or the team played poorly.
Holy fuck you are an idiot. An investment is not a 'could be' situation. Do you think an investment broker might say: 'well Jim, this stock we bought for well over market value, and sold for 1/10th of what we paid for it, sure was fun!!' and be happy about it?? There is nothing relative about an investment. It was either good, stagnent, or bad. There is not a gray area when it comes to selling a stock two years after you bought it for 1/10th its buy price. That is called a shitty investment, period. McDaniels overpaid for Tebow, in the form of three very high draft picks, and 2 years later, he was worth a fourth to an insanely small market. That is pretty much the definition of a shitty investment. I'll tell you what; You buy a house, have a few mediocre parties in it, and then sell it to me for 1/10th what you paid for it two years later, and tell me it was a good investment. Deal?
Got a link for that ????? You're right, I wasn't a Finance Major, my BS is in Business Administration. With that out of the way, all you have shown is that you have no fucking clue about football. Why do teams even bother drafting players ? It's to try and get better, make it to the playoffs and win a freaking Championship. THAT is what players are drafted for and what they are paid for. Some players aren't "NFL ready" and are seen as developmental projects. Ie. they have a ton of upside and it's worth it to sign them and develop them based on their future potential. Let's see, Denver was 3-13 two seasons ago and they started last season at 1-4. Orton gets benched and Tebow takes over as the starter. Lo and behold, the Broncos reach the playoffs and actually win a game. Guess what cupcake ? That's reaching one of the goals that players are drafted for. You want to talk about picks ? Especially, first rounders ? Tell me how DJ Williams got the Broncos to the playoffs and beat the Steelers. Or Knowshown Moreno. Or Jarvis Moss (didn't the Broncos just flat out release him ? ) Or George Foster ? Or Ashley Lelie ? Or Willie Middlebrooks ? Or Deltha O'Neal ? That's only going back to the 2000 draft. Looking at that list, the Tebow pick was by far better than ANY ONE of those and the team got quite a bit for their investment in him. This doesn't even get into the question of whether or not Peyton Freaking Manning would have even looked at Denver if Tebow hadn't taken them to the playoffs, but instead, if Orton had pissed away yet another season.
Actually, you're showing just how much of a freaking idiot you are. It's often the case that if you sell at the wrong time, that is what makes an investment "bad". Hell, you could have bought gold on the 1st of Feb this past year for $1740 and sold it on the 11th of Feb after the price dropped to $1710. That would have been a loss of $30 per ounce. BUT, if, instead of selling, you held on to it until the 27th of Feb, you could have sold it at $1780 per ounce, which would have realized a $40 profit per ounce, and a total swing of $70 per ounce. Once again, the more you talk, the more you demonstrate just how much of a frakking idiot you are.
What you are saying makes no sense. I won't call you an idiot, since we are not face-to-face, but you clearly are not wise to investing and how one makes money off of investments. I was not a finance major either, but I do have an MBA. If you sell before giving the asset a chance to appreciate in value, it will be viewed as a bad investment. If you wait until it gains value before selling - good investment. Obviously, the Broncos couldn't wait 20 years for Tebow to develop into Steve Young, but after the success during his first year starting they really had something going with Tebow. No telling what would have happened this year. BTW, if the Packers got rid of Aaron Rodgers after his second year, he would have been a bad investment.
Guys Trent Dilfer won a superbowl does that make him a great Qb? Tebow won a playoff game yes he did kudos but Sanchez has won four on the road what is your point? Sanchez was not great in season One or Two but he won going 9-7 and 11-5 pretty good. That does not make the criticism of him less valid. People are criticizing Sanchez for having Compl % of 56% Tebow had a 46% completion percentage. You cannot play QB in the NFL with compl % of 46%. I heard someone argue he just needs to throw more really? Then his compl % would have been worse. Denver did not want Tebow for one reason he did prove that he can play in a traditional offense meaning he cannot throw from the pocket . Not only did he show he could not but showed very little improvement in doing so. The wildcat worked for a little while because it was new to coordinators Tebow is not new anymore and his style of offense he had to play in Denver is just not sustainable. You do realize they had to change the entire offense for Tebow in the middle of the season dont you?
Name calling? Really? How old are you? BTW, I am black and from the suburbs... not typically what most would describe as "trailer trash", though I think that is a despicable term. Let's see... I'm also an Army officer, veteran, atheist... and I like to take long walks on the beach. My degrees are from University of Florida. Thanks for asking. Anyways, back on topic... without the personal attacks. :beer:
The reason the Tebow section was created was because as soon as ya'll came, you started flooding the Jets section with nothing but Tebow. Every single thread was Tebow and it was annoying having to sift through all of that to actually find a meaningful article on the Jets. I wouldn't mind if they were put together, but it would only work if the Tebow people would calm down a bit and be objective about things. When threads like this and the others take up the majority of space there with people posting deceptive stats to argue their case, it ruins it for everyone.
Do you understand how important college experience is? I know first team reps are better than 2nd team, but it's not like the guy doesn't develop over time. C'mon man. Aaron Rodgers had the same issue, but he excelled as soon as he started. Experience comes with time, whether you start right away or not. Both QBs have lack of experience at certain points in their careers. More evidence of why the comparison is invalid. They aren't even close to the same situations. In that case, the comparison would be a little bit more valid, but again the situations are completely different as you have outlined in this post. It's too early to compare careers or starts or whatever else. A QB is only as good as his most recent starts. It would be much more valid to compare the QBs last seasons, but again, I think comparing the 2 like this is pointless. You are grasping for straws here trying to prove that Tebow is on even playing field with Mark, when he's clearly not. Does it address the 3rd year when Mark had 32 touchdowns, the 5th most in the league? Do you honestly think Tebow would have 32 TDs if he started this year? They aren't the same situations, they aren't fully developed. You can't compare the stats. Tebow is backup QB for a very good reason. How am I not being objective? I'm not saying Sanchez is going to have a better career than Tebow, although he has at this point in time. I'm not saying Sanchez is the best QB to ever play or blindly support him. I'm just saying the comparison is stupid and pointless and only shows desperation and cherry picking of stats from certain times. It's basically just a pitiful attempt to start fights with Jets fans and try to justify Tebow starting. You will probably be one of the clowns that chants his name the second Sanchez throws his first pick. All I'm saying is slow your role. You must be new to football because that's the most illogical thing I've ever heard. You are wrong. Your comparison is apples to oranges and cherry picked specifically to force your point. The stats were manipulated as well in every comparison I've seen. Please post those stats again and I'll show you specifically where.
Yeh, cause the Tebowmania subforum is just buzzing with 100s of new threads that are constantly being updated by the horde of teboi that are just taking over this board...... right......
You're ignoring everything you got from the investment while you had it though... By your logic, Peyton Manning was a bad investment for the Colts because they spent a #1 pick on him and he later walked for nothing....:manning:
15 threads in the past month and change alone based on one player that says almost the same stuff in each one. We didn't have a Mark Brunell section last year for a reason. We don't even have close to that many threads about Mark Sanchez, our starting QB, despite all the darksiders and haters.. or even Revis, one of the best CBs of all time. This silly statistical first 15 starts thing has been brought up in quite a lot of them. This is why there is a Tebow section.
You realize that there more Tebow detractors in this forum than Tebow supporters, right? We couldn't even have a discussion about Tebow on here that is positive without people and whining and complaining. Let someone start a thread titled, "I Think Tebow is a Decent QB"... not great, not elite, but "decent". Tebow Haters will be all in the thread going crazy, having heart attacks, strokes... Some of them will have to be hospitalized because the thread title will upset them so much.
Actually, there's kind of a grey area here, and it applies to most young QBs, not just Tebow. I would certainly agree that spending 2-3 years on the bench as a backup can be invaluable. BUT, it really depends on what is being done to develop the QB in that situation. You know, like actually being groomed to become the starter a;a Aaron Rodgers. That said, there are other situations that aren't as ideal. If I were a QB coming out of college, I'd much prefer to go into camp as the starter and get all the 1st team reps, as opposed to getting 3rd team reps in TC, sitting on the bench for 13 weeks, and then being thrown in as the starter for the last 3 games. You're right about one thing, they weren't even close to the same situations. Sanchez's situation was MUCH BETTER, yet Tebow put up similar stats. It doesn't address Mark's 32 TDs this year. As for Tebow, as he has only had 15 starts, I'd compare his upcoming year (if he was a starter) to Sanchez's 2nd year, not his third. You're not being objective because you continue to call the comparison invalid even though it's one that most knowledgeable football fans make all the damned time. I've followed "football" itself for the past 35 years, though most of that time has been spent as a devout follower of college ball. That said, I understand the game. As I said above, this kind of comparison is made all he time to try and "benchmark" QBs and other players. Take a WR for instance. You wouldn't compare the stats of a guy's 3rd year to those of a rookie or even a guy who sat for most of his first season, and finally started in his second year. For example, take a guy like Demaryius Thomas of Denver. He was a rookie in 2010 but he was injured and only played sparingly. Last year, he was injured in the preseason and didn't play until he 6th game of the season. In short, he was basically a rookie last year in terms of actual experience. When looking at what he did this past season, you'd compare his accomplishments to those of other receivers in their first X number of games as well. What you wouldn't do is try to compare his stats to Calvin Johnson's stats from last year. It would be much more appropriate to compare DTs stats from his first 7 starts over the past 2 years, to Johnson's first 7 starts in Detroit. Sure, you'd "shade" the stats a bit to account for DT being a bit older and hopefully, a bit more mature. But you'd still try to get as close as you can to comparing stats based on experience level. It's the same as when you look at Mark Sanchez and try to compare him to Tom Brady. You don't compare what Brady did last year to what Sanchez did. Rather, you compare what Sanchez did in his first X number of games as a starter to what Brady did in a similar number of games. And yes, you'd factor in some small benefit for Brady as he had a year on the bench that Sanchez didn't have, but the approximation would be close. Again, it's basic benchmarking.
