dew1679666265

PLease tell me you heard Tebow's interview with Mel Kiper? My goodness, it was so funny. Kiper suggested that he would be a great Frank Wycheck type in the NFL... HBack. Tebow handled it well, to his credit, by asking what he needed to do to be seen as a QB and not just a "playmaker" at the next level. But, Kiper basically told him that he was not an NFL QB, but instead more of a FB/TE/HBack. It was priceless. I heard clips from it. It was quite funny, but at the same time true. Tebow is a terrific athlete who can excel at the next level as an athlete. Kiper's right, he's an H-back/TE/FB type player. He could be really, really good at that, though. With the NFL incorporating more wildcat formations, he would be one of the few who would really be a threat to pass. I cant remember where i read but some guy thought he might be worth a 3rd round pick for that alone, if he got banged up big deal he was just a 3rd round pick anyway (i dont know how much i believe it but i thought it was interesting). He could be a ultraback plus wildcat qb. I remember Culpepper being a bad ass around the 5 yard line running draws, Tebow could still be the one man playaction he is in college for those type of plays. Yeah, that's why I keep mentioning Kordell in the slash role - I think Tebow could play some QB. I just don't think his abilities are being utilized best in that role. He's too athletic and not a good enough thrower to play 100% of the time at quarterback. Unless somebody can come up with a good way to implement the spread option in the NFL - and I don't think that'll ever happen. I'm waiting for Al Davis to draft Tebow in 2010, sign Vick, hire David Lee as coach (after firing Art Shell of course), and run some form of the wildcat (wilddog?). Would it work? Probably not, but it would be fun to watch. Nah, Tebow won't cause enough trouble for Davis. If he gets arrested at some point, then he'll be a candidate for Oakland.

PLease tell me you heard Tebow's interview with Mel Kiper? My goodness, it was so funny. Kiper suggested that he would be a great Frank Wycheck type in the NFL... HBack. Tebow handled it well, to his credit, by asking what he needed to do to be seen as a QB and not just a "playmaker" at the next level. But, Kiper basically told him that he was not an NFL QB, but instead more of a FB/TE/HBack. It was priceless. I heard clips from it. It was quite funny, but at the same time true. Tebow is a terrific athlete who can excel at the next level as an athlete. Kiper's right, he's an H-back/TE/FB type player. He could be really, really good at that, though. With the NFL incorporating more wildcat formations, he would be one of the few who would really be a threat to pass. I cant remember where i read but some guy thought he might be worth a 3rd round pick for that alone, if he got banged up big deal he was just a 3rd round pick anyway (i dont know how much i believe it but i thought it was interesting). He could be a ultraback plus wildcat qb. I remember Culpepper being a bad ass around the 5 yard line running draws, Tebow could still be the one man playaction he is in college for those type of plays. Yeah, that's why I keep mentioning Kordell in the slash role - I think Tebow could play some QB. I just don't think his abilities are being utilized best in that role. He's too athletic and not a good enough thrower to play 100% of the time at quarterback. Unless somebody can come up with a good way to implement the spread option in the NFL - and I don't think that'll ever happen.

I wouldn't be opposed to Kelly Johnson as an option, but there's no way I'd consider giving up any more than - perhaps - Marquis and Cedeno for him. Even then, I'd want most or all of Marquis' salary paid. Johnson just isn't valuable enough to give up a lot.

Tebow will be as good at NFL QB as Kordell was at NFL WR so I can see the comparison. I think he could be an average quarterback, but with his athleticism he could be a great H-back/slash type player. Some GM will be intrigued by him as a QB, though, and I think he'll start his career there.

PLease tell me you heard Tebow's interview with Mel Kiper? My goodness, it was so funny. Kiper suggested that he would be a great Frank Wycheck type in the NFL... HBack. Tebow handled it well, to his credit, by asking what he needed to do to be seen as a QB and not just a "playmaker" at the next level. But, Kiper basically told him that he was not an NFL QB, but instead more of a FB/TE/HBack. It was priceless. I heard clips from it. It was quite funny, but at the same time true. Tebow is a terrific athlete who can excel at the next level as an athlete. Kiper's right, he's an H-back/TE/FB type player. He could be really, really good at that, though.

Also, in other non-shocking news, Meph's hero will submit paperwork to be evaluated by NFL scouts. I hope he gets a good evaluation and decides to leave early. I don't think he'd make it at QB (though somebody will likely try), but I think he could fit well into a similar role that Kordell Stewart played early on for the Steelers - "jack of all trades, master of none," as it were.

Urban Meyer has confirmed that Cornelius Ingram will not be back for the national championship game. No real surprise, but Meph had mentioned there was a possibility he could return.

I'm not entirely sure how Kelly Johnson would be much, if any, better than Mike Fontenot. Certainly not enough to justify giving up Pie and Cedeno.

well, we lost to texas this year and it worked out ok for us Very true. But wouldn't your life be more fulfilled if you didn't have a shot at the national title but had beaten Texas? :wink:

I'm glad to see the voting going the way I figured it would. The whole idea of the 2-10 season being preferable seemed so stupid to me, but I figured I'd see if anybody had a coherent reason why that'd be better (I haven't gotten one yet).

I hate that Vanden Bosch and Haynesworth are both out this week because I see this game as a bit of national proving grounds for the Titans. People claim we haven't played anybody (I guess Indy, Chicago, Minnesota and Baltimore are nobody), so winning this game would increase our national standing. It'd also make me feel better. The recent losses to Houston and the Jets have me a bit worried and beating Pittsburgh would relieve me somewhat. We still can, but it's going to be tough as crap without two of the best defensive linemen in the game. Plus, if the Titans have two home playoff games, there's more of a chance I'll be able to get tickets to one of them.

Yeah, ND seems to be a school that primarily cares about overall record and championships. I gotta give them credit on that one. It's wonderful to beat Florida, Bama or Georgia, but I'd much rather lose to them but have an SEC Championship.

Actually, Casey's a senior, so the Razorbacks are now Dickless. And in this case, that's a good thing.

It'd be awesome if they became the Arlington Cowboys.

Ah, thanks.

It can definitely help to beat them in a crap year, but I really don't understand the thought process of preferring to beat them over having a good year.

My sincerest condolences to you and your loved ones.

Reggie Bush is officially out for the year, by the way. Glad I have Pierre Thomas starting in the championship game of my fantasy league.

Two weeks are left in the season and we have some awesome games coming up. Also, the Pro Bowl rosters have been released. The Jets of all teams lead everybody with seven selections, while the Cowboys and Giants both have five in the NFC. The Titans put six on the team - and probably should have had Bironas in over Gostkowski, but oh well. The Steelers kinda got a screwjob with just three players - none on offense. Here are this week's games: Thu, Dec. 18, 8:15 p.m. NFL Network Indianapolis @ Jacksonville - Colts clinch playoff berth with win Sat, Dec. 20, 8:15 p.m. NFL Network Baltimore @ Dallas Sun, Dec. 21, 1 p.m. CBS Cincinnati @ Cleveland Pittsburgh @ Tennessee - Titans get #1 seed with win Miami @ Kansas City San Diego @ Tampa Bay FOX New Orleans @ Detroit - Lions continue their pursuit of reverse perfection San Francisco @ St. Louis Arizona @ New England Sun, Dec. 21, 4-4:15 p.m. CBS NY Jets @ Seattle Houston @ Oakland Buffalo @ Denver - Broncos clinch division w/win and SD loss FOX Philadelphia @ Washington Atlanta @ Minnesota - Vikes clinch division w/win Sun, Dec. 21, 8:15 p.m. NBC Carolina @ NY Giants - winner clinches #1 seed Mon, Dec. 22, 8:30 p.m. ABC Green Bay @ Chicago If I forgot any playoff stipulations for games (which I'm sure I did), throw them out there and I'll edit this post.

it's harder in College Football than in most other sports. The Bears can lose to the Packers twice but still win the Super Bowl. The Cubs can go 0-17 against the Cardinals but make the playoffs. In College Football, 2 losses almost always means you're out of the NC picture. If that's the criteria for success, then you pretty much can't lose to anyone That's a good point, but leading up to the 07 year, Tennessee fans were saying that an SEC Championship (or at least contending for one) was all that mattered. Then Tennessee did and they were pissed that the Vols lost badly to UF and Bama. I was just curious to get input from the board. I put beating rivals as secondary to winning championships - no matter the sport. If my team can win (or play for) a title (conference or national) without beating its major rivals, I'm cool with that. It's a bit hard to answer as a PSU fan, as we don't really have a rivalry on the level of UM/OSU, Auburn/Bama, or the like. It used to be Pitt, but they fell off the schedule after PSU joined the Big Ten (for reasons no one can answer). They play MSU for the Land Grant Trophy, but that's a completely made up rivalry that neither school puts much thought into. For fans, Michigan and Ohio St. are the two big games every year, but neither of those schools consider PSU a rival Yeah, this question probably works better for a team with heated rivalries (i.e. OSU/UM, AUB/BAMA, UT/BAMA, OU/UT, etc)

it's harder in College Football than in most other sports. The Bears can lose to the Packers twice but still win the Super Bowl. The Cubs can go 0-17 against the Cardinals but make the playoffs. In College Football, 2 losses almost always means you're out of the NC picture. If that's the criteria for success, then you pretty much can't lose to anyone That's a good point, but leading up to the 07 year, Tennessee fans were saying that an SEC Championship (or at least contending for one) was all that mattered. Then Tennessee did and they were pissed that the Vols lost badly to UF and Bama. I was just curious to get input from the board. I put beating rivals as secondary to winning championships - no matter the sport. If my team can win (or play for) a title (conference or national) without beating its major rivals, I'm cool with that.

There's now one less Dick at Arkansas.

so going 2-10 with your only victories being the Buckeyes and Spartans is better than the Capital One Bowl? In my mind, no. But I'd say maybe 35% of Michigan fans would say yes. That's the reason I put together this poll. Even though I figured the answer would be overwhelming, I'm curious to see what kind of (serious) dissent there is to what I view as incredibly obvious.

Here's a question to potentially get some discussion going (I hope): In the same vein as the poll, can a season with losses to your biggest rivals be successful? UMfan brought up the point that many UM fans don't care about the Capital One Bowl, and plentiful amounts of Tennessee fans hated 2007 because, despite going to the SEC Championship game and losing by a touchdown, Tennessee lost to Florida and Alabama. So, can a season with losses to your main rivals be successful? And what would it take for it to be deemed a success?

That's what I would have thought too. But every college football fan I've asked has replied 2-10. It's utterly befuddling. yo need to stop asking stupid people this question. Actually, one of them is my mom. :-)) But yeah, I told her myself that was a dumb opinion.