Peyton Manning is coming to Denver Open Open Thread


Jaybird is Birdmojo on Xbox Live and Jaybirdmojo on Playstation's network. He's been playing consoles since the Atari 2600 and it was Zork that taught him how to touch-type. If you've got a song for Wednesday, a commercial for Saturday, a recommendation for Tuesday, an essay for Monday, or, heck, just a handful a questions, fire off an email to

Related Post Roulette

124 Responses

  1. Jaybird says:

    Aw, man, seriously. I followed the instructions and everything.Report

  2. MikeSchilling says:

    I continue to believe that Tebow is at best mediocre, and will not be a starting QB, say, year after next.  (Backup QB or running back, quite possibly.)  Trading him at the top of the market is actually quite smart.

    My real concern, of course, is that Harbaugh’s flirtation with Peyton may have driven away Alex Smith, leaving the 49ers with no quarterback at all.  (And no, there is no fishing way Harbaugh decides to take on Project Tebow.)Report

    • Jaybird in reply to MikeSchilling says:

      He doesn’t know how to play yet. If he can learn that (and I think he can learn that), he’s going to have great numbers.Report

      • MikeSchilling in reply to Jaybird says:

        The thing is, being under constant siege by very large, very fast, very fierce men who will rip your arms off and beat you senseless with them if you hesitate a bit too long is not the ideal circumstance for trying to unlearn one set of habits and master another.Report

        • Mark Thompson in reply to MikeSchilling says:

          This. Just ask Trent Edwards (Stanford grad).Report

        • Jaybird in reply to MikeSchilling says:

          We watched him learn in real time last season. I think he could do pretty well with direct tutelage.Report

          • BSK in reply to Jaybird says:

            What did he do better in December/January than he did in October/November?  All his passing numbers went down as the year went on.

            I don’t mean to hate on the kid.  I thought a lot of the crap he caught last year was unfair.  He made the most of a tough situation.  But if you look at all the advanced stats, the Broncos weren’t even a 6 win team.  We can attribute their success to some intangible ability that will continue to manifest itself or we can chalk it up to the luck and vaguaries of the game.  It seems the Broncos think the latter; if they can find a team that thinks the former, they might end up with a nice little payday.

            Or God might throw a lightning bolt directly at Manning’s neck.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to BSK says:

              We can attribute their success to some intangible ability that will continue to manifest itself or we can chalk it up to the luck and vaguaries of the game.

              This reminds me of the people who argue that the Nazis had better tactics in WWII or that the South, technically, should have won the Civil War.

              Personally, I find these arguments morally abhorrent.

              I’ll address them anyway. “LOOK AT THE SCOREBOARD!!!”

              Well, statistically, it’s possible for a 5-11 team to become a 7-4 team given the way that dice rolls go and the way that calls are made and the winds of chance. Sure. It’s not the way to bet, though. Now, if we could better measure “intangibles”, we’d call them “tangibles” and measure the crap out of them. As it stands, though, it seemed to me that Tebow brought some insanity to the game. Now, yeah, the last few games weren’t as good once the opposing coaches got tape on Tebow (and whether Belichick had twice as much tape as was available to other coaches remains up in the air) but the Broncos made it past the first round of the playoffs.

              From what I understand of Christianity, Angels are only allowed to get the team to the playoffs… not one they’re in them.Report

              • BSK in reply to Jaybird says:

                Please don’t read my comment to imply that the Broncos didn’t deserve the wins they accrued and the success they enjoyed.  Far from it.  At the end of the day, your record is what it is and the stadium lights tell you who won and loss… nothing else.  But records and scores are not predictive.  They tell you want happened… not what will happen.  The stats that are better suited to say what is likely to happen all paint a very different picture moving forward.  And most “intangibles” have a way to show up in the stats one way or another… there might not be a specific number attached to it but, with a large enough sample size (which I’ll concede we don’t yet have for Tim), they eventually are borne out and, if not at that point, the notion can usually be rejected.

                Tebow went 8-5 last year, with just one of those wins coming against a team above .500.  They were outscored by 75 points in those games.  One win came after the opponent couldn’t properly execute a kneel down.  Another involved his kicker making TWO FG’s over 50-yards in the waning seconds, with those plays made possible by an opposing running back making the kind of mistakes you don’t expect to see past high school.  If that is the guy you want to make your team’s future on, go for it…Report

              • Jaybird in reply to BSK says:

                One win came after the opponent couldn’t properly execute a kneel down.  Another involved his kicker making TWO FG’s over 50-yards in the waning seconds, with those plays made possible by an opposing running back making the kind of mistakes you don’t expect to see past high school.

                atheist god works in mysterious ways.

                I remember those two games. They were awesome.Report

              • BSK in reply to Jaybird says:

                Well, that is the fun of it, right?!?!?!  The numbers only tell us SO much… they still have to play the games.  And they don’t play them in computers!Report

      • BSK in reply to Jaybird says:


        Quit drinking the Kool-Aid man!  Yes, Manning is a short-term plan.  Tebow was a no-term plan.  Don’t you think it is at least a little bit telling that John Elway, a Hall-of-Fame QB himself, and John Fox, a Super Bowl caliber coach, were both so quick to dump Tebow a year after he took them to the playoffs (albeit with an 8-8 record)?  Tebow hasn’t learned it by now because he doesn’t possess the physical skills to make it.  Toughness, tenacity, leadership, grit… he’s got all that in spades.  What he doesn’t have is the ability to hit a man in stride down field or read complex defenses.  Over time, his physical gifts will fade, defenses will figure him out, and he’ll still be completing less than 50% of his passes.  This was the right move, especially if they get even a halfway decent haul in exchange for him.  They’re selling high on him, riding the “Tebow magic” wave and rightfully avoiding the sunk costs they invested in him in the first place when they traded up in the first round to draft him.

        I do think there is a place in the NFL for Tim Tebow.  The biggest obstacle for him is the hyper conservative approach most coaches take to the game.  A creative coach willing to think outside the box and take chances with the offense could find a myriad of ways to use Tebow effectively in select personnel packages.  Fox did this to an extent last year with how he designed the offense, but it wasn’t a long-term solution and he had a bit of flexibility since their really wasn’t an alternative.  Tebow can be an X-factor out on the field 15-20 times a game…. 60-80 and he is a liability.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to BSK says:

          Maybe you should stop drinking the haterade, BSK.Report

          • BSK in reply to Jaybird says:

            Heh… tell me why I’m wrong… :-pReport

            • Jaybird in reply to BSK says:

              The 8-8 record began as a 1-4 record by the time Tebow took it over. Of course, we don’t know that Tebow would have done any better in those five games… but we can say that Tebow had a 7-4 season and defeated the Steelers in the postseason before losing to the handsomest man in the NFL.

              You say “What he doesn’t have is the ability to hit a man in stride down field or read complex defenses” and I agree… but what are two of Manning’s best skills? That’s right, the ability to hit a man in stride down field and to read complex defenses. Put Manning in Tebow’s ear, and we’ll see Tebow learn… like we saw him learn in 2011.

              It’s moot because he’s going to be traded to someplace else, of course. I suppose I should be glad that I never got around to buying my Tebow jersey…Report

              • BlaiseP in reply to Jaybird says:

                I can see it now, a matching blue and orange surplice and cope.   Does that come with knee pads?Report

              • BSK in reply to Jaybird says:

                I just don’t know if those are things that can be learned.  If Tebow proves me wrong, I’ll be the first to eat crow.  My analysis of him is based on his play and nothing else.  The frustration I felt early about him being anointed before accomplishing much of anything was balanced out by all the crap he took for stuff that had nothing to do with him.  I hope he does well and, if the Broncos can’t get a couple of decent draft picks for him, I agree that they’d be wise to hold on to him and see what happens.  But if a team throws two 2’s at them, I think they’d be foolish to pass it up.Report

              • Tod Kelly in reply to Jaybird says:

                JB, I like Tebow, but even I think the question needs to be how many games did Tebow win, and how many games did Denver’s defense make sure was more than adequate to overcome a perpetually anemic defense?Report

              • Mike Schilling in reply to Tod Kelly says:

                Margins of victory for Tebow wins:

                3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 7, 14,  Total 37

                Margins of victory for Tebow losses:

                4, 18, 26, 35,  Total 83

                Or to put it another way, close games tend to even out.   Split the 3 and 4 point games evenly, and with average luck, he’s 5-6 instead of 7-4.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Mike Schilling says:

                We see how the #OWS folks decide stuff in the real world. Instead of redistributing the big numbers, they’re redistributing the little ones.

                Turn those margins of victory and make them *FAIR*, suddenly Tebow’s got enough points to become a 9-2 team.Report

          • Nob Akimoto in reply to Jaybird says:

            If Tim Tebow weren’t white and Christian, he’d have been converted to a tight end or running back.

            The fact that he’s given opportunities to fail is a great testament to the bias in favor of white QBs. Meanwhile, real rookie sensations like Cam Newton get the short shift in terms of reputation. And don’t even get me started on RG3 vs. Andrew Luck.Report

      • Tod Kelly in reply to Jaybird says:

        “he doesn’t know how to play yet.”

        You know what he should have done? He should have played High School ball, and then gone on to play for a powerhouse top tier NCAA… Oh, wait. Never mind.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Tod Kelly says:

          There’s a quote I remember from one of the guys from the 90’s. Aikman, Elway, Montana… one of them.

          They said “the problem with this game is by the time you learn how to play it, it’s time to retire”. (I was reminded of Leonardo da Vinci saying, on his deathbed, “I was finally learning how to paint.”)

          I was thinking of that.Report

    • Christopher Carr in reply to MikeSchilling says:

      “I continue to believe that Tebow is at best mediocre, and will not be a starting QB, say, year after next.  (Backup QB or running back, quite possibly.)  Trading him at the top of the market is actually quite smart.”

      I strongly agree with this comment.Report

    • James Hanley in reply to MikeSchilling says:

      I continue to believe that Tebow is at best mediocre, and will not be a starting QB, say, year after next.

      Agreed.  For those still defending Tebow’s alleged abilities, I’d say that Denver’s decision is a pretty strong blow to your case.  You just don’t take an aging, seriously injured, once-upon-a-time-MVP over a true young talent.  The aging former MVPs are the guys who get shoved out for the young talent (see: Joe Montana, Brett Favre).  The Denver org clearly doesn’t see Tebow as a future star.Report

  3. greginak says:

    Well since there is no reason to think cold weather will have any effect on an ailing neck and back, Manning should perform like an MVP in December.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to greginak says:

      One of the things we touched on today was Manning’s ability to carry his team to the playoffs/Superbowl… and we wondered how much of that was due to the fact that he knew that team very, very well and was instrumental (you *KNOW* he was) with who they drafted… and how he ain’t gonna have time to do the same with the Broncos.

      We also discussed the whole “Elway/Manning” dynamics that were likely to arise… maybe they’ll take to each other like long-lost kin. Maybe they’ll butt heads like quarterbacks able to generate sufficient will to get mediocre teams to the Superbowl.Report

    • Tom Van Dyke in reply to greginak says:

      Heh, Greg, half a point subject to being upgraded to a full point come December.  In fact, home field advantage in January could kind of suck.

      That said, a superior move: Peyton could easily play well until 40—counting college, because of his style, he’s probably taken fewer hits at 36 than Tebow has taken already.

      BTW, ESPN had a piece on the QB most like Tebow at his best case scenario, Jim McMahon.  Now, at age 52, he gets stuck in the kitchen for 20 minutes, forgetting he was on the way to the mailbox.  The interviewer asked him how bad his short-term memory was, and McMahon said he’d probably forget he even was interviewed in 10 minutes.

      This could be the best thing to happen to Tebow.  Whatever he could accomplish for Jesus on the football field he probably already has, and absent a team desperate enough to start a gizmo quarterback, he just might make it out of the game with both his fortune and his wits intact.

      Providence worketh in strange ways…Report

      • Here’s a link to the ESPN piece TVD refers to. It’s very disheartening. During contract negotiations, most of the time I tend to be more sympathetic to management than the players. The NFL is different, though. I just wish that the union would focus more on long-term financial solvency and health care for its players rather than short-term huge paychecks.Report

        • It really is becoming difficult to reconcile my intense love of pro football with my knowledge of what it means to its participants in the long run. Tyler Cowen’s piece on Grantland a few weeks back about how this could bring about the end of the NFL was especially eye-opening. I’m increasingly convinced that the scenario he outlines in that piece is fairly likely. If the NFL and NCAA can’t figure out a way to resolve this in a meaningful fashion, my head says that it should be the end of football, even as my passions say otherwise.Report

          • Nob Akimoto in reply to Mark Thompson says:

            Yeah…I agree 1000%.Report

          • I’ve been meaning to write about that Grantland piece since I first read it. The future Cowen and Grier suggest is certainly possible, but I think it overlooks a number of likely possibilities in between what we have now and banishment.

            The main threat, as I understand it, is typically not a single hit, a single concussion, but rather a repetition of them over a prolonged period of time. There isn’t, to my knowledge, an established pattern with college players. Some of this is because the hits are less severe at that level, but another is that you’re looking at shorter careers with shorter seasons and less horrendous practice schedules.

            Unless things have changed since I was younger, most of the hits don’t even take place during games. Comparatively little time within a game is actually spent playing (famously so). Practice, meanwhile, tends to be much more concentrated. The Ivy League just mandated only two full-contact practice sessions per week (the NCAA allows a maximum of five). Tackling will suffer, but tackling is only a small part of the game and it would allow for more Big Plays. Limiting practices is something that football is loathe to do, but as a measure to avoid extinction… I think they would be more open to the idea.

            Another thing that could be done is limiting play time. Forcing teams to rotate players in and out. Right now, as with the practices, any team that does this would be at a disadvantage. Make it a part of the game, and I think people will get used to it (baseball fans are used to pitching rotations). None of these things are going to get coaches enthusiastic, but again, if the alternative is extinction…

            (This leaves aside any advancement in padding that occurs.)

            What would really need to happen is for a replacement to crop up. Without a better replacement, football performance can slide a great deal before people will turn to soccer or back to basketball or baseball.Report

      • Patrick Cahalan in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

        Take away the hard helmet and replace it with headgear that is still padded but doesn’t give you an object harder than a baseball bat with which to hit your opponent.Report

        • Yes.  This.  I may have mentioned this before, and presumably James K can throw some additional information on this out, but I used to watch a decent amount of rugby due to being friends with a bunch of rugby players back in college.  The general consensus amongst my circle of friends, and indeed from my own observations, was that football and rugby tended to cause about the same number of injuries, with rugby maybe causing slightly more.  The difference was that the worst injuries one got in rugby were of the broken leg/broken arm variety, whereas football tended to result in a lot of head and, at worst, spine, injuries.Report

          • Trumwill in reply to Mark Thompson says:

            Somebody brought rugby up in the comments section of the MR link to the Grantland piece. It was suggested that rugby injuries are under-reported and, like football, ten years from now we are going to find out that it is much, much worse than we currently believe.

            Otherwise, my response to the Grantland piece would have been “do away with padding like rugby!” as it has been suggested in the past that the padding actually encourages the hits that cause injuries by way of the Illusion of Safety.Report

            • James Hanley in reply to Trumwill says:

              Women’s collegiate lacrosse is facing this issue. They’re under pressure to have players start wearing helmets to protect them from head injuries, but they claim that would cause players to be more careless with their use of sticks around the head, leading to a rise in head injuries (which they say has happened in men’s lacrosse–I can’t vouch for that, though).

              It may sound wacky, but there is a real issue of moral hazard there.Report

              • This type of thing should definitely be investigated. The Rugby Paradox has wide-reaching implications – and is a great reference point for discussions that have nothing to do with sports.Report

              • greginak in reply to James Hanley says:

                I’m not buying this. I played hockey in hs and college. We had to wear helmets. If you are careless with your stick and everybody has a helmet on there is little risk. To hurt someone wiht a stick when they have a helmet on you have to go out of your way to hit them high and hard. The concerns raised in hockey about careless stick use relates to players getting used to wearing helmets for years then going to the pros where they don’t use helmets. But the danger of careless sticks is to cuts and eye damage. I can’t speak to lacrosse but helmet use makes hockey much safer.Report

      • James Hanley in reply to Tom Van Dyke says:

        Peyton [has] probably taken fewer hits at 36 than Tebow has taken already.

        Especially if we’re talking about verbal jabs!Report

  4. BlaiseP says:

    Sitting here, as C cooks dinner.   She holds that Tebow really isn’t bankable.   He needs a better system than Denver.   He’s more heart than talent.  Heart will take you a long way but it’s not a substitute    The office really doesn’t like Tebow anyway.   The crowd loved him, coming from behind at last second but really, he’s not Elway and won’t be for quite a few years.  Manning could get hit in the first game and Tebow appears as a second act.

    They kinda screwed Tebow anyway, getting rid of all those wide receivers.   He really didn’t have the big name targets.   C doesn’t like Elway coz he beat the Packers.   Elway has that horsey way about him, lookit meee.

    Manning is not going to the Superbowl.  Puh-leeze.  Manning and who else?   The fundamentals here are “how the hell can we get rid of Tebow and all those Tebowmaniacs?”    If they get some free agents, maybe.Report

  5. sonmi451 says:

    Apparently there are “rumors” Tebow could end up in New England, backing up The Devil himself, heh.

    • Mark Thompson in reply to sonmi451 says:

      The odd thing is that New England makes more than a little sense as a destination for him. Josh McDaniels being there helps of course. That he’d be behind a certified immortal also means there’d be none of the team-destroying media controversy over who should be the starter for the foreseeable future. He’d have an HC who can get the most out of anyone, as long as they’re willing to buy into his system, which Tebow would surely be willing to do. The big hangup is that they already have three QBs on the roster. Then again, they need a third tight end/fullback, and Belicheck seems to be stockpiling people to try out at receiver.

      Plus, it’s New England, so his more, uhh, passionate fans will be as geographically distant as possible, meaning they won’t be able to cause much of a problem.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Mark Thompson says:

        I think I’d hate Tebow were he a Patriot.

        Worse than that, I think he’d hate *HIMSELF*.Report

      • sonmi451 in reply to Mark Thompson says:

        That he’d be behind a certified immortal also means there’d be none of the team-destroying media controversy over who should be the starter for the foreseeable future.

        I don’t know, I’m thinking of the Joe Montana-Steve Young controversy, way back when. Tebow’s fans might not be in the New England area, or even support the Pats, but they can stil make a lot of noise about what he deserves and so forth. Especially since Brady’s not necessarily looking all that infallible these days.Report

        • sonmi451 in reply to sonmi451 says:

          Change that to “more passionate fans”. I’m sure Tebow has fans all over the country, and the world.Report

        • Patrick Cahalan in reply to sonmi451 says:

          I don’t know, I’m thinking of the Joe Montana-Steve Young controversy, way back when.

          Speaking as a 49er fan, I can reasonably state that those people who came down on the Joe Montana side of the Joe Montana vs. Steve Young controversy were completely crazy.  I was one of them at the time, but I was young and stupid.

          Joe, over his career, was a better quarterback than Steve.  Joe, over his career, did more for the franchise than Steve.  But Joe was done playing at that level.  Steve was already better than Joe was, when he took over.

          At some point, the old general needs to admit that he’s not as good now as the new guy is… and step back.  Maybe that means retiring (nowadays, Jesus, take your money and run while your brain is still non-goo).  Maybe that means talking to the head office and saying, “Hey, trade me for something worthwhile but for Chrissake make it to a team with a hell of an offensive line so that I can play for three more years and I’ll give a great speech about passing the torch and we’ll all come away winners in the eyes of the fans”.  But it’s not staying at starter, waiting for the front office to make the call that you should be making yourself.

          This is the reverse case.  Payton is better than Tebow.  Nothing good can come of this.Report

          • Mike Schilling in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

            Montana did OK in Kansas City, getting the Chiefs to the playoffs both years (the AFC championship game the first year), but he certainly wasn’t the QB that Young had become.

            (Looking that up, I learned that Montana’s last NFL game was a playoff loss to, if all people, Dan Marino.  It took ten years, but he finally got to buy Joe a soda.)Report

  6. MFarmer says:

    Actually, I think a Manning/Tebow combo would be very effective if they can play the strategy right. Manning is getting to the point in order to extend his career he’ll need more rest — Manning’s passing and Tebow’s threat with the run could throw defenses off enough to give the Broncos an advantage, especially if Manning can teach Tebow to use the skills he has to fake run and throw the short ones.Report

    • Burt Likko in reply to MFarmer says:

      The history of storied Manning understudies who’ve gone on to accomplish good things in the NFL with the skills and perspective Peyton selflessly imparted to them is long and impressive:

      • Jim Sogri
      • Trevor Vittatoe
      • Curtis Painter
      • Travis Brown
      • Brock Huard
      • Cory Sauter

      Tim Tebow could be one of those guys. Totally.Report

      • MFarmer in reply to Burt Likko says:

        “Tim Tebow could be one of those guys. Totally.”

        Do you think it might not have been an issue before, so there was not a focus on second-string, or combination QBs — however, now that Manning is getting older, perhaps a new arrangement which includes Tebow could develope? I think they might make a powerful combo — but with Manning playing the major role.Report

        • Burt Likko in reply to MFarmer says:

          It’s possible, sure, as Michael Drew points out below. If Manning is graceful about it, and cooperates with gradually stepping out of the spotlight as the Young Padawan steps into it.

          I’m just saying there’s zero evidence of that actually being the case. There’s precious few examples of that kind of mentorship actually occurring, even when starting and backup QBs have gotten along well. Once you’re The Guy, you’re The Guy. The coach also has pressure to win, every game, all the time, and won’t want to mess around with any combination that’s producing good results.

          Now, sometimes you look to your backup and discover that hey, this Brady kid is really stepping up, so let’s run with it for a week or two to make really sure that Bledsoe is 100% healthy again, and see what happens in the meantime. But sometimes you look to your backup and discover… oh, jeez, he really is only Tarvaris Jackson after all and holding Brett Favre’s clipboard for a season and a half really hasn’t done anything to elevate him from Alex van Pelt territory.

          So yeah, it’s possible. But I don’t see it playing out that way as a significant probability.Report

    • Michael Drew in reply to MFarmer says:

      I completely agree with this if you replace Tebow with Approximately-Mediocre(Maybe A Little Better, maybe A Little Worse Than That) Quarterback X Who You Think You Can Develop.  What better environment for development could there be for any kind of a realistic prospect than backing up Peyton Manning for five years under GM John Elway?

      The fact that the team is loudly shopping him today even as estimates for their return on him plummeted to maybe a fourth-round pick (on the optimistic side) should tell us a lot about what the people who had the clostest, longest look at Tim Tebow the NFL quarterback thought they really had on their hands.

      I say this as a fan of Tebow the person who tends to think his contribution to the team’s season last year gets overly discounted by “football rationalists.” (Though that’s because I think it was largely a motivational, “heart”-based contribution that was pretty much necessarily a product of the unique circumstances of the season itself, not a contribution of skill, which would be a contention inconsistent with observed reality.  Over time – less than one more season’s worth of time – the hard reality of the skill level, even beyond simple mean-reversion, would have overwhelmed the “heart” effect, and the Broncos’ offense would have settled at a low-potency equilibrium – meaning no, there was no decade of good, make-it-to-the-playoffs seasons in the Broncos’ future with Tebow.)

      Also, to be dragged kicking and screaming to the Superbowl …what is that?  That’s not the vibe I get from the comments I heard from Broncos players today. They seem pretty fired up.Report

      • Michael Drew in reply to Michael Drew says:

        What better environment for development could there be for any kind of a realistic prospect than backing up Peyton Manning for five years under GM John Elway?

        …Though Likko makes a decent case above.  i tend to think Peyton in his twilight years might be more willing to work with understudies, though.Report

        • Based on what I heard on the Dan Patrick show this morning, I’m not so sure about this.  Apparently, one of the major factors in his decision-making was whether the team already had a long-term plan at QB.  If they did, that was a bit of a problem.

          Besides, you don’t pay someone 18 million plus a year to be a tutor.Report

          • Michael Drew in reply to Mark Thompson says:

            Yeah, after I posted that I realized it was one of those things where I should have added a ‘…but who knows, maybe not – I’m just guessing from no particular information’ qualification.

            I would say that you might pay someone who you suspect has three or four years of healthy play left a $95 million dollar contract for five years, expecting for the first three years he focuses on winning a Superbowl, and then last two on doing that again if possible, but also on imparting knowledge to his successor.  In any case, why wouldn’t they ask that of him – it’s not the five-year contract that’s in question here, it’s who the backup that you’d like to have be the recipient of that instruction will.  There’s no reason to think that the Broncos aren’t going to ask this of Peyton when the time comes, and no reason to think he’ll be entirely Favre-like about it, given the fact that they are taking him on as somewhat damaged goods.

            I listen to the DP podcasts, but haven’t got all the way through today’s yet.  I’ll listen for that.Report

  7. BlaiseP says:

    Meanwhile, in another galaxy, Sachin Tendulkar just got his 100th century.    It’s a phenomenal statistic, one hundred tons in international cricket, 51 centuries in test matches and 49 centuries in ODIs.   He’s been playing since 1989 and got his first ton in 1990

    There’s really no comparing Sachin to anyone else, any more than there was ever the equal of Babe Ruth in baseball.Report

  8. Burt Likko says:

    Where does Tebow end up? He’s decent backup QB material and can be dangerous; a team willing to be creative could line him up as a RB option behind its starting QB for some really fun gadget plays — since the man can throw the ball a good distance and on occasion, it’s even a catchable ball.

    I think you’d be looking at a team that is willing to take some gambles, with a good enough QB already, and a need to put asses in seats for reasons that may not necessarily be related to the quality of the product going on the field. Somewhere that you can depend on a large base of evangelicals in the community, to rally around their poster boy. A team that cares about the fact he’s won a Heisman. Somewhere that the management of the team has a history of ineptitude of sufficient volume that it would buy the sideshow attraction and pretend to be completely surprised by the fact that it generates a quarterback controversy. An organization with a history of taking long-shot gambles on players of marginal quality and only sometimes making them work — and when they do, somehow finding a way to drown the emerging success with mediocrity.

    I’m thinking Cincinnati. Are you feeling me?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Burt Likko says:

      Dman tells me that Colt isn’t working out for the Browns…Report

    • Mike Schilling in reply to Burt Likko says:

      I was convinced you meant the Raiders.Report

      • I think the depth of evangelical fan support in California’s east bay area is not so extensive as it is in northern Kentucky and southern Ohio; Tebow isn’t the “bad boy” Raiders fans embrace. And I don’t think they’ll be doing too many gadget plays next year.

        But other than that, yeah, that shoe sort of fits. And it would be interesting to see if Tebow would clean up the Raiders or be corrupted by them. But now I’m sippin’ some haterade, and frankly, the kid doesn’t deserve it.Report

        • Uncular 1 in reply to Burt Likko says:


          Don’t even start with that kind of talk! The Bengals have a solid QB in Andy Dalton (I even think he’s a Christian! OMG!) and Jay Gruden wants to run a pass heavy west coast offense. Not a good fit for Tebow at all, too many reads and the passes need to be accurate.Report

          • Burt Likko in reply to Uncular 1 says:

            Sorry man. Andy Dalton = B list.

            It could be a lot worse — he’s not John Skelton or Dan Orlovsky and both of those guys got starts last season. But it could be a lot better, too. This is just plain not a guy who’s in the same stratum as Brees, Brady, and Rodgers. Or either of the two Manning Brothers. Or even Joe Flacco.

            Come on, you know it’s true. Be honest, would you rather have Andy Dalton under center for your 2012 Bengals — or a guy like Matt Stafford or Cam Newton, if only somehow you could get one of them?Report

            • Michael Drew in reply to Burt Likko says:

              Burt, does anything give you the chills like this loose talk of Tebow coming to Green Bay to back up Aaron Rodgers?  Be still my heart.Report

              • This is just silly. Why would Green Bay need Tim Tebow? The Packers already have the best quarterback on Earth. The only use to which Tebow would be put would be as a glorified running back. He’d be useful if the Packers had to play the 1930 Dayton Triangles.Report

              • Michael Drew in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Apaprently Mike McCarthy had some semi-nice things to say about TT two years ago, so people thought we might be in the market.  But apparently now they have actually expressed interest.  I don’t get it either.  How could the Tebow Show have room to coexist with what’s already going on in GB?  TT just sits for ten years while Aaron Rodgers wins Superbowls (or doesn’t)?  TT as ARodg’s back might just be enough to get me back to prayin’, honestly.  TT needs to be the starter for a bad team that needs to fill seats, under a good QB coach.  He’ll get better if he plays.  Who knows how much.  What the Packers think they’re going to be able to do with him, I have no idea.Report

              • A-Rodg is down with the Jeebus in a big way, not at all unlike TT. Aaron’s just not all in your face about it. Matthew 6:1-8.Report

              • Michael Drew in reply to Burt Likko says:

                Oh ya, fer sure.  But if Timmy’s his back-up I may just be unable to resist lending my own humble contribution to the chorus of prayer for Mr. Rodgers’ health that will rise (and is always rising) from the land of cheese and paper.Report

  9. sonmi451 says:

    What are the odds that if this is some other guy and not Peyton freaking Manning, there would be a riot already in Denver? Maybe this is some sort of six dimensional chess by Elway, he never seemed like he wanted Tebow as starting QB, but knows that hell will break loose if he tries replacing Tebow after all the “miracles” last season. Manning is probably only good for 2-3 more years at most, but bringing him in now helps accomplish the impossible – ditching Tebow without a riot breaking out among the fans.Report

  10. Patrick Cahalan says:





    Jets, Jets, JETS!Report

    • MikeSchilling in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

      Jeremy Lin and now Tim Tebow.  New York City, home of the humble, reverent, and chaste.Report

    • BSK in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

      Now the Jets have TWO guys who are overrated as quarterbacks!  At least Tebow might be able to do something else..

      Did you see the penalties handed down in the Saints’ case?  Payton gone for a year, two 2nd round picks (why 2nd round?) forfeited… I wonder if there will be more fall out.  Williams can’t possibly escape unscathed, can he?Report

      • BSK in reply to BSK says:

        Nevermind… Williams suspended indefinitely… I didn’t actually read the article…

        GM gone 8 games, an assistant coach gone 6 and fined $100K.  Team fined $500K.  All suspensions without pay.


      • BlaiseP in reply to BSK says:

        I’m shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in here!

        Your winnings, sir.

        The NFL has not exactly covered itself in glory here.   Everyone knew this sort of crap was going on and did nothing.   Generations of QBs and tight ends and wide receivers are staggering around with skulls full of bloody oatmeal, the NFL now gets on its high horse.Report

        • MikeSchilling in reply to BlaiseP says:

          You misunderstand.  The NFL takes this so seriously because bounties violate the salary cap.Report

          • BlaiseP in reply to MikeSchilling says:

            Well, there you are.   There’s motivation enough to crack down hard on this sort of thing.Report

          • BSK in reply to MikeSchilling says:

            I don’t really think that is it, to be honest.  First off, a lot of the money was coming from players and was just getting shuffled around.  Second, any outside money was in the thousands to tens-of-thousands of dollar range, which (like it or not) is almost a rounding error for NFL salaries.

            This is Goodell being Goodell.  Wielding his hammer, enjoying the power, and adhering to his own arbitrary sense of justice.

            As troubling as the bounty program was, how different is it than giving out a game ball to a guy for picking up three sacks or rewarding massive hits everywhere from the sidelines to the NFL’s own highlight shows on their own network?  The bounty program was wrong and those involved deserve to be punished, but it is hard to rectify these with other punishments we’ve seen doled out (SpyGate in particular).Report

            • MikeSchilling in reply to BSK says:

              I wasn’t being serious, but note the following:

              All payouts for specific performances in a game, including interceptions or causing fumbles, are against NFL rules. The NFL warns teams against such practices before each season

              That’s not about safety, that’s about the cap.Report

              • BSK in reply to MikeSchilling says:

                Gotcha, gotcha, gotcha.  I didn’t realize the sarcasm.  My apologies.

                I’d argue that it is less about the cap specifically and more broadly a requirement of the CBA.

                Players’ unions, in all sports, generally abhor performance bonuses for a whole host of reason, which is why they are banned in all the major sports.  Playing time bonuses are generally allowed and even those create some perverse incentives.  See: K-Rod’s situation last year, where his option vested if he finished a certain number of games (language deliberately used because they could not have it vest base on Saves) and, had they not been able to trade him, the Mets were seriously considering removing him from the closer’s role to avoid having to pay him for the next year.  Performance bonuses could legitimately impact how game plans are implemented… does an RB get a huge bonus for accruing 15 TDs?  Once he hits 12, suddenly the FB becomes the goal line back.  Etc.

                But, yea, the practice was against the rules in part (or wholly) for things having nothing to do with player safety.Report

              • MikeSchilling in reply to BSK says:

                the Mets were seriously considering removing him from the closer’s role to avoid having to pay him

                Remember Eddie Cicotte!Report

              • MikeSchilling in reply to BSK says:

                In Baseball, bonuses based on winning awards are fairly common, though the ones I’ve seen don’t seem to be enough money to really matter.Report

            • BlaiseP in reply to BSK says:

              Even I understood that to be snark.   This is nothing but yet another random lightning bolt sprung forth from King Roger’s anus, periodically smiting some hapless bozo, leaving a greasy, smoking hulk on the sidelines to create awe and fear in the other morlocks.

              The NFL is a corrupt little racket and everyone knows it.   It’s nothing but Stage II of the equally-corrupt and hypocritical NCAA system.   If actual market forces took over in that market, we’d see a lot better football and more of it, too.Report

              • BSK in reply to BlaiseP says:

                Marcellus Wiley, former player and current ESPN analysis, who is rarely NOT the smartest man in the room on issues of football and all else, tweeted out:

                “R u kidding me Goodell? Suspended Coach for a year for that? Please let me see those Spygate tapes now.”Report

              • BlaiseP in reply to BSK says:

                I sure wish someone would bring a Sherman Act case against the NFL.   High time King Roger and his little cabal of goons got a boot put up their asses, collectively and severally.


    • Nob Akimoto in reply to Patrick Cahalan says:

      As if the world needed more reasons to hate the Jets.Report

  11. MikeSchilling says:

    Now I’m seeing an ad for Arab Singles.  Boy, have they got a wrong number!Report