Why Tebow could end up as a Bear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soulman

Well that's an interesting concept. A 3rd string short yardage QB who really only needs to be able to execute a small portion of the total offense in order to be of value. Guys one and two are your regular passer types but guy three is your short yardage and goaline weapon hmmmmm. Beats having 5 TEs on your team when you never throw to them to begin with ala Tice.

---

He'd have to play for 3rd string pay. Nothing like he's been getting. Would he be worth a active roster spot on game day?

Thanks for your input. It is great to have CFLers here and contributing and hope that you will continue to do so.

With that being said as we saw today the Read Option is here and will become common place sooner then most people think IMO. I wouldn't mind having a QB like that to help reduce Jay's beatings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billatter

Hope you don't mind a CFLer sticking his nose into this discussion . . .

Trestman could bring two CFL habits with him: the read-option play that's been a staple up here for a few years, and the short yardage specialist QB. Most CFL teams now employ a backup QB, usually with good size and wheels, as the dedicated short yardage guy. It adds another problem for the D as they have to consider the QB and RB as equal threats to run the ball, plus the QB might change things up and dump a short pass for the yardage. It also saves the no. 1 QB from taking a pounding. It's common for the short yardage QB to have a lot of running touchdowns to his credit as they often are sent in when the O is close to the goal line. The short yardage QB usually doesn't hook-slide, rather they pound it upfield like a FB. Couple the read-option with a dedicated short yardage QB and we can see the potential.

If Tebow could accept this role, he could have a future under Trestman.

The media circus however, would be another matter entirely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustAnotherBearsFan99

He'd have to play for 3rd string pay. Nothing like he's been getting. Would he be worth an active roster spot on game day?

---

I don't know but were four or five active TEs needed either when you seldom threw to them? If a guy can keep drives alive and score TDs from inside the five then yeah he'd have a spot on my roster.

Besides with Tebow's size you can almost use him as a "move" TE as well when you aren't in those situations. I'm not saying we should sign Tebow no matter what he costs us or how we use him I'm just saying he's a guy who could be used that way in a very non-traditional NFL sense.

If it wasn't for his ultra Christian background and following he's the kind of guy Oakland could make use of but I think he'd be a bad fit there just because that. He's a good enough football player and athlete that somebody should figure out a way to use him more effectively than has has been.

Damn, now I want Clutts back :drinking61:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by short faced bear

Damn, now I want Clutts back :drinking61:

---

You know by seasons end ERod was doing alright at FB and I think Trestman will make far better use of him in the passing game than Tice did. He came in as a "move" TE type of guy but he learned how to become a decent blocking back. I like his ability to learn a new position and he could be a big part of the offense in the coming years if he continues to progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by short faced bear

Damn, now I want Clutts back :drinking61:

---

I never wanted him gone. What did we get for that brilliant Tice trade again? Oh, that's right...we got a 3rd string nickel back who played a little special teams. And then got hurt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MPBears68

I never wanted him gone. What did we get for that brilliant Tice trade again? Oh, that's right...we got a 3rd string nickel back who played a little special teams. And then got hurt.

---

Clutts was so good... he was inactive for their playoff game

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MPBears68

I never wanted him gone. What did we get for that brilliant Tice trade again? Oh, that's right...we got a 3rd string nickel back who played a little special teams. And then got hurt.

---

Come one now he was a damn good STeams guy and was leading in tackles when he got hurt. I think both teams ended up benefiting and by seasons end ERod was doing a pretty fair job at FB. This year he needs a different role though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

Clutts was so good... he was inactive for their playoff game

---

Houston has a damn good OL that protected Schaub fairly well all year and opened plenty of holes for Foster. We had.....hmmm, something considerably less than that to be generous. IOW, Clutts' blocking ability would have been far more valuable to us than it was to them (where it was a luxury). Maybe we would have made 4th and inches vs. Seattle and not got stuffed on the goal line 3 straight runs vs. Minnesota. Just sayin...

Where was McManis all year? Besides a few nice ST plays, he was buried on the CB depth chart and then IR'd.

If ERod continues to come on as a FB/H-back then it won't matter for the future, but I still say it was at the time a (small scale) DUMB MOVE.

How is it that we came to be talking about the trade of Clutts for McManis in a thread about Tim Tebow?

I call :thread jacked: