Tim Tebow: Jets' QB Will Continue to Be a Non-Factor in Team's Gameplan
By no fault of his own, the Tim Tebow experiment with the New York Jets can be labeled a failure.
Tebow has done nothing to help the team win football games in 2012. If anything, he's hurt the team's chances—through no fault of his own.
Tebow, who hasn't seen the field in two weeks as he recovers from two broken ribs suffered against the Seattle Seahawks in Week 10 (h/t Boston Herald) is now a game-time decision for the team's Week 14 game against the Jacksonville Jaguars, according to Sports Illustrated:
Jets' head coach Rex Ryan, who along with offensive coordinator Tony Sparano—the supposed "wildcat genius"—have proven time and time again that they don't have the foggiest clue as to how to use Tebow, who, ironically, is the biggest playmaker on the team.
During his weekly conversation with reporters, Ryan insinuated that if Tebow is healthy enough to play that Ryan may dress—and play—all three of his quarterbacks: Sanchez, Tebow and Greg McElroy.
Sanchez is starting the team's Week 14 game against the Jacksonville Jaguars against the wishes of owner Woody Johnson, who according to the New York Daily News, wanted the unproven McElroy under center.
But I digress.
Ryan then put his foot in his mouth—no pun intended—letting it slip that the team hadn't actually practiced any wildcat formations during practice this week, making it pretty clear that even if Tebow dresses, he won't be a factor.
The head coach later caught himself, telling reporters "I don't want to say that we don't have any wildcat, so I kind of blew that there. But besides our two additional wildcat periods we had this week..."
Nice try, Rex, but facts are facts—and the numbers don't lie.
Through 13 weeks of the regular season, Tebow has touched the ball less than 40 times.
Nobody, least of all the Jaguars, is overly concerned about having to face Tebow on Sunday.
He has been––and will continue to be—completely irrelevant for the Jets on game day.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?