Tim Tebow Reportedly Will Be Inactive When Jets Battle Chargers in Week 16
UPDATE: Sunday, December 23 at 11:55 a.m. by Alex Kay
It will be interesting to see if Tebow sniffs the field today or is used solely as an emergency option as injury insurance for Greg McElroy and Mark Sanchez.
---END OF UPDATE---
The New York Jets' persecution of Tim Tebow wasn’t finished after they chose third-stringer Greg McElroy to start over him in place of Mark Sanchez.
According to CBSSports.com’s Jason La Canfora, the backup signal-caller will reportedly be inactive for Sunday’s game against the San Diego Chargers, leaving McElroy and Sanchez as the only two QBs in uniform.
Sounds like Tim Tebow will be a healthy scratch today. Jets expect to only dress 2 QBs.— Jason La Canfora (@JasonLaCanfora) December 23, 2012
It’s yet another low blow from the franchise that went out of its way to acquire Tebow this past offseason.
Instead of giving him a chance to succeed, coach Rex Ryan has done everything in his power to hold the former Florida star down and limit his opportunities to make a difference.
By not even allowing Tebow to suit up for this Week 16 contest, the coach and GM Mike Tannenbaum are openly showing their distaste for the controversial QB.
Tebow simply deserved a chance to start over Sanchez after being listed as the No. 2 QB on the depth chart for the majority of the 2012 season.
He worked his hardest, ran ridiculous draws up the middle each time he was on the field without hesitating, never badmouthed anyone to the media and was a model citizen during his time in the Big Apple.
Should Tebow be dressed for Sunday's game?
For all of that dedication and commitment, Tebow has been rewarded with nothing but open disrespect from his coaching staff and front office. It’s a terrible way for the young man to be treated, but fortunately he’ll likely be departing the franchise soon.
It’s a real shame that Tebow isn’t dressing Sunday, and it’s a bigger injustice that he wasn’t given a shot at starting. We’ll keep you updated right here when we know more about this developing situation.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?