Giants' Woes

On Sunday night I was cursed with the responsibility of having a job.  I don't typically work Sundays because I'm a devout football fan and I love my Giants.  Little did I know that I would be cursed even further by being able to watch half of the Sunday Night Football game against the Eagles.  It was a terrible sight, watching the Giants squander opportunity after opportunity and all because their ground game was nowhere to be seen.

I love the Giants because they are typically a very well balanced team that can run the ball with any team in the NFL.  Sure, they would sometimes falter against some very good defenses, but nothing like the ineptitude they have shown this year.  The running game is so bad that the fans at home games have started to boo Brandon Jacobs when he enters the game.  Jacobs is having a bad statistical year and his relationship with the team is strained due to a lack of playing time when the starter, Ahmad Bradshaw, is healthy, but he isn't the problem.  The offensive line and offensive coordinator are the source of the problem.

The offensive line suffered a blow due to the teams cap issues in the beginning of the season.  The 5 man uni was stripped of 2 of it's veterans in order to open up some cap room for other players that the Giants were unable to sign.  So, from the start of the season the offensive line has been working on gaining the chemistry amongst themselves to play as one cohesive unit.  Unfortunately that hasn't happened yet.  The blocking during runs hasn't been good.  That is why Jacobs hasn't been effective.  He isn't flashy or terribly agile, but when he is able to get moving north and south he is very difficult to tackle.  If he is hit before he is able to get moving then the play is likely to fail and that isn't the fault of the running back.  There weren't many running lanes for any backs on Sunday so lets put the blame where it belongs.

Another reason for the lack of a running game is the lack of knowledge that the offensive coordinator has on his players and how to sustain an effective running game.  Kevin Gilbride, Giants offensive coordinator, has been phasing the running game out for the last few years.  The Giants went to the Super Bowl behind the best running game in the league and Gilbride has decided that running isn't so important.  I can't tell you how many time I have seen the Giants pass 3 consecutive plays and then punt.  The running game is what keeps teams on schedule for down and distance and allows the Giants to do what they have been so good at for the last 5 years, play action passing.  Using Jacobs effectively requires an I-back set or pulling linemen in a single back set to allow him to run down hill with a full head of steam.  The shotgun draw play is not something that Jacobs has ever done well, but Gilbride seams to want the same offense for Jacobs that he would have for Bradshaw and that isn't going to work.  Gilbride needs to stay dedicated to the run and call plays that fit the personnel  rather than calling plays for the sake of calling that play.  I know that he has been a good coordinator in the past and part of the problem is the teams execution, but he has obviously fallen in love with the passing game and that isn't good for Giants football.

Dedication to the running game can be the best way to get it working.  The more reps that an offensive line has running the ball the better they will be and for a line that is still trying to gel it is imperative to instill a confidence in them that they can move the ball.  I understand that you have to do what works, but building a running game is essential to the future success of this team.  Hand the ball off and allow Jacobs to have a bigger impact on games so that this team doesn't waste a 2 game lead in the division and miss the playoffs.

Key to Beating the Option

I played football for just under a decade and the last 2 years that I played were dedicated to learning the triple option offense.  I hated it then just like I hate it now because it is an offense relies on the defense being undisciplined and never dictates play.  When an offense is relying on mistakes by unblocked players there is a good chance that within a game the defense will figure out the scheme and eliminate their confusion.  The end result is typically negative plays for the offense.

In order to stifle the option offense a defense has to be clear on it's responsibilities and forget about personal stats.  The option requires that a defender, typically an lineman, to be unblocked.  They read this players reaction to what he sees and the QB decides to hand the ball off, run himself, or pitch the ball to his third option if he has one.  The Broncos ran this play a lot against the Kansas City Chiefs because their defensive ends were undisciplined in their run pursuits.  They would either attack the running back or flow hard down the line of scrimmage in order to take away the cutback by the running back.  Both actions are clear keep reads for the QB who is then alone off the backside of the play action without anyone to touch him until he is at least 5 yards down the field.  If the free defender plays to contain the back edge or goes for the QB then the that is a clear give read for the offense.

The goal for the defense is to have the QB give the ball to the running back every time.  This way you can are protecting yourself against having huge gains from the QB and increase your chances of keeping the run to a minimal gain.  When the QB hands the ball off the option is a regular shotgun running play.  The way to do this is to attack the QB.  The free defender has to realize that by going straight for the QB he is determining what direction the play will go in and that the QB won't be a factor in the running game.  Even if the offense adds the triple option, as the Broncos did last week, it is important to make the QB make quick decisions and to get a hit on him on every play.  The quicker the free defender gets to the QB the better the chance the play will end in favor of the defense.  The key to the triple option threat is making sure the backside linebacker or safety knows they have the pitch man so the free defender can focus on hitting the QB. 

By staying disciplined and knowing ones responsibility on defense it is easy to slow down an option offense as long as the individual battle are won.  Forget about stats and remember the fundamentals that have been taught to you since little league.  Defensive ends must keep contain on the backside of runs by gaining depth into the backfield to ensure a team doesn't run a reverse.  By doing so, you also limit the effectiveness of the option offense.

Why Stop With a Statue

Everyone knows that the last few weeks has been very hard for the Penn State community.  The alleged crimes by Jerry Sandusky has knocked the university off of it's pedestal and, quite frankly, off it's rocker.  The aftermath of this tragedy has resulted in many prominent administrators being fired or forced into retirement and Joe Paterno is among the few that were terminated.  Last week I wrote an article on StateoftheSport.com in which I question the timeliness of his firing.  Today I'm going to defend a man that has committed no crime, possibly done nothing wrong, and is being unfairly persecuted by Penn State and the media.

Joe Paterno was not the one who molested a child in Penn State's locker room back in 2002.  Mike McQueary didn't catch Joe Paterno molesting anyone.  There aren't 40 counts of child molestation filed against Joe Paterno.  Why is he being treated like the child molester that Sandusky is alleged to be.  Paterno had a situation brought to his attention and acted on the information he was given in the proper fashion in the eyes of the law.  It is unclear what specifically was told to Paterno at this point, but it is clear that when he was presented with the grand jury's findings, he was shocked as to the charges and accusations against his former defensive coordinator.  That reaction says to me that he wasn't told in 2002 of the sodomy that McQueary allegedly witnessed.  Paterno told the grand jury that he reported an incident of touching and fondling of a possibly sexual nature to his superiors in the Penn State administration.  Since the grand jury didn't charge him of perjury, like they did with 2 Penn State administrator, they believed that what he said was what he was told and nothing less. 

I keep hearing about the moral responsibility to do more then just report it to his superiors and that there should have been some kind of follow up.  By going to his superiors, Paterno believed that the situation would be handled properly.  He trusted the men that he had worked with for possibly decades to do their part and investigate properly.  If they came back to Paterno and said the situation was looked into and taken care of then why should he follow up?  The people he trusted, now charged with perjury for lying to the grand jury, told him that everything is taken care of along with what was done, then why would he think that anything more needed to be done?  It is easy today to say that more should have been done because more crimes were committed after the fact, but based on the known facts it doesn't make sense for Paterno to do more than he did.  He heard of an incident and reported it to the people he was supposed to, end of story.  If you went to your boss, assuming you trust him/her, and reported an incident that may be criminal in nature and that boss comes back to you and said they looked into and dealt with it properly, would you do more digging?

Paterno was fired last Wednesday for not doing more in this situation.  He wasn't fired for molesting a child, performance issues, or any pending criminal charges for not fully cooperating with authorities in this case.  He was fired for following protocols specifically laid out by the school and state for the information he was given.  He followed the letter of the law and was fired.  He won't be the last I'm sure, but he is the scapegoat for Penn State University.  I haven't heard anything about the President of the university since he was fired and I've hardly heard anything about Sandusky since last Saturday.  All the talk is about Joe Paterno and the latest news is Penn State removing his statue during the Thanksgiving break.

The man coached at Penn State for 61 years.  61 years of running a good, clean program and producing not just good football players, but very good men.  61 years of contributions to Penn State's academic success and charitable foundations within State College, PA.  61 years of bleeding Penn State blue, not just for the football program, and he was fired without cause and unceremoniously and now he is being removed from the universities history piece by piece.  I say fine, but do it completely.  Rip down the library that he donated to Penn State and return every dime he donated to his university over the past 61 years.  If you want him erased for this one incident in which he did nothing wrong, then you give everything he gave you back.

I grew up in New Jersey with a dream of playing for Penn State and Joe Paterno.  Now, I'm a grown man who has never been more disappointed in a education institution.  The Penn State administration let the acts of a sexual predator slide to protect it's football program and now that same administrative body is using the Universities best employee, and the only one that followed the school's and states protocol properly, as a scapegoat.  I no longer have delusions as to what Penn State is all about and I will not support Penn State in anyway until Paterno's statue is returned to it's rightful place in front of the stadium and Penn State publicly apologizes for the way they have handled this situation.

NBPA Has No Clue

The NBPA has decided to reject the NBA owner's proposal for a 50-50 split in basketball related revenue.  They claim that the owners haven't dealt with them in good faith and that handing them an ultimatum this late in negotiations was arrogant and wrong.  It was an arrogant move, but it wasn't wrong and it wasn't done in bad faith.  The NBPA is just clueless to what leverage they have and the public perception of what is going on.

The NBA is currently in a lockout because the players have to much power and the owners, in some areas, aren't making money.  The smaller market teams have been struggling through the last few seasons and even the large market teams haven't had it easy.  The league was in danger of loosing teams because they just weren't profitable.  Some will say that it is the teams fault for not being good and not getting better over time.  I would normally agree with this assessment, but there is a reason the small market teams don't get any better and the reason is the players.

For the last few years we have seen small market teams be held hostage by their star players.  Lebron James did it in Cleveland, Chris Bosh did it to Toronto, Carmello Anthony did it right here in Denver.  These "stars" of the NBA will play for a team until they find a better situation and normally that situation has nothing to do with winning.  Most of the time it is a money grab.  Mello wanted to be in New York and did all he could to get there so that he could build his brand and make more money.  He would only sign his extension in Denver if he was traded to New York.  Why does he have a say?  He hasn't won anything and he is one of the worst team players I've ever seen.  Mello is a one on one guy and his shooting percentage isn't good enough to warrant this kind of star treatment.  Other players pull the same stunts so that they have to be traded and the teams that trade them never get the same talent in return so they are doomed to try and rebuild again.

The system is broken and the owners desperately want to fix it.  They want to establish a hard cap so that the big market teams can't get away with buying most of the great talent.  In this deal, however, the owners gave the players the soft cap that they wanted.  They did this in spite of themselves in order to get a season underway and to keep the momentum going from last years great season.  The players didn't think that was enough, they are stuck on the revenue split and it is understandable why that would be.  The last agreement gave them 57% of the basketball related revenue.  This agreement would give them 7% less of that pie, but the pie is bigger and it was growing so I'm not sure what the real value lost there would be.  I do know that the owners are emphatic that the deal before was bankrupting some of the franchises and that isn't good for anyone. 

The players are calling the last proposal from the league as an ultimatum and I don't agree with that assessment.  This deal has been in the works now for months and the owners have never gotten off the fact that the deal needs to be 50-50 and, in fact, many of the owners want it to be lower.  The NBA was tired of waiting for the players to come around and realize that the circumstances weren't going to change so they simply set an expiration date on this current offer and were willing to tweak certain areas of the deal in order to get a deal done.  They then let the players know what the next offer would look like if this deal was rejected.  An ultimatum would be take this or the season is over.  Letting the other side know where talks will go isn't an ultimatum. 

The NBPA is clueless in this situation and following bad advise.  The NFLPA filed an antitrust lawsuit this last summer and lost when they had a legitimate argument that they had no other place to play and make a living playing ball.  The NBA has no such argument thanks to the fact that many of them already have contracts to play overseas.  How can you argue that you can't make a living playing basketball elsewhere when earlier in negotiations it seemed like you were promoting the fact that you didn't need the NBA to make money.  Do you get how stupid that makes you look?  You're a joke and the worst part is that you haven't realized it yet.

The NBA is full of stupid, overpaid clowns.  You play a game for a living and you just wasted a full years paycheck so that you can get more money.  That doesn't endear you with fans and, in actuality, it kind of makes us mad.  We are the ones paying your salary with our loyalty to the NBA and to our teams.  You have routinely spit in the face of the small market teams and now you are throwing away money because your millions aren't enough.  I live check to check and with the current state of the economy you are making it harder for people like me to make a living.  I don't want to hear that not everyone makes the large money that Kobe and Mello make.  You all make more than you deserve and until you realize that the fans won't be on your side.  It's not like the NBA is the NFL and you're fighting for better health care for when you retire.  You want bigger, longer contracts and the ability to dictate where you play instead of being grateful for the fact you are being paid to play a game most of us have to pay to play.  Just a bunch of stupid clowns.

Broncos Hurting Future With Spread Option

The Broncos won for the third time in 4 Tim Tebow starts.  It is a great day to be a Denver Bronco and also to be their fans.  The Broncos are winning, their contending for the division, and their quarterback is proving all of his critics wrong.  Well, that last one isn't correct.  I'm a football critic and analyst and I'm still doubting Tebow's ability to beat good teams with his arm and the Broncos process of building for the future.

It's easy to say that the team is better because Tebow is at the helm and now they are winning games.  I can say that he has very little to do with the wins since he has taken over.  2 things have gotten better since Kyle Orton has been benched while one has gotten much worse.  The defense isn't allowing teams to score a lot of points in their wins and the running game has improved with the teams new dedication to it.  The passing game has been a joke with Tebow at the helm and this weeks punch line is 2 completions.

Since Tebow has taken over, the offense has scored more than 20 points only once.  In comparison, Kyle Orton only scored under 20 points one time in games he played from start to finish.  This means that the offense is actually doing worse with Tebow in the lineup.  Without the 38 points scored in Oakland the Denver offense would be scoring only 14 points per game in games that Tebow has started this year.  With that in mind I take a look at the rest of the schedule and ask myself if the Broncos can keep each of the remaining teams on the schedule to under 14 points.  The answer is no.  If they are lucky they will be able to keep the Jets and Chiefs off the scoreboard.  The Patriots and bills were score a lot and the Bears are a well balanced team right now that is proving difficult to stop.  Without the ability to produce point consistently, the Broncos can't sustain their current winning ways.

I was wondering, on Sunday watching the game, what would this offense look like if Orton were still the starter.  Imagine what the Broncos could do with the dedication they are showing to the run and still had the ability to throw the ball.  Orton would never be asked to throw the ball only 8 times in a game.  In his games this season Orton threw an average of 35 times a game.  Tebow has only been asked to throw just under 24 times a game and on Sunday it was an astounding 8 tries at throwing the ball.  The closest Orton has ever come to only 8 attempts in a game was against San Diego where he threw 13 times... in the first half.  I really think that the running game complimented with an efficient passing game would score more points than what the team has now.  I also think that the lack of attempts speaks volumes to how the coaching staff feels about their passer.

When looking to the future, past this season, I feel the Broncos are doing themselves a disservice by turning to a spread option running game.  The traditional sets produced very good returns in the run game and provided a sense of improvement from the beginning of the season.  Tebow has been everything but efficient since taking over.  He has yet to throw 50% of his passes for completions and when only asked to throw 8 times, he completed only 2.  Kyle Orton was completing almost 59% of his passes, 15% better than Tebow.  By changing the offense over to the spread option, the team is basically giving up on the passing portion of their offense and won't see any significant improvement to evaluate Tebow on.  How is that good for the franchise moving forward.

The Broncos, though contending for the division at present, are doing themselves a terrible disservice by running an offense that won't be effective in the long run.  The team needs to come out and run the offense that they plan on running next year, the offense they were running for the first 7 weeks of the season.  They need to do this so they can evaluate what they truly have in Tebow and every other position on offense.  By running the spread option, at least how they have been, they aren't seeing if Tebow can read offenses, throw on time and on target within a pro style offense, how good their current receivers are, and what the group as a whole will be capable in the future.  Along with those draw backs, the Broncos are making it harder to get rid of Tebow if they decide he isn't what they want come the offseason.  The more he wins in this style of offense the worse off the Broncos will be for the nest 2-4 years.

Fighting Can Be a Positive For Football Team

There was a report going around last week that Bill Belichick, when he was a coach for the Cleveland Browns, had paid a player to start fights in practice.  Not only do I not have a problem with this, but i think Belichick needs to renew the practice in New England immediately.  A little fight every now and then can do wonders for a team.

Chad Eaton was a practice player on the Cleveland Browns in 1995 when he claims that he was paid by Belichick to start "skirmishes" in practice.  This practice is by no means new nor is Belichick the last coach to use it.  When you feel that your team is talented but soft, you need to have a way to bring out the toughness in those players.  The best way to do this is by having another player get under their skin.  Eventually this will start a fight between those 2 players, but the idea is to have the 2 sides support each other.  If a fight starts between 2 guys, 5 guys will try and finish it.  It helps build comradery amongst your starts by letting the players know that everyone else has your back out their.

Fighting isn't just used in pro football either.  When I played on the practice squad in college my freshman year, we were encouraged to start a "fight" everyday.  We got out of conditioning everyday we got the starting defense to take a shot at us.  We weren't told to start throwing punches or do anything cheap.  It was our jobs to prepare the starters for that weeks game and if we weren't doing everything we could to win each battle then the team wouldn't be prepared.  So, we had to step up the intensity by blocking past the whistle, holding, talking a little trash, and occasionally through an extra shove in after a play was over.  We also had a rule that if any guy got into a fight by himself he didn't finish it by himself.  We weren't the best offensive squad, but there was no question that we were tight.

The Patriots look like they need to get in a fight on the defensive side of the ball.  They are the worst in the NFL right now and they don't look like they know how to hit anyone in the mouth.  Belichick needs to find a way to light a fire under their asses.  Maybe a little "skirmish" can bring the fight out of that defense and spark a solid run into the playoffs.

College Football's Regular Season Isn't a Playoff

The point of the BCS is to create a national champion in college football through a one game bout between the #1 and #2 ranked teams in the country.  The tradition of bowl games has won out in college football over a fan wanted playoff for quite some time and the main reason is because of how exciting the regular season is.  In terms used by traditionalist, every game matters.  Well, that isn't true and it will never be true in division 1 football.

On Saturday night the entire country witnessed the #1 ranked LSU Tigers battle the #2 Alabama Crimson Tide.  It was a great defensive battle in which only 15 points were scored throughout the entire game.  LSU won the game in overtime and Alabama was left wondering what could have been if they had executed a few plays better, how far would they drop in the polls, and will they have a chance to compete for another national title.  Well, the polls and BCS standings were very kind and the hope in Tuscaloosa isn't dead.  Alabama dropped a total of one spot to #3.

If the regular season is, in fact, the playoff system that the universities say it is then how is it that Alabama, loser or Saturday, didn't fall behind Stanford and Boise State in the BCS?  Why doesn't it matter that they won when Alabama lost?  This tells me that not every game matters, only SEC games matter.  You don't have to be undefeated or win your conference to have a shot at a national title, you need to win the SEC championship and then not get blown out by the SEC champion in order to get a shot at the national title.  It is shameful that a one loss team doesn't drop below an undefeated team in the standings.

I get the fact that strength of schedule matters, but I'm getting sick and tired of teams hiding in their conference schedules.  The SEC, for the most part, relies on the strength of the rest of the teams in the conference in order to get through to the National Championship game.  The problem there is that only one half of the SEC is terribly strong and it even then we are looking at 3 good teams at best on their schedule.  I know that Boise State has a far weaker schedule, but they how many teams competing for a National Championship are willing to put this giant killer on their out of conference schedule.  Georgia, an SEC team, was the only one to do it this year and was beat by 2 TD's in Georgia.  Don't tell me that they can't compete against the best teams in the country either.  Boise has lost 5 games since the beginning of the 2006 season and only 1 of them has come in a bowl game. 

Standford doesn't play in a cupcake conference at all.  The PAC-12 is no joke and has produced many National Championship contenders over the last 10 years.  USC, Oregon, and Stanford have been in the mix for years now and they all have to play each other during the regular season.  That is just as many hard games on the schedule as an SEC team and, honestly, the offenses are better in the PAC-12 so it isn't fair to write them off when comparing them to the SEC, but for some reason the college community does.

If LSU doesn't loose for the rest of the regular season and Alabama doesn't loose any more games then it is possible for them to meet in the National Championship game in January ahead of some undefeated teams.  How can you claim that every game matters when you obviously feel that certain teams don't matter?  How can a team that isn't in the running to win their conference be able to compete for a National Championship?  How can you claim the system is fair when it is clear that it isn't?  If the tradition is so important to college that the bowl system can't be touched, then why are traditional conferences and rivalries being destroyed for money and "super conferences"?  Throw all of college footballs "traditions" out and get a playoff system within the bowl structure.  Every other division has found a way and it is time for division 1 football to determine a true champion.

Who's Really To Blame?

When Tim Tebow won the game against the Miami Dolphins a few weeks ago he could do no wrong.  His abysmal performance for 54 minutes was wiped away and the "spark" that was missing in Denver had been found.  Then the Broncos play the Detroit Lions and got embarrassed.  Tebow played poorly for an entire 4 quarters and the local media turned on him.  He went from captain comeback to captain backup in a heart beat.  Then you have the blame game being played by commentators, local media, and national media members.  If you want to know who to blame for Tebows poor play to this point this season I'll tell you.

I'll start by telling you who isn't to blame, John Fox.  There isn't one part of Tebow's game that has been negatively influenced by Denver's head coach or his coaching staff.  They haven't had enough time to have any kind of impact on Tebow's game.  Greg Couch, am award winning writer for Fox Sports, would agree with me.  In his eyes the Bronco's coaching staff is out to embarrass Tebow and quiet his supporters.  He cites play calling for the lack of success that Tebow has had, but he also admits that Tebow has his own deficiencies.  Anyone blaming play calling doesn't understand what is going on in Denver and might just not be that observant. 

The Broncos just hired a new coach due to his defensive knowledge and results.  He also had a plan for certain type of offense that the team's management was very excited about.  That offense is a well balanced attack with an emphasis on the running game.  This means a lot of under center formations for the QB and it requires a certain amount of proficiency in the passing game.  The Broncos are dedicated to this style of play for the future of the organization.  Any QB they play this year has to show that proficiency within the passing game for the franchise to get better.  The play calling has been to showcase Tebow's ability to run this type of offense.  The Broncos started in the spread to get Tim comfortable and work him into the gameplan for the day.  He completed a few passes and lead the team down the field for a score.  The team then tried to transition into more of what will be their base offense and Tebow was ineffective.  He was ineffective on long throws, intermediate throws, and short throws.  He wasn't able to run the offense that the Broncos will be running for a large portion of the next 4 years.  Yes, Tebow may be better in the spread, college style offense, but that is not where this organization wants to go.  The play calling isn't meant to make Tebow look good, it is meant to test him on his knowledge of and ability to run the future offense of the Denver Broncos.

Now, if we want to assess blame for why Tebow has been as ineffective as he has been then there are 3 people that need to bear that responsibility.  The first is Tim's high school football coach.  High school is where we really start to develop the skills in our athletes that will hopefully take them to the next level.  This especially true for QB's because before high school the focus is on the running game because the level of skill just isn't there in pee-wee football to have a big passing game.  So, when Tebow got to high school, he should have been shown the proper techniques for throwing a football and learned how to take a snap from center.  This step in his development was never taken and it put Tim 4 years behind the curve when it comes to fundamental and skill set.

Urban Meyer is probably the worst offender in that regard.  Myers was Tebow's coach at the University of Florida.  He knew that there were serious deficiencies in Tim's game when he arrived at Florida and should have spent time fixing at least some of the areas that he struggled in.  Meyer never made Tebow take snaps from center, work on footwork from center, or adjust his throwing motion to help make him a more accurate passer.  Meyer won 2 championships on the back of Tebow and, in my mind, never did a thing to help Tebow advance his football career other than stand up for him on TV.  Bad coaching on both the high school and college level has set Tebow back 8 years in his development. 

The last person to blame is Tim Tebow himself.  I keep hearing about how hard Tebow works and how great of a team mate he is.  I'm not going to refute either of those claims for when Tebow is at practice or in season.  During the lockout, however, it would appear that Tebow hasn't gotten much if any better in any of area's in which he struggles.  I've given up on the throwing motion aspect of the discussion because all the experts tell me that at this point it will never change.  The footwork is poor, his accuracy is poor and his decision making has come into question.  These are all things that can be worked on in the offseason.  I've heard that the lockout really hurt Tebow's development because he didn't have the opportunity to work with his coaches.  I say that is a lousy excuse for a professional athlete to not improve during an offseason.  Tim knows where his faults lye and there are plenty of other professionals, former professionals, and coaches not currently in the NFL that could have and would have helped him during the lockout.  He didn't do the things that he needed to do during the offseason to improve.  He didn't put in the necessary work to be in a position to compete for the starting job in camp and then he was thrown to the wolves for all to get a piece of. 

At this point there is no reason to play the blame game with Tebow.  Ultimately it will rest on his shoulders to prove that he belongs in the league or not.  Eventually he will either step up his game or he will play himself out of the league.  Either way, the blame from here on out is all on him and, honestly, that's the way most athletes want it.