# I Was Wrong- There's a BIG Downside to Letting Tim Tebow start **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [November 13, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840 "2011-11-13T22:35:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Intergalactic\_Gladiator](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/intergalactic_gladiator/32/112_2.png) [@Intergalactic\_Gladiator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Intergalactic_Gladiator)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/261 "2011-11-30T17:09:00Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > The Chargers also haven’t won another game since Tebow fired up that defense against them in the second half. > > Another one of your _coincidences_, Tebow haters? _Scoff_ I find it hard to believe that Tebow would have prayed for GOd to Smite the Chargers like this. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/262 "2011-11-30T18:43:32Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I agree wholeheartedly that it would be interesting to shake things up in the NFL and have a team totally embrace the read option or whatever you want to call what the Broncos are doing. I just don’t think it would work for long. Neither do I. But I don’t _know_, nor does anyone else, and I get annoyed with the people who say they do. If they have success with it, I suspect it will end up like most innovations, with lots of people will incorporating some of it into their system, just as everyone integrated concepts from the Run and Shoot, the West Coast, etc. etc. > [@](#): > > The Broncos have scored 18, 10, 38, 17, 17, and 16 points with Tebow as QB. That’s an average of 19.3 points a game. Good enough for 24th place with the mighty offensive juggernaut Miami Dolphins. Given that their offensive personnel is sketchy, that half the plays they’re running now have been added midseason, and that nobody on the offensive staff has any background running a spread option offense in their lives, that sounds pretty good, actually. It’s only 2.5 under the league average. > [@](#): > > The only reason it “works” is because the defense has been the second best scoring defense in the NFL. Now someone could, if they were so inclined and some have, give most of the credit for the defensive play to the QB of the 24th ranked offense, rather than the men who actually play defense, the second ranked defense. But I think that’s simply wrong. I wouldn’t give \*most \*of the credit to the QB, nor to the offense in general. But pretending the offense and defense are not interrelated is foolish. There is a reason why Army, Navy, and Air Force post respectable defensive statistics year after year, despite having, by a large margin, the least talented rosters in the NCAA, and it’s not because they try harder or are better people or have some innovative scheme – it’s because they only let the other team have the ball 8 times a game, instead of the normal 10-12. If you limit the number of possessions the other team has, you limit their ability to score. If you keep your defense fresh, they play better. Those are standard announcer cliches that also happen to be borne out by advanced analysis, and they’re part of the whole philosophy of running the option. In general, NFL teams score an average of about 2 points per possession. So yeah, **IF** the Broncos offense has held onto the ball so much that they cost the other team one or two possessions a game, I’d say the offense gets credit for 2-4 points of the defensive improvement. I’m not sure they have in fact done that, but someone can look the numbers up. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/263 "2011-11-30T18:58:44Z")
> [@furt](#): > > In general, NFL teams score an average of about 2 points per possession. So yeah, **IF** the Broncos offense has held onto the ball so much that they cost the other team one or two possessions a game, I’d say the offense gets credit for 2-4 points of the defensive improvement. I’m not sure they have in fact done that, but someone can look the numbers up. I’m looking for stats on possessions, but it’s harder to find than time of possession. I do see that the defense is giving up 12 fewer points per game in Tebow’s starts than in Orton’s. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/264 "2011-11-30T19:06:35Z")
> [@furt](#): > > I wouldn’t give \*most \*of the credit to the QB, nor to the offense in general. But pretending the offense and defense are not interrelated is foolish. We agree. The question is whether that interrelation favors the QB on offense, or the guys who are playing and coaching the defense. I think we could agree that the defense is much more responsible for the showing of their defense than the QB. And I haven’t heard much from the other side about how the defense helps out the offense. Those 3 interceptions of Carson Palmer, holding the opposing offenses to 3 and outs and stopping them in overtime, holding the Chiefs to 18% and the Dolphins to 21% third down efficiency. It seems to me that those people think that the crossover only works one way, and only for Tebow’s effect on the defense. In reality, I think we agree, they are interrelated. The great defensive play by the defense has likewise helped the offense, but funny how that never gets mentioned when discussing time of possession or lack of turnovers. ---
**Author:** ![MadTheSwine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MadTheSwine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MadTheSwine)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/265 "2011-11-30T20:35:11Z")
> [@Intergalactic\_Gladiator](#): > > _Scoff_ > > I find it hard to believe that Tebow would have prayed for GOd to Smite the Chargers like this. And I can’t believe god would smite the Chargers when their MLB counterparts are the Padres. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/266 "2011-11-30T20:43:29Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Why do people keep saying this? It’s not a huge coincidence. If it were totally random, it’d be a 1 out of 16 chance that any particular player got healthy the same time Tebow got the starting QB job. Those aren’t really very long odds. The fact that a presaeason injury took about 6 weeks to heal from, AND it takes about 6 games for rookie defensive players to come into their own are coincidental as they pertain to Tebow coming back at that time - but it’s not “a hell of a coincidence” by any stretch. Right. First and foremost, we’re going to ignore the blatantly obvious admission by the Denver defense that they play better when Tebow is the starter. Anyway, Tebow became the starter in Week 7, though he played the latter half of Week 5. Denver had a bye Week 6 and the offense was tailored to Tim Tebow during Week 9. So starting from Week 7-- which is the week after your allotted “six weeks to heal and gel”-- the defense has allowed: Week 7 - 15 points Week 8 - 31 points Week 9 - 24 points Week 10 - 10 points Week 11 - 13 points Week 12 - 13 points During those weeks, the Broncos had a run/pass composition of: Week 7 - 40 runs/27 pass attempts Week 8 - 30 runs/39 pass attempts Week 9 - 39 runs/21 pass attempts Week 10 - 55 runs/8 pass attempts Week 11 - 34 runs/20 pass attempts Week 12 - 51 runs/18 pass attempts Coincidence #1: The defense’s best statistical game (PPG-wise) was the one in which the offense not only ran more than it passed, but ran almost 87% running plays. Coincidence #2: The defense’s worst statistical game (PPG-wise) was that in which Tebow lined up under center and threw the ball more than set up the run (65% run). Weird how those coincidences worked out, isn’t it? I would put any amount of money down that if Tebow lined up under center next game and threw it 65% of the time that the defense would look like crap. Would you? [QUOTE=Hamlet] The great defensive play by the defense has likewise helped the offense, but funny how that never gets mentioned when discussing time of possession or lack of turnovers. [/quote] It “doesn’t get mentioned” because it’s flat out wrong. [QUOTE=furt] There is a reason why Army, Navy, and Air Force post respectable defensive statistics year after year, despite having, by a large margin, the least talented rosters in the NCAA, and it’s not because they try harder or are better people or have some innovative scheme – it’s because they only let the other team have the ball 8 times a game, instead of the normal 10-12. If you limit the number of possessions the other team has, you limit their ability to score. If you keep your defense fresh, they play better. Those are standard announcer cliches that also happen to be borne out by advanced analysis, and they’re part of the whole philosophy of running the option. [/quote] Thank you 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/267 "2011-11-30T20:52:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Coincidence #1: The defense’s best statistical game (PPG-wise) was the one in which the offense not only ran more than it passed, but ran almost 87% running plays. > > Coincidence #2: The defense’s worst statistical game (PPG-wise) was that in which Tebow lined up under center and threw the ball more than set up the run (65% run). > > Weird how those coincidences worked out, isn’t it? I would put any amount of money down that if Tebow lined up under center next game and threw it 65% of the time that the defense would look like crap. Would you? This is a really weird way of arguing that Tebow is good. “When he doesn’t throw the ball, they’re WAY better!” Yup - that’s what I want in a QB. Either way, your inability to distinguish between correlation, causation, horses and carts is hilarious. ANY team that throws it 65% of the time is doing so because they’re playing from a deficit. Find me a team - ANY team - who throws it 65% of the time _when they have a lead_. Hell - find one game where that’s the case. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/268 "2011-11-30T20:57:44Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > Thank you 🙂 I’m not sure why you’re thanking him. They post “respectable” defensive statistics, not great ones. Their defenses in the NCAA haven’t been as good as Denver is in the NFL. Basically, they aren’t in the top 1/16 of scoring defenses. Or even top 10%. And this year, Air Force is the only one that’s bowl eligible (at 7-5). A run-heavy offense _helps_ the defense but it is not solely responsible for all defensive improvement, as you seem to imply. If you want to resort to analogies to college play, look at LSU and Alabama. Nobody denies their stingy defense has a lot to do with their success. That helps the offense by ensuring they don’t have to score 30 points a game. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/269 "2011-11-30T21:00:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Thank you 🙂 You may want to hold off on that. The point you’re agreeing with doesn’t exactly pertain to the Broncos at all. Yes - when you hold your opponent to 8 possessions by not turning over the ball and eating the clock, you’re putting yourself in a great position to win. When the Broncos start doing that, you can praise them for it. Until then, they should work on the following number of possessions they’ve allowed: Week 7:15 Week 8: 13 Week 9: 16 Week 10: 12 Week 11: 13 Week 12: 13 ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/270 "2011-11-30T21:03:06Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > It “doesn’t get mentioned” because it’s flat out wrong. You don’t think the defense can help the offense? Getting turnovers, thereby giving the offense more opportunities, and lowering the opponents time of possession by getting 3 and outs and stops, don’t effect the offense at all? I think it’s clear you don’t understand football at all. I’ll ask again though, do you want to wager on Tebow’s long term success? Or his success if the defense doesn’t play great? ---
**Author:** ![EllisDee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellisdee/32/4531_2.png) [@EllisDee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EllisDee)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/271 "2011-11-30T21:04:58Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Find me a team - ANY team - who throws it 65% of the time _when they have a lead_. Hell - find one game where that’s the case. My gut reaction is the 2007 Patriots, but I think most of us would agree that they were a special case. Notably, deliberately running up the score because they had a chip on their shoulders from spygate. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Scud](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f08c70/32.png) [@Tom\_Scud](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Scud)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/272 "2011-11-30T21:10:50Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > My gut reaction is the 2007 Patriots, but I think most of us would agree that they were a special case. Notably, deliberately running up the score because they had a chip on their shoulders from spygate. I suspect the Warren Moon-era Oilers might have; the Run and Shoot really did use the short passing game as ball control. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/273 "2011-11-30T21:13:33Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > My gut reaction is the 2007 Patriots, but I think most of us would agree that they were a special case. Notably, deliberately running up the score because they had a chip on their shoulders from spygate. Good call - they avoided the running game like the plague just because they could. Not to mention, a QB that put up one of the greatest seasons of all time. Oddly enough, I’ve never heard anyone suggest that Brady, Manning, Marino, Young, Montana, etc. ever “made the defense play better”. Hell, I rarely hear about \*pitchers \*making the defense play better, and they’re on the field at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/274 "2011-11-30T21:21:51Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > You may want to hold off on that. The point you’re agreeing with doesn’t exactly pertain to the Broncos at all. Yes - when you hold your opponent to 8 possessions by not turning over the ball and eating the clock, you’re putting yourself in a great position to win. When the Broncos start doing that, you can praise them for it. I can’t find the stats on my own, but [this blog post](http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tim-tebow-broncos-defense-better/100528) (from before Week 12) says the Broncos averaged 11.25 possessions in Orton’s starts and their opponents had 12 per game. In Tebow’s starts, the Broncos are averaging 13.6 possessions a game and their opponents are getting 13.2 per game. Gee, that’s weird - even though they’re running all the time and dominating the clock, their opponents are getting more possessions. It’s almost as if the other team is getting the ball more often because the Broncos aren’t converting third downs and have a bunch of three-and-outs while the defense is forcing the same from their opponents. I’m sure there’s another explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/275 "2011-11-30T21:40:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I can’t find the stats on my own, but [this blog post](http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tim-tebow-broncos-defense-better/100528) (from before Week 12) says the Broncos averaged 11.25 possessions in Orton’s starts and their opponents had 12 per game. In Tebow’s starts, the Broncos are averaging 13.6 possessions a game and their opponents are getting 13.2 per game. > > Gee, that’s weird - even though they’re running all the time and dominating the clock, their opponents are getting more possessions. It’s almost as if the other team is getting the ball more often because the Broncos aren’t converting third downs and have a bunch of three-and-outs while the defense is forcing the same from their opponents. I’m sure there’s another explanation. Why do you hate Jesus? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/276 "2011-11-30T21:44:43Z")
> [@EllisDee](#): > > My gut reaction is the 2007 Patriots, but I think most of us would agree that they were a special case. Notably, deliberately running up the score because they had a chip on their shoulders from spygate. 2007 Patriots passed the ball 57% of the time. Even the 2010 and 2011 Packers, which have the combination of (a) a very good quarterback and receivers, and (b) an ineffective running game, have only been passing the ball 58% of the time (it’s been the same percentage in both of the past two seasons). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/277 "2011-11-30T21:48:46Z")
> [@Snarky\_Kong](#): > > Why do you hate Jesus? Um… Tebow forgive me, I know not what I do? ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/278 "2011-11-30T21:50:56Z")
Tebow read this thread. Tebow wept. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/279 "2011-11-30T21:53:59Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Tebow’s not a bad QB, but it’s a stretch to attribute a significant portion of the defensive improvement to him. Ok, so which pundit or poster here was predicting a dramatic defensive turnaround for the Broncos based on their injured players coming back? Who out there was predicting a turnaround in week 6 where the Broncos would go from doormats to contenders. The fact is no one did. Everyone had them in full on suck for Luck mode, and they were more or less curious to see how bad it got under Tebow. When one thing changes, and the result changes, it’s not a difficult leap to attribute cause to that change. And it’s not like we are just pointing to magic either. Tebow does things that Orton didn’t. Turnovers are the biggest. I know that Tebow isn’t some all world QB, but I’d take him over the bottom 1/4-1/3 of other starters in the league. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/280 "2011-11-30T21:58:14Z")
> [@treis](#): > > When one thing changes, and the result changes, it’s not a difficult leap to attribute cause to that change. This is the exact definition of “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” Applying scrutiny and logic is supposed to prevent people from making mistakes like this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840.md?page=15)