# 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:** 15
**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, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/281 "2011-11-30T22:00:09Z")
> [@treis](#): > > When one thing changes, and the result changes, it’s not a difficult leap to attribute cause to that change. In football, yes it is, because it’s never only one thing that changes. Your argument is especially silly when you have to argue that it’s the QB making the defense better, rather than the defense making the defense better. As I said upthread: "I understand that you’re stuck. The fact that the defense has become the #2 scoring defense since their bye (while the offense is 24th) makes it really tough to give credit for the wins to Tebow. Or the fact that if the defense was playing just average for the NFL, the Broncos with Tebow would be 1-5. So you have to try this convoluted argument that somehow he’s the reason the defense is playing better. Not injuries, not finally gelling under a new coach and new defensive coordinator. Not the rookie’s improvement, playing against bad teams, or iffy QB play by the opponents. Because it’s the defense that is winning the games, you have to create this fantasy where the QB is the biggest reason the defense plays better. That kind of thinking is really that hard to believe. No matter how many times you say it. I asked OMG, I’ll ask you, do you have any interest in a wager on Tebow’s long term success? Or his success if the defense doesn’t play well?" ---
**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, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/282 "2011-11-30T22:00:45Z")
> [@treis](#): > > 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. Odd that you bring that up, but yet no one is jumping to take Hamlet up on his offer on a bet on Tebow’s long-term success. Curious. (Also odd how you ignore the fact that no one predicted Tebow being the starting QB mid-season as well.) ---
**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, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/283 "2011-11-30T22:01:35Z")
> [@treis](#): > > 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. So they didn’t predict the defense would get better when the defense healed (I like how you throw this completely unsupportable claim out there, btw), so it can’t be because of that? Nobody predicted the defense would get better under Tebow either, so I guess it can’t be because of him. > [@](#): > > 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. Only one thing changed? Really? You’re going with Tebow being the only difference? Wow. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/284 "2011-11-30T22:12:36Z")
> [@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. Not quite, but close… 2011 DET @ DAL **Score by Quarter** Detroit: 0-3-14-17 Total: 34 Dallas: 7-13-10-0 Total: 30 Dallas Pass/Rush = 47/27 (63%) Dallas had the lead from the 1st quarter all the way to 1:43 left in the 4th quarter ---
**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, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/285 "2011-11-30T22:21:01Z")
> [@treis](#): > > When one thing changes, and the result changes, it’s not a difficult leap to attribute cause to that change. One thing? Well, **Hamlet** and **Marley** already brought up that it’s not “one thing” that changes and that this is post hoc reasoning. I’ll just add a [link](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14508504&postcount=215) to myself from earlier in the thread. ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/286 "2011-11-30T22:27:31Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. Applying scrutiny and logic isn’t the same as coming up with a bunch of bullshit to justify your predetermined position. And I’ve certainly applied a critical eye to their performance. They say Tebow’s fired them up, and there are things in Tebow’s performance, most importantly not turning the ball over. That’s a lot more believable then they got better suddenly because players came back from injury three weeks prior. > [@Hamlet](#): > > I asked OMG, I’ll ask you, do you have any interest in a wager on Tebow’s long term success? Or his success if the defense doesn’t play well?" I’ll put a wager down that Tebow is a competent starting QB in year 7 of his career. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/287 "2011-11-30T22:35:26Z")
[ul] [li]2009 - Kyle Orton at quarterback, healthy Dumervil, #7 defense in the NFL. Tebow a twinkle in Josh McDaniel’s eye.[/li][li]2010 - Orton and Tebow at quarterback, no Dumervil, worst defense in the NFL. Defensive yards allowed in games subject to Tebow-quarterback-inspiration aura: 502, 401, 447. Average yards allowed under Orton’s inferior psycho-defensive leadership: 377.[/li][li]2011 pre-bye week - Orton at quarterback. Dumervil out. Terrible defense.[/li][li]2011 post-bye week - Tebow at quarterback. Dumervil back. Great defense.[/li][/ul] So, when one thing changes, and the result changes, we attribute the result to the thing that changed, right? ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/288 "2011-11-30T22:35:59Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’ll put a wager down that Tebow is a competent starting QB in year 7 of his career. In the NFL? ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/289 "2011-11-30T22:39:24Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > [ul] > [li]2009 - Kyle Orton at quarterback, healthy Dumervil, #7 defense in the NFL. Tebow a twinkle in Josh McDaniel’s eye.[/li][li]2010 - Orton and Tebow at quarterback, no Dumervil, worst defense in the NFL. Defensive yards allowed in games subject to Tebow-quarterback-inspiration aura: 502, 401, 447. Average yards allowed under Orton’s inferior psycho-defensive leadership: 377.[/li][li]2011 pre-bye week - Orton at quarterback. Dumervil out. Terrible defense.[/li][li]2011 post-bye week - Tebow at quarterback. Dumervil back. Great defense.[/li][/ul] > > So, when one thing changes, and the result changes, we attribute the result to the thing that changed, right? I would call that great logic if Dumervil didn’t come back three weeks before the QB change. ---
**Author:** ![Lamar\_Mundane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lamar\_Mundane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamar_Mundane)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/290 "2011-11-30T22:39:27Z")
We could have a decent test this weekend. Von Miller had thumb surgery yesterday and may be out for Sunday. Remove one key defender for the game and see what happens. ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/291 "2011-11-30T22:39:39Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Applying scrutiny and logic isn’t the same as coming up with a bunch of bullshit to justify your predetermined position. I agree. Unfortunately, “he fired them up” is bullshit, “he just wins” is bullshit, and giving the QB credit for an outsize impact on the defense is bullshit. Everybody has already agreed that cutting down on turnovers is good for the defense as well as the offense. Pointing out that the defense got healthy and started playing MUCH better and the schedule got easier isn’t bullshit - it’s factual and it has a much more direct relationship on the team’s performance than the QB’s effect on the defense. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/292 "2011-11-30T22:42:22Z")
> [@treis](#): > > That’s a lot more believable then they got better suddenly because players came back from injury three weeks prior. One more difference: strength of schedule. There’s apparently debate about how much of an impact getting your starting defense has on a team. I give more credit than some to defense because I’ve seen exactly how much it affects Houston. They’ve perennially had a good offense. Now they’ve got a good defense, they’re in position to make a playoff run, even with a 3rd string rookie QB. But it’s also the case that Denver’s played an easier schedule these last 5 games. Not necessarily easy but easier, unless you think the Lions, Jets, and Chiefs are respectively and collectively better than the Packers, Bengals, and Titans. ---
**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, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/293 "2011-11-30T22:42:39Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I agree. Unfortunately, “he fired them up” is bullshit, “he just wins” is bullshit, and giving the QB credit for an outsize impact on the defense is bullshit. Everybody has already agreed that cutting down on turnovers is good for the defense as well as the offense. Pointing out that the defense got healthy and started playing MUCH better and the schedule got easier isn’t bullshit - it’s factual and it has a much more direct relationship on the team’s performance than the QB’s effect on the defense. It would be factual to say “key players came back three weeks before the switch”. Other statements. Less so. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/294 "2011-11-30T22:43:43Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I would call that great logic if Dumervil didn’t come back three weeks before the QB change. And by three, you mean one. ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/295 "2011-11-30T22:44:45Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’ll put a wager down that Tebow is a competent starting QB in year 7 of his career. 5 years from now? Seems a long time to wait, but you name the stakes and I’m there. I think top 15 is a good measure of “competent”, so if in 2016, he’s a top 15 QB, you win, if not, I win. Anything closer in time? Maybe even this year. I’d be willing to wager that if the Broncos defense gives up more than 21 points (the #16 defense in the NFL) , the Tebow led Broncos won’t win. We can make it a per game bet, so that if the Broncos win and the defense gives up 21 points or less, it’s a wash; if the Broncos defense (no pick 6’s, fumble returns or special teams TD’s) give up more than 21 and the Broncos win with Tebow, you win; and if the Broncos defense gives up more than 21 and the Broncos lose with Tebow, I win. Say $10 bucks a game that gets decided by the bet. ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/296 "2011-11-30T22:45:41Z")
> [@treis](#): > > It would be factual to say “key players came back three weeks before the switch”. Other statements. Less so. This has been addressed. Players don’t come back at 100%. Injuries aren’t on/off and heal instantly. Some players don’t really get back into their grooves until the next season. That, and Week 4 was against Green Bay. Are you really going to claim ANY defense is going to be sufficient to hold the Packers under 15 pts this year? Or that Tebow would somehow have “fired up” the defense enough to stop that juggernaut? ---
**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, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/297 "2011-11-30T22:58:02Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > 5 years from now? Seems a long time to wait, but you name the stakes and I’m there. I think top 15 is a good measure of “competent”, so if in 2016, he’s a top 15 QB, you win, if not, I win. I’ll go top 20 to make it a competent QB and we can end the bet if Tebow does that before year 7. What QB metric would you like to use? > [@Hamlet](#): > > Anything closer in time? Maybe even this year. I’d be willing to wager that if the Broncos defense gives up more than 21 points (the #16 defense in the NFL) , the Tebow led Broncos won’t win. We can make it a per game bet, so that if the Broncos win and the defense gives up 21 points or less, it’s a wash; if the Broncos defense (no pick 6’s, fumble returns or special teams TD’s) give up more than 21 and the Broncos win with Tebow, you win; and if the Broncos defense gives up more than 21 and the Broncos lose with Tebow, I win. Say $10 bucks a game that gets decided by the bet. I’ll take the bet for Minnesota, Chicago, Buffalo and KC. I’m rather certain the Broncos won’t beat NE, so I’ll pass on that one. ---
**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, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/298 "2011-11-30T23:13:55Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I’ll go top 20 to make it a competent QB and we can end the bet if Tebow does that before year 7. I’m confused on the timeline. Do we measure it in 2016, or if he ever breaks the top 20, then you win. I don’t think cracking the top 20 counts as “competent”. That would include such QB luminaries as Matt Moore and Mark Sanchez (who I see as Tebowesque for winning due to defense and not his own skills). How about on Dec. 1, 2016, if Tebow is in the top 20 of QB’s, you win, if not, I win. It’ll be a wash if he has a career ending injury. > [@treis](#): > > What QB metric would you like to use? Quarterback rating on [NFL.com](http://NFL.com)? Name your stakes. > [@treis](#): > > I’ll take the bet for Minnesota, Chicago, Buffalo and KC. I’m rather certain the Broncos won’t beat NE, so I’ll pass on that one. Fair enough. Are you good with the $10 a game? ---
**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, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/299 "2011-11-30T23:18:23Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > I’m confused on the timeline. Do we measure it in 2016, or if he ever breaks the top 20, then you win. I don’t think cracking the top 20 counts as “competent”. That would include such QB luminaries as Matt Moore and Mark Sanchez (who I see as Tebowesque for winning due to defense and not his own skills). How about on Dec. 1, 2016, if Tebow is in the top 20 of QB’s, you win, if not, I win. It’ll be a wash if he has a career ending injury. Quarterback rating on [NFL.com](http://NFL.com)? I’d rather have a time range than a specific date. For all I know he will be injured Dec 1 2016 or run out in favor of a high draft pick. I’d say if he is in the top 20 QB rating (qualified throwers only according to NFL) for a 12+ game season, then he’s become a competent QB. So any time between now and year 7 that he does that, then I win the bet. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Name your stakes. Why don’t we make it an even $40 since that what our per game bets come out to. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Fair enough. Are you good with the $10 a game? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2011, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840/300 "2011-11-30T23:29:33Z")
Gambling!? I’m appalled. (here’s your winnings, sir) WWTD? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-was-wrong-theres-a-big-downside-to-letting-tim-tebow-start/602840.md?page=16)