The Most Clutch Player There Absolutely Ever Was
So what do people think was the most amazing of Tim Tebow’s many amazing plays today?
- Tebow kicking a 59-yard field goal
- Tebow ordering the Bears secondary to play no particular attention to sideline routes late in the 4th quarter against a team trailing by a touchdown with no timeouts
- Tebow forcing Marion Barber to run out of bounds when staying in bounds would have effectively ended the game
- Tebow forcing a Marion Barber fumble
- Tebow kicking a 51-yard field goal
So many candidates!
Update [Paul]
The path of the RIGHTEOUS MAN is beset on all sides by the INIQUITIES OF THE SELFISH and the tyranny of EVIL MEN. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his BROTHER”S KEEPER and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is THE LORD when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
I was most amazed by Tebow ordering injuries to Jay Cutler and Matt Forte.
Yes, this was set in motion when Tim Tebow took over as Bears GM and drafted Caleb Hanie.
Except that Hanie wasn’t drafted. Just sayin’.
This game really does illustrate how ridiculous it is to credit Tebow for all these last second wins.
But QBs have always been given too much credit for last second wins – the Tebowel Movement mania just takes it to a new level. For example, who doesn’t remember “The Catch” and how Montana single-handedly won the first 49ers NFC championship? I was personally amazed that not only did he throw that pass and catch it as well (making up for his inaccurate throw), but then he subsequently sacked Danny White, caused and recovered a fumble to save the game before Dallas kicked what would have been a game winning FG. In fact that was one of many great defensive plays Joe made that day – necessary because of his 3 INTs. Joe Montana – greatest two-way player ever. At least that’s how I remember it.
That magical year began with Joe Cool’s decision to replace the entire secondary by drafting three defensive backs and trading for a fourth, and ended with his goal-line stand in the Super Bowl.
On the other hand, Peyton Manning probably has received less credit for the Colts success than he deserves.
Patriots with Brady ..16-0
without Brady ……..11-5
then with Brady again 10-6
Colts with Manning… 10-6
Colts without Manning 0-13 (so far)
Well, let’s be careful here. The 2010 Colts were clearly on the decline anyway and propped up mostly by a weak division and weak schedule. Problems include a precipitous drop in quality of talent recruitment and coaching changes. The head coach, like George Seifert, did a great job managing a high-talent team with existing schemes and coaching staff when he took over, but like Seifert doesn’t have what it takes to address a talent decline. Add to that the Colts, like the Bears and Chiefs, seem unclear on the concept of QB backups. They should take lessons from Andy Reid, who has a strong track record in that regard.
Keep in mind that 2 years before Detroit went 0-16 they started the season 6-2. In today’s NFL there isn’t that big of a difference between better-than-average and really bad.
Finally, the old saw about correlation causation applies. In 1989 the Bears, who had won the division 5 years in a row, started 4-0, lost Dan Hampton for the season, then went 2-10. He was back the next year and they once again won the division. So obviously he was the MVP, right? Well, I don’t think anyone would consider a DL an MVP, even an HOFer like Hampton. But the statistic is the same as the one people are using today for Manning.
Can we please send Sam Jackson to take care of Tebow?
The Broncos’ success under Tebow is just driving you crazy, isn’t it?
The success will continue as long as he keeps playing teams with equally bad QBs that make horrific blunders at every key moment of the game, sure. (Well, not equally bad — Hanie was a little better than Tebow, including in OT.)
Is that your prediction?
Tim Tebow has 2 interceptions in 198 passing attempts this season.
I think it’s time to adjust our understanding of what statistics indicate a good QB.
And add the term “Possession Quarterback” to our vocabulary.
Uh, why?
This exact same thing (a mediocre-at-best QB is on a team that has a lot of successes due to other non-QB related factors, such as weak opponents or an outstanding defense) has happened before. A bunch of times really. Why should it happening again prompt an adjustment of our understanding?
(No snark, by the way. Legitimate questions. I’m interested in your logic and reasoning.)
Because not turning over the football seems to play a larger role in QB success than it is given credit for.
Nobody ever has any trouble understanding how a good running game can make a team’s defense perform better. Ball control, keeping the other team’s offense off the field. I think we’re learning that a quarterback who doesn’t turn the ball over can have a similar effect.
I think we need to add the term “possession quarterback” to our vocabulary.
Ah, okay. See, this seems like a legitimate line of reasoning. I’m unqualified to comment on its veracity or not; I’d like to see some stats nerds take a long hard look at this contention.
I’m also not sure it has a lot of relevance to the Broncos in the current season.
Football Outsiders had an article about this a couple weeks ago – can’t find the link now because their site is so disorganized – but IIRC, their conclusions were that:
1) Denver’s defense was neither particulalry good, nor have they improved much (relative to the league) during their winning streak.
2) Denver’s running offense hasn’t actually improved much relative to the league either.
3) Their passing offense, surprisingly, has improved a good deal, again relative to the league (the relative to the league part is important because their raw numbers had not really improved much at all).
I don’t know if it was the same article, but there was something done in a Harvard study that said the same thing. The most important takeaway from that is that the Broncos have simply been incredibly *lucky*. And since chance has a poor track record of being duplicated, one ought to expect a regression to the mean.
Half a season later, it’s time to stop talking about luck.
Funny, I don’t remember Rex Grossman getting all the credit when the Bears went to the Super Bowl.
And if you ever meet anyone who gives Tebow all the credit for the turnaround in the Broncos’ season, you tell them I’d like a word.
Well, I’m not sure if this counts, but during the Bills game Solomon Wilcotts and his partner (whose name I forget) were making the case that Tebow should be a strong consideration for MVP of the league this year. I don’t have much opinion on Tebow or in this dispute over him, but I can understand Scott et. al.’s irritation when media figures make such idiotic arguments.
Not really. Football involves small sample sizes of erratic events. A whole season can be “lucky” or “unlucky”.
That being said, the ability to throw the ball well is overrated. Jeff George threw the ball as well as anyone who played the game, but he was an immature idiot. Jim Plunkett won a Super Bowl and was named MVP when his arm was completely shot.
Thank you. I’m very good at seeming to have a legitimate line of reasoning.
;-)
And also:
IT’S ALL HE DOES!!1!!
Alabama begs to differ.
For starters, Teblow had a pick and a fumble today (and was lucky he didn’t have 3 other picks, given the drops by Chicago DBs).
But really, and more important – how is the parade of 3 and outs for which Tebow is becoming famous good for ball control? How does that remotely equate to being a “possession quarterback”?
Which, for Tim Tebow, stands out as an extremely bad game in terms of turnovers, way outside of his normal performance. Prior to today, he has 1 interception in 158 pass attempts.
There has to come a point where we stop talking about luck.
Clearly, it’s not. Clearly, 3-and-outs are not good for ball control.
Which brings me back to my point about the importance of not turning the ball over, and how it’s underrated.
Why does there have to come a point when you stop talking about luck when someone is getting lucky? When you throw it to the other team’s players and they repeatedly drop the passes, it is luck that you don’t have more interceptions. That is, it is something totally outside of Tebow’s control.
Unless you really think God is on his side and causing players to drop the ball. In which case, we have different beliefs about God’s tendency to intervene in human events to cause trivially important outcomes.
Someone on an NFL Network roundtable–I think it was Marshall Faulk–suggested that the upside of Tebow throwing uncatchable balls is that it cuts down on his interceptions.
I think it was meant as a joke, but sometimes there’s wisdom in humor.
Also “not turning the ball over” is probably the most overstated mantra in football (it isn’t unimportant, I’m just saying it isn’t the be-all and end-all it’s given credit for). It is simply *not possible* that this ‘quality’ is somehow underrated, or has a larger role than currently understood.
In my decades of following pro football, this is the first time I have ever seen anyone claim that not turning the ball over is overrated.
Which tends to militate against that theory. If something is actually being hammered home a great deal, you usually hear someone proclaim that it’s getting too much attention.
To illustrate your point … when’s the last time anyone talked about Favre’s huge number of interceptions as anything other than a charming by-product of his gunslinger style?
January 24, 2010?
Clearly this explains why Tim Tebow, who threw a pick and fumbled once, was a more successful quarterback than Caleb “no turnovers” Hanie.
Oh, are we drawing conclusions on single games now?
That’s the type of non-anecdotal, hard-numbers evidence that really takes Tim Tebow down a notch, amirite?
Prior to today, Tim Tebow has one (1) pick in 158 pass attempts.
That’s not sustainable.
Brady had 4 INTs all last year. That was unsustainable over the long haul also.
And Tebow is no Brady.
We’re up to half a season.
That rate is clearly not sustainable…but it’s not to be dismissed as “luck,” either.
Can we not even acknowledge that the guy doesn’t turn the ball over? We can’t even give him that?
Oh, are we drawing conclusions on single games now?
Well, you’re trying to draw conclusions from a sample size that isn’t a hell of a lot bigger, so there is that …
Um…I’m drawing conclusions from a sample size that is eight times bigger.
Otherwise known as an order of magnitude bigger.
Which, if you’re trying to make actual valuable statistics-based comparisons, doesn’t mean shit if you have a sample size of eight.
A sample size of eight isn’t quite as worthless as a sample size of one … but it’s damn close.
Look to David Garrard’s 3 interceptions in 325 attempts in 2007 if you want an example of very good luck with turnovers not being sustainable. And Tebow is no David Garrard, who isn’t even in the league right now.
I don’t think not turning the ball over has ever been an underrated feature of QBs or NFL players in general. But when you do it by avoiding the pass, and only taking the safest pass options, thus resulting in a parade of 3 and outs, you will not win the majority of football games that you play in the NFL unless you have an extremely good defense. And then not turning the ball over helps quite a bit.
Denver is on a very lucky streak, they are playing a lot of bad teams and their defense has been excellent. Tebow is not a disaster at QB due to John Fox’s excellent coaching, but in most seasons this team would not be competing for a playoff spot.
No argument here. It’s long been understood that a team that plays a ball-control game needs to have a good defense. But at the same time, the it’s also long been understood that having a good ball-control offense helps improve the performance of the defense, by keeping them rested and keeping the opposition’s offense off the field.
Man, don’t you just hate the way those Tebow fans put so much emphasis on fuzzy, indefinable, unmeasurable qualities?
7-1 is an excellent record regardless of the opposition. It’s an .875 winning percentage. There is one team in the NFL with a better winning percentage this year better than .875.
There is one team in the NFL with a better winning percentage this year better than .875.
Over any stretch of eight consecutive games?
Or are you comparing a half-season performance by one team to a full season (to date) played by another team?
I’m not positing a thesis based on that figure; I’m knocking one down.
Comparing a winning percentage over 8 games to that over 14 is quite a stretch.
Denver’s points scored in five of those victories are 18, 16, 17, 17, and 13.
In the 38-14 win over Oakland, Tebow was 10 of 21 for 124 yds and no TD.
In the 35-32 win over Minn, he threw 15 passes – 2 for TDs.
These are not stellar offensive performances, and even less so for the passing game.
I’d lots rather have Prater on my fantasy team.
The Lions – who were recently humiliated by the Bears totally undressed Tebow in week 8.
Cheers!
JzB
I’m not positing a thesis based on that figure; I’m knocking one down.
This is especially damning when you consider the lead-pipe-lock hall of famers he’s throwing to. Like what’s his name. And that guy with the thing.
Hell, David Gerrard once threw only 3 picks in 325 attempts. Remember all the vocabulary we had to develop to describe his unprecedented, shattering brilliance?
Oh, right, it was an unsustainable fluke. Which is overwhelmingly likely to be the case here.
Knocking down your silly prejudice against Tebow doesn’t mean I’m attributing any unprecedented, shattering brilliance to him.
You said that we needed a new vocabulary to describe something that a thoroughly mediocre QB did less than 5 years ago. But, yes, I’m the one who’s prejudiced.
Haine had a 63% completion percentage against the Denver Broncos defense, for an average of just hair under 10 yards a catch.
He also didn’t turn the ball over once.
Yard per catch is a pretty meaningless stat. Yards per attempt, oth, is one of the most telling. And Hainie was putrid today, at 4.5 yds/att (counting sacks).
What?
YPA is much more important stat than YPC as a single metric. It should be obvious why, but I’m not going to argue with you.
It’s not obvious at all. I’d say that you need both metrics in order for either one to tell you much of anything.
Because YPC is far more dependent on the receiver than the QB?
Because in completions are not in your team’s interest? This isn’t rocket science — it’s obvious that YPA is a much more meaningful stat.
But long completions are, even at the expense of a lower completion percentage.
But long completions are, even at the expense of a lower completion percentage.
Something that, of course, YPA takes into account. You can pay off incompletions with long completions. Indeed, adjusted for interceptions I like YPA more than the NFL rating because it doesn’t overrate completion percentage (and touchdown passes.)
I wouldn’t want to build a thesis on it, but it’s worth bringing into the conversation when testing Scott’s.
We’re supposed to count sacks – how much his o-line sucked – as indicative of Henne’s passing performance, but not yards per catch? And skip over completion % entirely?
Anyway, my estimation of Haine’s performance extends all the way to disagreeing with “bad QBs that make horrific blunders at every key moment of the game.”
Well, if you don’t believe YPA, look at his NFL rating, which also sucked (although it was better than Tebow’s.)
Where did I say I don’t believe YPA?
What I don’t believe is “YPA counting sacks.”
I gave this link below, but will put it here too as it’s relevant to this discussion. Avoiding sacks is partially on the QB (willingness to throw the ball away, and ability to do that without throwing picks). Anyway, focusing on passer rating neglects rushing, which also counts toward success for a QB:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/kerry_byrne/11/29/tim.tebow/index.html
QBs are responsible for a hell of a lot of sacks. A failed read, or failure to recognize there is no one open results in a sack often.
Ben Roethlisburger has a history of getting sacked a lot despite great protection. He makes the concious trade-off of holding the ball longer trying to make a play. He gets more passing yards as a result. Sack yardage belongs in the YPA stat.
Roethlisberger often holds onto the ball too long in order to try to make a play but he does not have great protection. The past couple of years the Pittsburgh offensive line as been average at best.
Both Hanie and Tebow sucked.
If you want to argue that winning 3 games in OT isn’t lucky, good luck to you.
Yeah, I’m not sure Joe is in the grip of Tebowmanina so much as “football is 99% quarterbacking” mania. The score gets to 13-10 only because of three 50+ field goals, and we’re debating which of these atrocious QBs was the bigger star?
Tebow and his miraculous Broncos play the Patriots next week in Denver. While I expect the Pats to win, their defense is truly uninspiring this year and the Broncos are the only team that Brady hasn’t got a winning record against (something like 1 – 7). It should be an interesting test. And though the public displays of religiosity do verge on camp, Tebow’s intangibles have undeniably affected the team in a positive way.
I’m quite clearly higher on Tebow than most here, but let me say right now that, no matter what Tebow’s passing performance looks like next week, I’m not going to use it as evidence that he’s a good passer.
I promise.
Can we use it for evidence that he’s a bad passer? N.E. now has their weakest secondary in over a decade.
JzB
I find it difficult to believe than an afternoon against New England this year would provide evidence that Lauren Bacall is a bad passer.
I’m saying, I’m not going to look at what will probably be a solid stat line from Tebow next week and hold it out as proving he’s the next Aaron Rogers.
“I’m quite clearly higher on Tebow”
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
A team with a great offense and a mediocre defense seems well-poised to make Tebow look foolish.
yep, if only hanie hadn’t forced marion barber to run out of bounds, stopping the clock, and then forced that last fumble, tebow would never have had a chance to kick that 51 yard, game winning field goal.
just saying………….
I’m not Scott, of course, but it seems more like the amount of success the Broncos are having that is attributed directly to Tebow when it is in fact due to mostly non-Tebow related things that is driving him a little crazy.
And that’s a legitimate gripe. It’s sort of like the whole “well, this pitcher can’t be good, his team keeps losing games” thing that drives him so crazy in MLB.
It’s amazing how everyone in Denver became so much better when Kyle Orton got hurt.
Everyone except Tim Tebow, who was the only different player on the field before and after the injury.
Football isn’t baseball. There’s no such thing as clutch hitting, but there is such a thing as clutch quarterbacking.
Has this argument been made? I sure as hell would never make it. It sounds kind of dumb. I’m (again, no snark) puzzled as to its relevance.
It sounds like the point you’re trying to make is that since the only thing that changed is Tebow, then logically the success the Broncos have had since that change is attributable to him.
There’s a certain amount of logic there, I guess, but there are always two teams on the field, not one. If I sent my High School team against the Broncos, they’d be crushed. Would they be crushed because the Broncos are awesome in general or because the Broncos are just MORE awesome than a bunch of weedy sixteen-year-olds?
I’d like to see you upack this. Why is clutch hitting bullshit but clutch quarterbacking a real thing?
I’ve seen it demonstrated that there *is* such a thing as clutch hitting, but that it’s not done by the people sportswriters like to call “clutch.”
please. the broncos won today because they played the bears without the bears’ starting quarterback and running back, and still would have lost had marion barber not run out of bounds and then fumbled on the denver 35 in ot.
before today, they’ve beaten, let’s see…the 4-9 dolphins, the 2-11 vikings, the three other crap teams in their division, and the jets. the jets win counts as quality win, and let’s see, timmy threw for 104 clutch yards on an impressive 9 for 20 passing.
your ‘clutch quarterbacking’ is timmy passing against prevent defenses in the fourth quarter. denver’s string of success is due to their stout defense, willis mcgahee, and playing a bunch of lousy teams in a row.
nobody got better. the coaching staff tailored a game plan to fit timmy’s lack of skills. run the ball on first down, option play on second, incomplete pass on third, punt. defense keeps it close, play the field position game, broncos have a kicker that can kick 60-yard field goals in the thin air.
with orton, the broncos’ game plan was to outscore their opponents. they didn’t play the possession, field position game. if the broncos used the timmy game plan with orton at qb, they would have the same record the last 8 games. you want to see an example of this? look up the ’05 bears, with good ole’ kyle orton. nobody claimed orton ‘led’ the bears to the playoffs that year, the bears made the playoffs despite having kyle orton at qb. exactly the same as this year with the broncos, except jesus doesn’t love kyle orton as much as timmy, apparently.
Right. They’ve narrowly beaten a bunch of bad teams and a decent Jets team. The version of the Bears they beat today was terrible, and to win required blind luck at several key points. They haven’t been significantly better with Tebow at all.
In fairness, it wasn’t all good luck; their comeback would have been considerably less notable had their kicker not gotten a 29-yard field goal blocked earlier in the game.
Well, but Scott, do we really want to go there? After all, if we show that Tebow’s play on the field isn’t what’s winning games, and that the Broncos’ success is due to out-of-the-ordinary occurrences–what you call, “blind luck”–well, aren’t we making the case for divine intervention?
So let’s get this straight: you’re acknowledging that Denver has gotten better, even if not significantly, since Tim Tebow took over…despite the loss of their only good wideout, Brandon Lloyd.
Therefore, we shouldn’t give Tebow any credit.
But they may not have required that kind of luck if there was no need for that kind of comeback. Consider:
* 6 dropped passes, all for first downs, one was a sure touchdown to Demariyus Thomas.
* Inexplicable blocked field goal
* Sure pick six dropped by Broncos’ safety Chris Harris.
*Obvious pass interference on at least two occasions on third downs in the first half, which weren’t called (possibly including on Timmy’s one interception).
Arguably the Broncos had strangely bad luck until the last 5 minutes of the game, when it changed radically.
Every single week, the Broncos only won “today” because of something unique about “today.” Over and over again.
Then why doesn’t everybody do it?
Funny how Tebow’s performance is only about the opposition being lousy, but the defense? Stout. Just stout, baby.
You’ve got a lack of skills, Jorge. Think you’d beat the Bears? Come on, you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that he is skilled at running? That he runs the option well? The he doesn’t throw picks? Perhaps that’s all luck, too.
You know, Jorge, it can be possible to both overrate and underrate a quarterback’s importance. No, really.
Every single week, the Broncos only won “today” because of something unique about “today.” Over and over again.
I know. In 1980, Steve Stone only kept winning because he had the skill to get his team to score a lot of runs for him. Obviously, this was a repeatable skill and he continued to win for many years.
I know, srsly. Just look at the roster of hall of famers Tebow is throwing to. Like what’s-his-name. And that guy with the thing.
Oh, and unlike Orton, NOT Brandon Lloyd.
I agree, the parallel is inexact. The Orioles were really good; the Broncos have compiled a streak of narrow wins against a cupcake schedule. But in both cases a guy who isn’t very good is having luck misidentified as skill.
Scott should have used the example of Jeff Ballard from the 1989 Orioles.
joe from lowell, you were cutting and pasting my post, not jorge’s.
do i think that i would beat the bears? what does that even mean? that timmy is a better quarterback than i am? ok, you got me there; timmy is a better quarterback than me. i didnt know that i was up for consideration. or was it supposed to mean that not just anybody could beat the bears, that it takes someone will the special skills of tim tebot to get the job done? if so, carson palmer and whatever his name is on the chiefs would like a word.
The Bronco defense has given up 15, 24,10, 13, 13, 32 and 10 points in the 7 games won with Tebow as starter. In short, they’ve given up more than 1 td twice over that span.
Let’s be perfectly clear here: it is your position that Tebow is somehow making the Bronco defense *better*? Must be all those 3 and outs he’s marshalling on offense, so that the Bronco defense gets as much time on the field as possible to improve their game…
Exactly. Not turning the ball over helps the defense prevent scores, but not that much!
And also, the teams they’ve been playing suck!
How many times would you like me to repeat the very first point I made on this thread?
Look, I’m a Bronco fan and charter member of the unofficial Atheists for Tebow group. There is something to be said about a player instilling confidence in his team for last second comebacks. But let’s also be realistic here. The Broncos have had a lot of luck going there way.
During the 1-4 start they played Oakland and San Diego when both were playing their best ball. They lost to one contender (Tennessee) and to one all-world team (Green Bay). All losses except Green Bay were by less than 6 points – 3 were by a FG. The one team they beat – Cincinnati – started the season 7-2 (Cincy’s only other loss was to SF, a likely bye team). In other words, they actually didn’t do so bad against a set of teams that we now realize were all playing above average.
During the current 7-1 streak they faced their three division foes each during periods when the foes were on losing streaks. They also faced 0-5 Miami and 2-9 Minnesota. They got Chicago without Cutler and Forte, after Chicago lost to KC and Oakland (teams Chicago would have easily beat before the Cutler injury). The only two teams they faced who currently hold a playoff spot were Detroit – who slaughtered Denver 45-10, and the Jets. While the Jets game was fun – and Tebow’s game-winning TD run electrifying – keep in mind that a) the Jets were on the road on Thursday after playing Sunday night at home against their biggest rival, NE, and b) teams that travel over 1500 miles for Thursday night games are something like 0-13 over the past few years.
In other words, the Broncos schedule during the 7-1 streak has been especially easy. Then add in the fact that during the 7-1 streak their net point differential is 0. That’s right, they’ve scored only 35 more points than the 7 teams they beat, and that is offset by the 35 point margin of the Detroit loss.
So, as much fun as I am having as a Broncos fan, they either have to get a lot better on offense or they won’t get far in the playoffs.
And as far as the QB-who-inspires-the-team-to-amazing-comeback-victories goes, well, that only goes so far. Certainly we Denver fans have to know that from our experience during the last half of the 1980s. But an even better example was the Kardiac Kids of 1980 in Cleveland, led by Brian Sipe. Like with Denver today, the Browns in 1980 were openly talking about their ability to win games on the last drive. And they did very well – until Red Right 88.
And on the 8th day Marion Barber would remind us all why he’s on a different team every year.
Yeah, that’s 2 teams now in 7 NFL seasons. Dude sure gets around.
Verily, it is but Tebow’s miraculous presence that maketh the striking foot of kickers to become anointed, and bringeth tongues of fire to lubricate the hands of His opponents and bolts of stupidity to smite their brains. Victory belongs to Tebow, and the power of his bended knee to summon the might of God. Such shall it be written, again, and again, and again, and again…
I’m a Bears fan, and believe me, at this moment I’m just about ready to believe it.
I was watching the game with a Jewish friend, and after Barber’s fumble he simply said, “OK, I believe.”
My theology basically goes like this:
1) There is no god.
2) But if there is a god, he’s a horrible, petty little fucker.
So actually this isn’t inconsistent with my beliefs at all.
(Though I should probably note for the record that I went to UF and am a big Gator fan as well. I think this combination of events actually fits in really well under point #2 above.)
Yeah, it’s says a lot about the people who would use Tebow’s success on the field as evidence of the existence of their god. This is the work of your awesome god? People suck.
I’m with you.
To fans of Tebow who believe that God is intervening in these games on his behalf, I simply will point out that there are probably over a billion people in the world who are living in profound misery. So the God you believe in is more interested in influencing games in the wealthiest nation on earth than addressing that misery. I sure hope you’re wrong.
The Tebow lovers want us to forget two things. First, John Fox is one hell of a defensive coach. Second, the Broncos schedule is incredibly easy and moreover, they have been Vegas hot streak lucky about injuries to the teams they have played under Tebow. Chiefs under Tyler Palko! Bears with Caleb Hanie! Dolphins at their bottom! Minnesota with Christian Ponder! Tebow’s Broncos have beaten exactly 0 good teams with healthy QBs. Arguably the Jets.
It seems so obvious what is going to happen. They will win the shitty AFC West, get crushed in the playoffs. Then next year they will have to play a division winner’s schedule and then all hell is going to break loose on them. Though admittedly, that would give Fox another year to build up the defense.
“Division winner’s schedule” makes a difference for all of two games. I wouldn’t count on that to even the score next year.
Also, SD has a losing record but a positive point differential. They’re definitely a good team, although I can understand the logic that beating Norv Turner hardly counts.
This..although as strannix says, only 2 games in any team’s schedule are subject to variance from division foes.
I think the most likely scenario is that the *unbelievable* string of great luck the Broncos encountered in this streak will be unreplicable. And add to that an off-season’s worth of game-planning for Tebow, and his already woeful production will be that much worse.
In my experience, when a player/team has a string of luck one can point to and use adjectives like “unbelievable,” it’s time to start thinking it’s not luck.
I’m not saying I disagree with you (I, too, think Tebow is one solid blindside hit away from mediocrity) but I’m re-opening my mind to the possibility he might just be the perfect QB for this team. At least this year.
Next week Denver is playing the Patriots. This means two things:
1. For the only time ever, Tim Tebow will have an Aaron Rodgersesque stat line.
2. The Broncos will lose.
What are the theological implications here?
I’m kind of expecting that, too. The inimitable Dan Orlovsky had a career game against the Pats’ much-abused secondary.
The way bad teams shred them and the way Pittsburgh dominated them leaves me no real hope for playoff success.
Haven’t been able to figure out why the defensive genius of Belichick hasn’t been able to create a better defense these past few years, especially with all the high draft picks. I know Meriweather and Sanders were a bit over-rated (and Meriweather contributed some bad chemistry), but they are almost certainly better than the rotating nobodies he’s got in there now.
The man has to run the defense and the offense and he’s getting old. I can’t blame him for not having any coordinators. His staff is constantly getting hired to coach elsewhere even after a track record of total failure. But maybe he needs to try and bring in some coaching help.
This year, at least, the Patriots have been devastated by injury.
This is petty bullshit.
Because football is serious business! It’s brain-damaging, unhealthy and strictly American! Not to be mocked!
As a Bears fan, I must ask: Would a just and loving God allow this?
Also, Lovie Smith needs to be fire. Being not terrible is not enough of a justification to be a head coach in the NFL when there are, in fact, good coaches.
Disagree.
I think Lovie’s a good coach, and they could easily be 10-3 right now if not for Cutler’s injury. They outperformed preseason expectations last year, and the defense is still excellent this season.
Hell, this year he’s even won a few challenges.
Chicago fans hate their coaches even after a proven record of success…
Super Bowl Bear Leslie Frazier for Lovie Smith straight up?
Are there 32 good coaches?
Ohhh, and the theological implications?
Jeremiah 8:6
I have paid attention and listened, but they have not spoken rightly; no man relents of his evil, saying, ‘What have I done?’ Everyone turns to his own course, like a horse plunging headlong into battle.
Tebow’s wonderfulness is obviously beyond human understanding, is all I’m sayin’.
Tebow’s doing very well for someone of limited yet specific ‘other’ abilities. The defense is the key, of course, and deserves 90% or more of the credit. The Broncos would be so far behind otherwise it would make Tebow appear the clay-armed QB he actually is. However, the combination of a not-often-faced offensive strategery and the ‘ghost shirt’ placebo mentality have actually helped improve team performance. So has the string of horrible and terribly underperforming teams the Broncos played. I’m certainly glad this confluence of improbabilities is contributing to the Denver phenomenon. It’s fun to keep track of, even though superstitious people try to make too much of it and are annoying, as superstitious people always are. For 100 years, there have been countless runs of such luck and inspired team performances. It’s called ‘on a roll’. It can even happen to bible-thumpers. It even happened to Trent Dilfer, though Dilfer I think suffers a bit in the comparison in that he was actually a half-decent quarterback. The superstitious can find images of Tebow in a Ritz cracker, and that is over-the-top loony, but what can we do about it? Pray away the crazy?
If you flip a fair coin 100 times, you’ll see several lengthy strings of all heads or all tails. The Te-Donks have been winning coin flips.
Tebow – Lieberman ’12
Paul – Tebow ’16
If Frank Bruni is found horribly murdered tomorrow morning, Scott is definitely going to be a person of interest.
Don’t forget the referee allowing their LT to wrap his arm all the way around Peppers’ neck after getting beat on Tebow’s TD pass. For a second I got confused and thought I was accidently watching an NBA game.
Indeed. Holding calls are so arbitrary that I rarely complain about non-calls, but that was ridiculous.
Holding calls on the interior/away from the play/inside the shoulders are pretty arbitrary. You almost never see a complete wrap around of a defensive end who has the tackle beat right from the snap not called, especially not when the end in question is a player of Peppers’ stature.
That play was fixed, as it were, plain and simple.
As a Yankees fan I think I finally understand how everyone else felt about Joba Chamberlain a few years back. Although Chamberlain had better potential upside than Tebow does, the glorification of astounding luck in a small sample size by a player with limited experience and far too much hype is very similar.
Although — and it pains me to say this — Joba at least was really good in that first season. Tebow has been terrible and yet is lionized because he’s “won” a bunch of close games against a weak schedule.
It shouldn’t pain you too much to say that. It’s true. Joba still was an untested rookie pitching a small number of innings out of the bullpen who was treated by the New York media and fanbase as though he were better than even a Stephen Strasburg type prospect.
The comparison isn’t perfect because Tebow has put on a legitimately bad performance, but it’s still a comparison that struck me as reasonably illustrative.
Brilliant.
I was going to ask Scott if he hated Jeter or Tebow more, but you actually brought up the better comparison, I think.
I will say that I hate Tebow more. And I really hate Jeter. But Jeter at least isn’t a Bible-thumper in public. I have never wished an athlete would fail more than I wish it on Tebow.
This is a pretty important distinction: Jeter (and Joba) didn’t canonize themselves, they were canonized by the NY media. Also, Jeter is a great player overhyped into the bestest player ever (Joba had a great stretch out of the pen overhyped into the bestest pitching prospect ever.) Tebow is, at best, Trent Dilfer with better legs and is being overhyped into the anointed one.
OTOH, while I suspect Tebow won’t last, I don’t think I’m as pessimistic (optimistic?) on the subject as others here. Trent Dilfer with legs ain’t a bad player, after all.
Speaking in my professional capacity as a Red Sox fan, even I am forced to admit that Jeter is a no-doubt Hall of Famer. Which is a fair bit better than Tebow can ever hope of achieving in the NFL.
Right. Jeter, a legitimately great player who is absurdly fawned over, is a whole different category. And Joba was a legitimately good prospect; it’s just that much of the media and Yankee fans and broadcasters acted as if a good prospect who pitched a couple dozen good innings of short relief was unprecedented or something. Tebow, who has so far been a poor player whose teams is (barely) winning (over a cupcake schedule) more in spite than because of him is really a different story than either.
In fairness, Joba egged that kind of lionization on (“It’s JOBA TIME!”)
As much as I hate the Yanks, and as much in particular as I hate Jeter fans, I have to tip my hat to the player. Even with his skill set and his notoriety, the guy goes out and puts in a full day’s work. You can’t take that away from him. There are very few Yankees this Mets fan can say this about, but I wish we had him from the start.
Of course, the Mets will sign him to his next contract…
No, he just focuses on conspicuous consumption and skirt-chasing. I would think the NFL has more serious problem cases than one guy who’s too public with his piety.
Hype aside, Tebow has improved and he is outperforming expectations (with all the help and protection from team and coaches previously noted). The last couple of games Denver’s offense has been looking more like a regular offense. He also seems to have done a lot to improve the morale of his team. Like others I don’t expect it to last but credit where credit is due.
As long as by “regular” you mean “regular bad NFL offense,” then I agree.
I’d be curious where this “improvement” can be found. He is a curiosity, though, as long as scoring isn’t part of your criteria for an offense.
It’s overall a nice example of why schoolyard pitch and catch isn’t really a professional game. (Well, except in the Arena Football League.)
He’s definitely not looking as lost in the pocket as he did in his first games and he is now showing some ability to find receivers when they are open. This is big for Timmy. By regular offense I meant a regular NFL offense.
My impression of Tebow is that he really hasn’t had much difficulty finding open receivers when he’s got time. And the amazing thing has largely been how much time he’s had in the pocket, even against the Bears. (I counted eight seconds during one of his final series yesterday. If I were identifying improvement, it might be actually outside the pocket, where he seems to have a better sense of where his receivers are and has managed to hit a few on forced scrambles.
It’s his inconsistency in hitting receivers on the move (he’s bad at this, but still manages it once in a blue moon) and his tendency to just chuck the ball up in the air is just as awful now as it was weeks ago. So, it’s really no surprise that this offense is pretty bad. They’re scoring about as well as you’d expect given how they’ve been playing.
I’m actually a little surprised at how little he has progressed in his two years in the league, to be honest. My assessment about him as a passer has always been that he is really mediocre (which was pretty apparent even in college), but he’s actually looked much worse that I thought he was.
Give props to his O-line, though. When he gets the usual 3-4 seconds that most QBs get, he’s pretty much been toast. Seeing him just kind of stand back there and take his tea has really enabled him to wait to find the open receiver.
It’s not that Tebow lacks good football skills. I’ve always said that he is the best throwing fullback I’ve ever seen.
The reason that Tim Tebow (all kneel) throws so few interceptions is that he throws even worse passes than Billy Kilmer or Bobby Douglas on a crappy windy rainy day.
If his own receivers can’t get used to the shit that he heaves up on a regular basis, how can some poor schlub of a DB who hasn’t seen anything like that since they were all 13 on the playground and the fat kid wanted a chance to play QB when the guy who could actually throw the ball got hurt.
He make the passes thrown by Joe Kapp look like they were Sonny Jurgenson’s perfect spirals.
And yes, I AM showing my age!
Somewhere, Larry Csonka wishes he had a more personal relationship with Jesus, and had a chance to play QB.
If his receivers did get used to the drunk ducks he throws, they’d be worthless to every other NFL team for trades or free agency, having forgotten how to catch a hard spiral.
But Joe can still smack a D-lineman up. Even in his 70s
Over 35 year old CFL beef! That’s badass.
Denver only wins because it’s defense is incredibly awesome beyond belief, and also too, the teams it plays against suck.
Tebow fans are enamored of these soft, indefinable, immeasurable, airy-fairy qualities that just don’t stand up to rigorous analysis, and also too, it’s all just luck.
Noticing the internal contradictions in the preceding two sentences is probably an indication of religiously-induced delusion.
You’re being ridiculous.
McKingford linked to a statistical analysis of Tebow’s play, for all games except today’s. Their methods say Tebow hurts the team. And that even the production Tebow is managing won’t be sustainable over the long term. And that Tebow is Vince Young 2.0.
Tired cliches like “at some point luck gives out” just don’t work in the face of this stuff. Comparing the number of wins under Orton and Tebow don’t work. Just stating without context how many interceptions he’s had in the last x attempts doesn’t work.
C’MON, MAN
Cold Hard Football Facts had an SI piece two weeks ago, using their QB formula, which they claim is 87% correlated with NFL victories. They conclude that Tebow’s low turnovers and rushing yards give a solid stats based explanation of Denver’s success: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/kerry_byrne/11/29/tim.tebow/index.html
This is great! Competing methodologies! Awesome.
(Note, though, that this is the opposite of what jfL was doing. He wasn’t getting into the methodological weeds; he was dismissing statistical analysis with a “pffffftt”, essentially.)
But that Cold Hard Football Facts thing falls short of the stuff McKingford links, I think.
What they’re doing is using their own QB rating formula, and noting that in a head-to-head comparison between QBs, the one that has the higher rating wins 87% of the time. They note Tebow has had a higher rating than his opponent in all of their wins, bada bing bada boom, statistical evidence for Tebow’s success, right?
A few points
- This is completely consistent with the idea that Denver’s defense has been playing really well and that’s the reason they’ve been winning. Denver’s good D = bad QB ratings for the opponent.
– This is completely consistent with the idea that Denver has been playing bad teams. Bad opponent defense = good QB rating for Tebow, bad opponent offense = bad QB rating for opponent.
– Both those ideas are different facets of the ol’ standby correlation doesn’t equal causation. Which applies here, and not only for the reasons above. The article also notes that the QB that has the higher yards per pass attempt wins 69% of the time. Tebow is in the bottom third of QBs per pass attempt, at 6.67 (though I haven’t tried to compare his number on a per-game basis with his opponent’s).
Is this a significant finding, that Tebow does poorly at one marker of success that’s right 69% of the time, but does well at another marker of success that’s right 88% of the time? What does that mean? The methodology given can’t make sense of stuff like that. We can make up a story that would explain the numbers, but we don’t know the likelihood of our story being true.
McKingford’s link doesn’t have any of these problems. It takes into account opponent defense and offense, and doesn’t use a simple “correlation = causation” story to explain what’s going on. It does have its faults (which are gone into pretty fine-grained detail in the comments) but it seems more rigorous than the Cold Hard Football Facts piece.
Thanks, Ben, those are good points, but the CHFF guts aren’t just saying Tebow is playing better than opposing QBs, but is playing very well compared to all other QBs:
I haven’t dug into the Harvard study, and of course CHFF is trying to get people to subscribe to their Insider status, but what I like about their approach is that they take rushing into account, which the NFL passer rating doesn’t.
Good point. But how important is the fact that Tebow puts it into the endzone more often than other QBs? Is he just taking away sure touchdowns that would have been just as easily attained by their running back?
How significant is it that Tebow protects the football better? Is that just an artifact of him not throwing thirty times a game? Is he putting it on the ground a lot less than normal QBs do, but a lot more than would be the case if he were handing off to a running back?
And how much does this have to do with the defenses Tebow’s been playing?
My point is that we don’t know the context of those facts, and we don’t know the significance of those facts, and we don’t know the answers to those questions, given the CHFF methodology.
The stuff McKingsford linked tries to provide answers to those questions, and boil it down to one number that signifies how much Tebow is helping or hurting his team. Their answer is that Tebow’s hurting.
I agree though that the CHFF rating looks like a better stat in general than the NFL passer rating. That puppy has been in need of updating for awhile.
Hi Ben, thanks, I appreciate this good discussion. It’s always hard to isolate one player’s contribution, but here’s a factor that should be discussed more: one claim is that it’s not just Tebow’s raw rushing totals but also the way some of them come on the option and not scrambling. The idea is that the option takes a defender out of the box and puts him on the wing to defend the option. This helps the inside running game. Hence part of McGahee’s success can be attributed to the way Tebow’s skill in the option shifts defense priorities.
This is something the Harvard guys admit their method doesn’t account for, though they also claim Denver’s RBs aren’t doing all that well (this is in the follow up piece linked in the original cited above).
Anyway, that’s all for me tonight, but thanks for the give and take, and I’ll check back tomorrow morning to see if you’ve posted in the meantime.
Cold Hard Football facts is one of the worst NFL sites on the web. They are a great example of people who swim in numbers but don’t understand how to interpret them.
My favorite example was the column a few years ago going after detractors of JeMarcus Russell for claiming his throws were inaccurate (this was before he was drafted). They cited completion percentage without understanding that completion percentage and accuracy are two very different concepts. Of course, everything they predicted for Russell turned out to be wrong.
Or read anything they’ve written about the HoF and QBs and see how they miserably fail to understand the stats they cite.
Their newest QB rating is a great predictor of offensive performance because it basically incorporates every offensive stat except running yards. What it is NOT is a measure of a QB – it’s an aggregate measure of how the offense and the opposing team’s defense are performing, excluding running plays. For example, attributing sacks to a QB – which that rating does – has some merit in some situations, but the other players and coaches on both sides have a lot of say in how many sacks a QB endures. When Cutler was getting hammered early in the season it wasn’t because he personally sucked – it had a ton to do with the offensive scheme and the weak OL. When the sacks went down later in the year it was almost entirely due to scheme adjustments.
If my comment is so ridiculous, why couldn’t you find anything in it to knock down?
Is it really so ridiculous to point out the glaring contradictions in the arguments I highlighted?
Hey, look, you just gave me a third one! Ahem: “You don’t pay enough attention to cold, hard statistical analysis, and also too, luck.”
Hence, my VERY FIRST POINT ON THE THREAD, about shortcomings in statistical methods. Statistical methods change – ask all of those highly-paid RBI guys from the 70s who never walked.
You might be right about this, joe, but the probability would seem to be against it.
I mentioned this before, but it bears repeating; we have seen this EXACT SITUATION before. There have been a number of QBs who just weren’t that good but who ‘led’ their teams to winning records and, indeed, to Super Bowl rings, because there were other factors at play that cancelled out their mediocrity. What makes Tebow any different? He might very well be. But you gotta prove that, and saying ‘all the stats guys are wrong’ sort of puts the burden on you.
- I was mainly saying you were being ridiculous in the thread above, and said it down here for space reasons. I agree that saying “there are rigorous methodological reasons for Tebow’s success, also luck” is dumb. Is there someone upthread that was promoting those same two positions at the same time? If there was, I agree, that’s silly.
- What you’ve been attacking, from my understanding, is mainly the idea that traditional QB rating and yards per attempt and the usual individual statistics we normally use to separate “good” QBs from “bad” QBs break down when evaluating Tebow.
And I agree! Partly b/c Tebow hasn’t had enough attempts to get a large enough sample for that stuff, partly b/c those stats are pretty crude anyway.
But where we disagree is in the fact that other methods were pointed out to you upthread (McKingford’s stuff; to a lesser extent the Football Outsider guys) that say Tebow’s doing poorly. These methods have nothing to do with QB rating, yards per pass attempt, or any of the other kinda silly ways we usually compare QBs. That’s why they were developed in the first place. They take into account game situations, defenses, the overall impact that a given play affects the outcome of the game, and other stuff.
Now you’re right in another respect. Methods change! And today’s methods are deficient in many ways from achieving Absolute Football Knowledge. But you can’t use this fact to just blithely dismiss whatever statistical argument someone puts to you. You have to provide some reason as to why Tebow’s style of play provides benefits that aren’t captured by the method, or why the method counts stuff as positives or negatives to Tebow that it shouldn’t, or some other deficiency. Like I tried to do with John Protevi’s comment above.
Long story short: the fact that traditional passer rating is a dumb stat isn’t an argument against the stuff that’s been pointed out. Also, what Murc said.
If you realize that by “luck” people mean a very improbable string of events and not supernatural forces, there is no contradiction.
There are only contradictions there because those statements are a bit strawmanish. Allow me to rewrite them!
“Denver wins because its defense is quite good and it is playing against teams that are very, very bad, have had key positional players disabled due to injury, or which have fucked up during play in ways beyond Denver’s control. Many Tebow fans seem to only be looking at the Denver wins stat and attributing this to Tebow without sufficient evidence to support this, especially in light of the fact the factors outlined above, combined with Tebow’s stats, would seem to be dispositive.”
This would seem to be a more accurate summation of the position of those of us who are skeptical of Tebow.
“How could there not be a Tebow thread at LGM?” I asked myself as I was drinking at the bar.
God didn’t want it.
Tebow apparently also has the power to make the usually amusing and often clever Chuck Klosterman write idiotic, handwavey columns about faith.
Grantland has hosted more good writing that it gets credit for, but there’s very little worse than Klosterman in Deep Thought mode.
Though not about football, I have reread his essay on Ted Kazinski over and over and I honestly don’t get it. It is impossible to imagine a human could believe the nonsense in that writing.
This thread has thankfully been nearly free of idiotic digressions into the ‘power’ or lack thereof of Tebows faith, and has instead simply been straight-up sports nerdery.
i’ve been most amazed by tebow taking over so much of the space on this blog the last six weeks.
I just heard an analyst blame Tony Romo for the Cowboys’ loss because of one pass that he missed. 21 for 31 for over 300 yards with 4 (FOUR) touchdowns and no interceptions plus a dramatic last minute drive to put his team in position to go to overtime – LOSER. Tebow’s 21 for 40 for 236 yards with 1 touchdown and 1 interception but the kicker made the (longer) last second field goal – “He just wins”.
You people won’t be laughing when Tebow becomes President of the Republic of Gilead in 2020.
Best comment.
Tebow driving his offense down the field and throwing a touchdown pass to bring his team most of the way back from their deficit, making those things he didn’t directly contribute part of a team win?
Those things did, indeed, directly contribute to the Broncos winning.
A genuinely GOOD quarterback paired with a good offense would be doing that multiple times a game instead of constantly going three and out, and the reason that touchdown made up most of the points deficit is entirely due to a combination of the Broncos defense holding the Bears O (an O, mind you, that is running crippled) to just ten points.
At this point it should be noted that the Broncos had 20 first downs to the Bears 12. There were a lot of teams this week that didn’t manage 20 first downs.
This “three-and-out” critique hasn’t really been true for a few weeks.
Right, but in this case you are not defending your rejection of real claims that “Tim Tebow won this game all by himself!” or that “Tim Tebow is a genuinely GOOD quarterback!” Rather, you are simply reacting to my above comment, which is a reaction to a hyperbolic meme at began on twitter as soon as the game was over, not (that is offered) as a reaction to any real such claims. It’s hard to know what claims, exactly, these hyperbolic/absurd claims are parodies of or what the positive assertion the are meant to out forward about what exactly Tebow didn’t do to contribute to the win. But I think it is fair to say that what they don’t do is give him credit for what he did do to contribute to it, leaving open the question of whether it is being denied he actually did contribute at all. The question put in this manifestation of the meme was, “what do people think was the most amazing of Tim Tebow’s many amazing plays today?” My response is as above. It’s not particularly amazing in my view, but that wasn’t my framing, and it did in fact contribute (rather significantly) to the win. The point is, it’s a question that actually has a reasonable answer, and absent some referent, the level of snark here just comes off as, yeah okay I’ll say it, douchey niggling detraction from someone’s legitimate (if limited) athletic success. It’s not about what Tebow does, it’s about what who is saying about what Tebow does!
This is a medium built on citation. If you want to argue against someone saying that Tebow is “a genuinely GOOD quarterback,” you might consider finding yourself a thread where someone is actually arguing that, or at least quote someone saying so elsewhere in the thread in which you prefer to make your argument. And if Scott wants to parody someone saying the Broncos got this victory all or mostly because of Tebow’s actions, he might trouble himself to find such a person. But merely finding someone giving reasonable credit to Tebow’s fourth-quarter play while crediting the Bronco’s defense and stressing the Bear’s inexplicable late-game mistakes while also noting the extraordinariness of this string of late-game performances by both Tebow and the team (a fair representation of most ESPN analysts’ take last night and tonight) does not get that done. And not citing anyone at all doesn’t either.
Since I’m addressing a bunch of Joe’s points strewn across a number of threads I’ll try to summarize my response here.
To begin, I absolutely believe that the NFL literati dramatically overstates the importance of turnovers. Certainly possession of the ball is important. But I’m not sure what is so magical about the difference between recovering a fumble and catching a ball via fair catch. IOW, I think *all* turnovers are bad, and the fact that NFL conventional wisdom thinks there’s something admirable about forfeiting possession via a punter’s foot, while fetishizing the immorality of a pick or fumble is pretty stupid…in NFL circles a QB who fumbles a snap at the opponent’s 5 yard line after leading a 75 yard drive is pilloried while another QB who goes 3 and out from his 5 and sees his team therefore punt is valorized – yet the former indisputably helped his team (even *with* the turnover) more than the latter.
You seem to be looking for deeper meaning in Tebow’s performance when, in fact, it isn’t really that complicated. His relatively few turnovers help, but can’t be conclusive. Today he had more alone than the entire Bear team…yet the Broncos won. So obviously turnovers, contra your assertion (and one you seem to share with NFL conventional wisdom), can’t be *that* important. Or, to put it another way, the Broncos didn’t win today because of Tebow’s supposed gift for not turning over the ball.
Even leaving this game aside, your “possession quarterback” theory of Tebow success can’t be squared at all with Tebow’s, well, general lack of possession. Tebow is becoming notorious – 4th quarter mad dashes aside – for the Broncos’ 3 and outs. This is incompatible with a theory that ball possession is key to the Broncos’ success with Tebow at the helm. Look at the time of possession during his stretch and see if you can make any sense of it – or correlate it to winning: Dolphins 34-33; Lions 30-29; Raiders 32-28; Chiefs 33-26; Jets 27-32; Chargers 37-37; Vikings 22-37(!); Bears 34-31.
We don’t need advanced statistical analysis to show us the obvious (although that certainly confirms it): Tebow, through 3 quarters of just about every game has been terrible. The only reason Denver has been in a position to win most of those games is that their defence has kept things close (whether this is a product of exceptional play by the Bronco defence of the fact that they are playing inept teams is immaterial). And there is simply no way to attribute the Broncos’ success in keeping things close with Tebow’s otherwise terrible play.
And even then, much of the Broncos’ 4th quarter (and OT) success is highly attributable to luck – or, iow, chance.
Scott’s post accurately makes the point that Tebow played a very small part in the confluence of lucky factors that produced a Broncos’ victory today. You said above that it that the Broncos’s success under Tebow must be killing Scott; I think it’s fair to say that what is killing us Tebow-skeptics is not the Broncos’ success, per se, but the *attribution of that success* to Tebow. We look at Tebow’s performance and see generally horrible output…thus the Broncos’ success can’t be attributable to that output. You seem to think the Broncos’ success is because of that output, so there must be some hidden advanced understanding of football that must be eluding us. But sometimes things really are simple: Tebow is bad, and the Broncos are winning despite him because of a confluence of good defensive performance, lucky scheduling and lucky bounces. 2 of those 3 things aren’t replicable over the long term so Tebow mania is going to be short-lived.
I hereby declare that I will outsource all my Tebow-related comments to McKingford, who said what I wanted to say with far more eloquence than I managed to say it.
Two things:
This started from the point where Lemieux and a good portion of commenters basically considered Tebow a joke of a quarterback that had no business being in the NFL. Now they are 7-1 since he became the starter and Lemieux has backed down to the “he won’t keep winning once he faces equally crappy QBs”. I assume that means that he is coming to grips with the fact that the QB he said has no business playing is playing better than a half-dozen other QB’s just out of the teams the Broncos have played this year. He is in the process, as of right now, of being proven wrong.
And when you talk about him being a “possession” QB, you are correct about a lot of your arguments. But I would pivot and call him a “field-position” quarterback. This is a two-pronged strength.
First, he so far has had an enviable talent for not undermining the Broncos defense by giving opponents short fields. The Broncos defense is superb, and the Broncos’ talent is heavily shifted to that unit. But there is no better way for a defense and an entire team to lose momentum and control of the game than through turnovers creating a short field. Secondly, his passing numbers don’t really have the chance of being that great. The Broncos main strategy is to create a horizontal stretch through the option, where as most pro teams approach that through passing concepts. When defenses draw up to the line of scrimmage, then the pass comes in to play by stretching the defense vertically. If you look at Tebow’s game log, you will see that he is not completing a whole lot of passes, but a high proportion of what he is completing are downfield. That strategy may be a result of coaches trying to avoid a major weakness, but it also plays to a strength and is going to make for some bad completion percentages.
On the point about his “clutchiness”, look at his split stats here. Down the page, it breaks down his stats by quarter, and his 4Q numbers are fairly ridiculous compared to the other quarters. I can’t readily explain it, but at some point you just have to admit there is something causing it other than luck.
He is in the process, as of right now, of being proven wrong.
The guy just finished being outplayed by Caleb Hanie. He’s been a way below average QB despite an unsustainably low INT rate. Whether he’s a starting NFL QB is, to put it mildly, an open question.
Hanie accounted for 126 of the losing teams 245 total yards. Tebow accounted for 285 of the winning team’s 345 yards.
There are a lot of 4Q quarterbacks in the NFL this season, and you can throw Mark Sanchez into that list at the top.
I swear, they ought to bench him for the first three….
Just for perspective, Tebow’s fourth quarter numbers are better than Sanchez’s:
Tebow: 49Comp, 61CMP%, 732YDS, 6TD, 1Int, 111 QBRating
Sanchez: 56Comp, 52CMP%, 750YDs, 8TD, 1Int, 95.9 QBRating
Plus Tim Tebow has more 4th quarter rushing yards than NYJ RB Shonn Green.
And while Mark Sanchez is definitely a 4Q qb, Tebow’s transition is, dare I say, miraculous. He only has 520 yards and five touchdowns passing in non-4Q play.
It is interesting, tho, that both play for teams whose defense is what gets the wins for them, because goodness knows the offense couldn’t score in a single bar. In uniform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trent_Dilfer
In 2000, He Just Won Games!
And yet, I don’t see Dilfermania taking over Baltimore any time soon.
Ah yes, then supergenius Brian Billick decided to trade Dilfer for a real quarterback. A cautionary tale!
Denver frequently does well at home late in games. This is due to the altitude effecting their endurance. Because Denver trains at altitude it doesn’t effect them.
Because the typical fumble recovery is 40 to 50 yards closer to the opposing team’s end zone than the typical fair catch?
Or in the case of a fumble that’s 30 yards or closer from the end zone, the fumble costs you the chance at a field goal or touchdown?
That’s true. But you’re comparing apples and oranges.
What he was talking about is the “turnovery” QB who throws for 300 yards, but with 2 picks, compared to the “effective” QB who throws for 180 yards, but with no picks. Since Slippy McTurnover throws for an extra 120 yards, it’s not unreasonable to assume that if you actually track things you’d find that those picks end up giving the opposing team field position ~ a punt and a fair catch. And since you’re getting more yardage, it’s also not unreasonable to assume that the “lost scoring” is also a wash.
I’d look at Romo. He’s notoriously considered lightfingered. But do you seriously think that an offense backed by Romo is worse than one backed by Tebow?
The problem with the analysis is that it assumes that the “turnovery” QB will always advance you to the opposing 20 and then turn the ball over. In real life, the “turnovery” QB is about as likely to turn the ball over on his own 20 as he is to turn the ball over on the opposing 20. So some turnovers might be about as bad as a three-and-out-then-punt in an objective sense, but other turnovers are far worse.
Further, yards don’t mean squat if they don’t translate into points. So if McTurnover advances the ball from own 20 to opposing 20 twice, only to turn the ball over both times, that’s your extra 120 yards down the rathole right there. (And as mentioned before, the likelihood is that McTurnover coughs up the ball far sooner, which puts you even further in the hole.)
Well, the yards do “something.” If Joe McTurnover has a pick on his 20 on one possession, he’s still got another 120 yards to blow on the next.
It’s a game of averages. QB Irongrip, with 6 possessions of (60 yards, FG; 0, punt; 0, punt; 80 yards, TD; 20 yards, punt, 0 yards, punt) isn’t noticeably better than QB Butterfingers, with 6 possessions of (int, TD for other team; 20 yards, punt; 60 yards, int; 80 yards, TD; 80 yards, TD; 60 yards, FG) The net score of 10 is exactly the same.
If QB Irongrip were playing QB Butterfingers, QB Irongrip would not likely need to go 60 yards for the FG or 80 yards for the TD, because on average, a turnover would put QB Irongrip at own 40 or midfield. Further, QB Irongrip’s defense would likely notch some scores on their own (as you have noted), so it doesn’t matter so much that QB Irongrip isn’t moving the ball as well as QB Butterfingers.
One might also note that gaudy yardage numbers are often a function of an offense having chronically bad field position, so they have to go the whole distance to score. Or alternatively, of an offense having to adopt a riskier strategy to make up for mistakes made earlier in the game. If the other team keeps giving you gifts, that’s going to hurt your yardage, because you don’t have to go as far to score.
Tebow seems to be inspirational to the Broncos, kinda their lucky mascot. And the other teams may be starting to get freaked out in the bottom of the 4th quarter, which also helps.
Morale is important and unquantifiable.
Tebow is the new Rally Monkey!
More like the Rally Tube Sock.
I have to be honest: he might end up being a flash in the pan, but I think Tebow, this season at any rate, is the real deal.
Denver is on a roll, but I think he’s just along for the ride, I watched yesterday’s game, he had as little to do with winning that game as a wining QB can have.
Still, that roll is in large part due to some of his heroics. The kind of confidence that inspires in a team can take them a long way.
I look at the last play of the Jets game, a team that’s a genuine contending team –now. The defense knew he was going to run the ball if he was spotted the chance. He’d done it two straight games.
You’d think they would have keyed at least a DB on him, and it looks like from the tape they trailed a linebacker but he still managed to run it in, and broke a tackle (maybe it was two) to boot.
Like I said, he could still turn out to be Ryan Leaf incarnate, but it looks like this season he’s got the team winning.
Well, I think we all agree that “not being a knucklehead” is the first tool in the QB toolkit, so Tebow is certainly going to be better than Ryan Leaf.
But virtually all QB’s are bizarrely (insanely, even) confident. They’ve been literally tested for that since high school, oddly since the Ryan Leaf fiasco. If anything, I’d say that Tebow is inspiring the team as a good luck charm sort of thing and as soon as they start losing the charm will wear off.
i didn’t think much of tim tebow, the quarterback, when he got drafted. i still don’t think all that much of him, as a quarterback. that said, denver is 7-1 with him behind center. unless i’m mistaken, those 7 wins all came against other NFL teams, supposedly comprised of the best football players on planet earth. regardless of how bad an NFL team is, it’s still an NFL team.
i think what tebow provides his teammates is confidence, that somehow they’ll find a way to win at the end. yeah, he’s, at best, a mediocre qb, perhaps even delusionally so. so what? apparently, he’s convinced the people that count the most in his world, his teammates, that somehow they’ll get through. it will continue to be effective, until they lose that confidence in him.
if you could put that in an aerosol spray can, you could make a fortune.
If you could put that in an aerosol can, it would probably be on the Schedule I list real quick.
Luckily for all of you I am here to settle this. Here is your answer. Tebow is a run of the mill NFL quarterback, but good enough to start in the NFL. Statistically he is better than “genuine NFL starters” like Ryan Fitzpatrick, Alex Smith or even Josh Freeman. So all the people who said Tebow was not NFL material have been proven wrong. Clearly and emphatically wrong. However, Tebow is clearly not an elite QB either and would not be effective on a team with a poor defense so his band of worshippers are wrong as well. Only I am right. Thank you for playing.
Statistically he is better than “genuine NFL starters” like Ryan Fitzpatrick, Alex Smith or even Josh Freeman.
No he’s not. Even after his one decent game he ranks with various washed-up or never-was QBs unlikely to have jobs next year — McNabb, Kolb, Grossman, McCoy, Grossman, etc. Pretty much the definition of “replacement level.” People who doubt that Tebow is an NFL starter have not been proven wrong at all.
[...] blunders on the part of the opposition. It’s an epic overhype. Someone in the last thread compared him to Joba Chamberlain, which is pretty close although it’s unfair to [...]