Tebow stinks.

[Bronco Billy]

Yet, for every whisper that the D is playing outstanding, there's 100 bullhorns blaring that Tebow is reason they're winning.

 

I'd disagree with this, but there is no question that Tebow is a lightning rod. Early on the Tebow detractors were taking great glee in sticking every conceivable barb into the guy - hell, his ability at times was measured by the way he threw one particular pass in a game by some of the more rabid of these people - and now that DEN is performing well as a team with Tebow as the starter, the pro-Tebowites are taking an opportunity for turnabout. I don't remember a time or a team where the QB didn't get too much credit when the team wins and too much blame when the team loses. Tebow puts that concept on overdrive.

 

That said, football is a complex game and there are many reasons for the Broncos' sudden success with Tebow as the starting QB in the face of previous debacle with Orton starting.

 

Some of the things I've picked up on and are interwoven with each other:

 

1) DEN is making a decided effort to run the ball a ton. This goes to easing Tebow in as a passer but also goes to Tebow's strengths as a runner/option QB. Let's not overlook that Tebow didn't get the benefit of an offseason, was as low as 3rd string on the depth chart in preseason (and getting 3rd string reps and playing with future fry cooks when it was his turn), and wasn't getting many reps for the first 5 regular season weeks. No one in their right mind would expect him to jump in and suddenly become a much better passer or run the offense seamlessly given that. But the benefit of running so much doesn't stop there.

 

2) This O-line is much more competent at run blocking than pass blocking. Clady isn't quite as light footed since his injury a year ago and Franklin is flat out a road grader, but has concrete for feet when it comes to pass blocking. OG Beadles and C Walton are pretty piss poor pass blockers. As run blockers they won't de-cleat anyone, but they are aggressive and fire out quickly. All this running is not only playing into Tebow's strengths right now, but also is definietly playing right into the OL's strengths.

 

3) All the running is shortening games. The clock runs continuously much more often. DEN can't get into shootouts with other teams. The strong running game prevents that.

 

4) The successful running game also gives the D more of a break on the sideline, meaning when they come out they have had more time to make between-series adjustments as well as being better rested.

 

5) The successful running game also wears down the other teams' D front 7 and can prevent opposing QBs from swinging into a rhythym. It is the former that is part of the reason that DEN has been pulling out games late, IMO. The DEN O is beating up opponents with its smash mouth ways. That's also demoralizing to the other teams' D.

 

6) Running the ball is also helping to prevent TOs. DEN just doesn't give the other team a lot of extra series. Ball security is at a premium, and this is one of the hugh reasons DEN is winning. DEN as a team and Tebow in particular running the option and learning to throw into Ds is not giving the ball away at all.

 

6) The D is playing lights out. Miller is a bonafide uber-stud, and barring Dalton in CIN would seem to be a walk-away ROY. He's most definitely the DROY this year. They are getting great pressure on the opposing QB when he drops back to pass (hear that, Mike Shanahan?) and that is really keeping opposing Os from getting into their comfort zone. This also goes to Doom being healthy and playing well.

 

7) The unheralded guys on the D are playing way above their heads. The rotation of no-name DTs is keeping other teams from running the ball down DEN's throat - and with their light DEs and LBs that is a very real concern. Mays is doing very well at MLB, the LB rotation with Woodyard getting some reps is helping also. DJ Williams is starting to look like his old self.

 

8) Special teams are playing much more credibly - and in fact well in some areas - than in the past. DEN is playing a lot of field position on STs - which consequently also helps the O & D - and it is making an impact on the game.

 

9) With all the above, you also suddenly have a team that believes in itself. Tebow is unquestionably a much better motivator than Orton - that helps a ton in the huddle. But now the D knows if they can stand up and keep the game close that there is a very real chance that the O will find a way to score and win the game. There is no quit on this team on either side of the ball. The team is playing positively with passion. That also can't be undersold. Everyone with a very few exceptions seems to be taking that extra step, moving to the next level, making that extra block, throwing up or out that arm. In a league where parity is paramount, that can make the difference between winning and losing.

 

10) The coaches are doing a very good job (with some reservations to OC McCoy, who still bafflingly and stubbornly will run plays right into the strength of a D repeatedly as if to prove some kind of point, which can and does stall a lot of drives. Look - Tebow ain't the greatest thrower in the world, but you've got to throw on 1st down sometimes, and that Tebow delayed draw on 3rd & 6 has been sniffed out long ago). They understand what they have to work with and rather than forcing the team on both sides of the ball to be something it can't, they are making adjustments to optimize strengths and minimize exposure of weaknesses. They have this team ready to play hard every week, and again, there's no quit in the team.

 

Put all of these elements together, and you end up with an unconventional (by today's NFL standards) team that meshes very well together. One side of the team feeds off the strengths of the other side of the team on both sides of the ball. They don't make mistakes. They refuse to roll over and die. They are willing and seemingly proud to win ugly.

 

They are also playing some mediocre teams - but there's a ton of those in the league. But they have also won 4 games on the road in the past 6. That's nothing short of astounding for a team that started 1-4. It's always difficult to win on the road in the NFL with a very, very few exceptions.

 

Personally, being a great fan of imposing your will on the field in football, I'm enjoying watching this team immensely. They are literally forcing other teams to play their game - often in the other team's venue. That's not nearly as simple as it seems. Normally only the very best teams can do that. This team smacks of being a level or two above that mediocre mass in the middle of the NFL. Not great, not ready for playoff succcess, but improving and fun to watch (for we neanderthal run-the-ball-down-your-throat-and make-you-stop-us guys, probably not so much for the pinball video-game put-another-digit-on-the-scoreboard trackmeet types).

 

I can live with that, especially after the McD era that absolutely decimated this team and stripped it down to almost nothing.

[detlef]

Bronco, if the correlations between a strong running game and good D were actual, why don't they exist?

 

When Azz brought this up, I went back to 2002 and looked at how the top 10 rushing teams each year ranked on D. They were all over the place. I believe, when I averaged them all out, they averaged 15.4. In others, just a sliver better than average. But both you and I know, that's no where near high enough to suggest some relevant correlation.

 

Azz pointed to the 200 yard mark as some magical threshold where the D's stats would be great. And, in the case of the Oakland and KC games, that held true. They also ended up just shy of 200 in the blowout to Detroit (195) and were below 150 after regulation yesterday (123 vs the Jets and 183 in the OT win vs Miami). So, in three of their five wins under Tebow, they failed to top 200 yards in regulation and in the one blow-out lose they rushed for more during regulation than they did in three of their five wins.

 

So, maybe it's just as simple as the D playing better and Tebow not being the choke artist that Orton proved himself to be?

Edited November 28, 2011 by detlef

[bpwallace49]

Bronco, if the correlations between a strong running game and good D were actual, why don't they exist?

 

When Azz brought this up, I went back to 2002 and looked at how the top 10 rushing teams each year ranked on D. They were all over the place. I believe, when I averaged them all out, they averaged 15.4. In others, just a sliver better than average. But both you and I know, that's no where near high enough to suggest some relevant correlation.

 

Azz pointed to the 200 yard mark as some magical threshold where the D's stats would be great. And, in the case of the Oakland and KC games, that held true. They also ended up just shy of 200 in the blowout to Detroit and were below 150 after regulation yesterday. So, in three of their five wins under Tebow, they failed to top 200 yards in regulation and in the one blow-out lose they rushed for more during regulation than they did in three of their five wins.

 

So, maybe it's just as simple as the D playing better and Tebow not being the choke artist that Orton proved himself to be?

 

Det, I would look at the difference between the defense under Orton (without dumerville, and facing short fields and more playing time due to turnovers and short drives) versus the defense under Tebow (they have Dumerville, Miller continues to evolve as a rookie, and the get a LOT of rest as Tebow can only run the ball). I think they are giving up something like 15 LESS points per game. Of course the opponents are different, but the "we are incapable of passing the ball, so we just run . . . now we dare you to stop us" offense has given the defense much more of a chance to succeed than Orton the turnover machine did. Plus McGahee is playing MUCH better too.

[Bronco Billy]

Bronco, if the correlations between a strong running game and good D were actual, why don't they exist?

 

When Azz brought this up, I went back to 2002 and looked at how the top 10 rushing teams each year ranked on D. They were all over the place. I believe, when I averaged them all out, they averaged 15.4. In others, just a sliver better than average. But both you and I know, that's no where near high enough to suggest some relevant correlation.

 

Azz pointed to the 200 yard mark as some magical threshold where the D's stats would be great. And, in the case of the Oakland and KC games, that held true. They also ended up just shy of 200 in the blowout to Detroit (195) and were below 150 after regulation yesterday (123 vs the Jets and 183 in the OT win vs Miami). So, in three of their five wins under Tebow, they failed to top 200 yards in regulation and in the one blow-out lose they rushed for more during regulation than they did in three of their five wins.

 

So, maybe it's just as simple as the D playing better and Tebow not being the choke artist that Orton proved himself to be?

 

Because it has been my experience that football is a much more complex game than you are trying to make it out to be. You'll also note that my comments extend well beyond just addressing the improvement in the run O.

[detlef]

Det, I would look at the difference between the defense under Orton (without dumerville, and facing short fields and more playing time due to turnovers and short drives) versus the defense under Tebow (they have Dumerville, Miller continues to evolve as a rookie, and the get a LOT of rest as Tebow can only run the ball). I think they are giving up something like 15 LESS points per game. Of course the opponents are different, but the "we are incapable of passing the ball, so we just run . . . now we dare you to stop us" offense has given the defense much more of a chance to succeed than Orton the turnover machine did. Plus McGahee is playing MUCH better too.

Either that or the D is just playing better? I'll actually give Tebow credit for McGahee's increase in stats because I think this offense opens things up for him.

 

But, in terms of the offense bailing out the D, it's really just the TOs (which I understand is huge). They're not holding the ball much longer at all, they're not really gaining many more yards, they're converting less first downs overall and are far worse on 3rd down.

 

The only thing they're doing right is not turning it over. The running numbers look great, but they don't translate into eating large chunks off the clock, or they'd be better than 25th overall in TOP. And, no, I don't know where they rank since Tebow took over, but he has played more than half the games, so if it was anything all that impressive, they'd average out higher than 25th.

[detlef]

Because it has been my experience that football is a much more complex game than you are trying to make it out to be. You'll also note that my comments extend well beyond just addressing the improvement in the run O.

True, and I agree with plenty of them. I was only addressing the bit about the run game helping the D. You're the second person to bring this up and I understand why it should make sense. But if it did, then it would. And that doesn't seem to be born out by historical data.

 

Don't you agree? That if there was a correlation between a team running well and it's D putting up good numbers, we'd actually find that to be true more often than not? Isn't that sort of what a correlation means?

 

My stance is quite simply this: The D is playing great and at least Tebow is not turning it over. If Tebow has any effect on the play of the D, it's something that can't be measured. Some here think I'm making light of his impact when I say that, but I'm merely saying that his production on the field is not why the D looks better. The D looks better because the D is playing better.

[bpwallace49]

Either that or the D is just playing better? I'll actually give Tebow credit for McGahee's increase in stats because I think this offense opens things up for him.

 

But, in terms of the offense bailing out the D, it's really just the TOs (which I understand is huge). They're not holding the ball much longer at all, they're not really gaining many more yards, they're converting less first downs overall and are far worse on 3rd down.

 

The only thing they're doing right is not turning it over. The running numbers look great, but they don't translate into eating large chunks off the clock, or they'd be better than 25th overall in TOP. And, no, I don't know where they rank since Tebow took over, but he has played more than half the games, so if it was anything all that impressive, they'd average out higher than 25th.

 

I think the defense is playing better (and they have dumerville back that they didnt have under Orton) and they dont have the turnovers, which is directly translating into better field position for the defense to work with. And if that is all it took to have the Broncos start winning, they they should stick with Eric Crouch Tebow at QB. He sure as hell cant get WORSE as a passer (that may be impossible) , and if they are happy with a QB that AFTER A WHOLE YEAR sitting and "learning" still has issues with basic throws and reading defenses then God bless. . . . cause they are still winning, and that is all that matters.

 

And as an aside, the tripe about how "poor tebow didnt get enough reps in a shortened preseason" is bullchit of the highest order. He isnt a rookie, he was on the team all last year, and still has basic fundamental flaws. But lets make excuses "becasue of first team reps and preseaon" for why he has so much trouble with a basic NFL offense and passing the ball.

[Azazello1313]

The shame is, back in their SB year, when Baltimore's D was completely carrying that team, everyone rightly pointed to it.

 

[detlef]

Do you disagree?

[Azazello1313]

Do you disagree?

 

yeah I disagree that the broncos defense is comparable to the 2000 ravens. but hey, I realize that you are a little desperate at this point, so go ahead and run with that I guess.

 

you've apparently ruled out based on some half-assed, error-ridden statistical analysis that running the ball effectively and not turning it over would translate to better defensive performance.

 

I think that leaves us with the assumption that the broncos are 5-1 under tebow, after looking like the worst team in the league at 1-4 under orton, because tebow laid hands on dumervil.

[detlef]

yeah I disagree that the broncos defense is comparable to the 2000 ravens. but hey, I realize that you are a little desperate at this point, so go ahead and run with that I guess.

 

you've apparently ruled out based on some half-assed, error-ridden statistical analysis that running the ball effectively and not turning it over would translate to better defensive performance.

 

I think that leaves us with the assumption that the broncos are 5-1 under tebow, after looking like the worst team in the league at 1-4 under orton, because tebow laid hands on dumervil.

Saying that the Broncos are winning because their D is playing great just like the Ravens did is not putting the two on the same level.

 

And, again Azz you have not backed up your theory. You picked two games where they went over 200 yards and played good D and called it done. The fact that your model doesn't hold for the other four games doesn't seem to matter to you. Also, my numbers are not "half-assed or error-ridden". How is looking at the top 10 Ds and expecting them to be good more often than not, "half-assed"? Wouldn't that be the case if your theory about a run game making the D look better was true?

 

But here's more, not that you deserve it:

 

OK, so we all have seen what great numbers Tebow put up in the 4th quarter. Isn't his passer rating up there with the best in the 4th? He's won or tied the game on his last possession in the 4th three of the five wins he's had. Correct? It's certainly admirable. But doesn't that sort of take away from any statistical effect his actual performance on the field has on the Ds ability to shut down the other team? Considering that their overall TOP and yards are anything but outstanding and, apparently, rather back loaded to the end of the game? So, the D is playing 4 quarters, Tebow's basically playing one.

 

In the Miami game, 136 of Denver's 300 yards were amassed after the D had already done their job when they drove 80 yds, scored, on-side kick, and scored again. So, for 50+ minutes, the D was doing its thing not because of, but despite any help from the offense. Same with the Jets game. 95 of their 229 yards were amassed on the last drive of the game. Are you actually implying that a team that a team who amasses 164 and 130 yards over 50+ minutes is doing it's D any favors at all?

Edited November 28, 2011 by detlef

[Azazello1313]

Saying that the Broncos are winning because their D is playing great just like the Ravens did is not putting the two on the same level.

 

you're whining about them not getting the same level of recognition.

 

I am glad you are now such a fan of the broncos defense though.

 

And, again Azz you have not backed up your theory. You picked two games where they went over 200 yards and played good D and called it done. The fact that your model doesn't hold for the other four games doesn't seem to matter to you. Also, my numbers are not "half-assed or error-ridden". How is looking at the top 10 Ds and expecting them to be good more often than not, "half-assed"? Wouldn't that be the case if your theory about a run game making the D look better was true?

 

it's not a "model", 200 yards rushing is a barometer I picked because that's what the broncos are averaging per game since tebow took over as a starter. and lo and behold, teams that run the ball effectively enough to amass 200 rushing yards per game give up 30% less points per game.

 

maybe next we should look at turnovers?

 

actually let's don't. if you can't accept that having the best running offense in the league and not turning the ball over makes the defense's job easier, then you're either being wilfully obtuse or you're just not very bright. either way, there's not a lot of point in discussing it further.

[detlef]

But, in terms of the offense bailing out the D, it's really just the TOs (which I understand is huge).

 

 

My stance is quite simply this: The D is playing great and at least Tebow is not turning it over.

 

 

you're whining about them not getting the same level of recognition.

 

I am glad you are now such a fan of the broncos defense though.

 

 

 

it's not a "model", 200 yards rushing is a barometer I picked because that's what the broncos are averaging per game since tebow took over as a starter. and lo and behold, teams that run the ball effectively enough to amass 200 rushing yards per game give up 30% less points per game.

 

maybe next we should look at turnovers?

 

actually let's don't. if you can't accept that having the best running offense in the league and not turning the ball over makes the defense's job easier, then you're either being wilfully obtuse or you're just not very bright. either way, there's not a lot of point in discussing it further.

I think I already covered that.

 

I'm not whining about anything. You're talking out of you Azz, making assertions that are rather plainly wrong, and I'm merely pointing it out. The D started playing better and Tebow has been the QB. But there's as many examples of that happening despite his ability to move the chains as because of it. Detroit is 2-4 since after the SD game when Tebow won the job. I suppose you can make some correlation there as well?

Edited November 28, 2011 by detlef

[Azazello1313]

Detroit is 2-4 since after the SD game when Tebow won the job. I suppose you can make some correlation there as well?

 

umm. tebow is not the QB of detroit. why would I make that correlation?

 

on the other hand, he IS the QB of the broncos. and in that time, they wen't from a 1-4 team that was poor-to-middling running the ball, turnover prone and playing mediocre defense, to a 5-1 team that is tops in the league running the ball, doesn't turn it over, and is playing excellent defense. but I guess none of those facts have any more to do with each other than the detroit lions hitting the skids.

[detlef]

umm. tebow is not the QB of detroit. why would I make that correlation?

 

on the other hand, he IS the QB of the broncos. and in that time, they wen't from a 1-4 team that was poor-to-middling running the ball, turnover prone and playing mediocre defense, to a 5-1 team that is tops in the league running the ball, doesn't turn it over, and is playing excellent defense. but I guess none of those facts have any more to do with each other than the detroit lions hitting the skids.

Wow, you got me. And here I thought there was one.

 

You do realize that, at no time, have I said that Tebow has had nothing to do with this winning streak. You yourself have pointed to non-Tebow related factors. Like earlier when you mentioned, in all fairness, San Diego is completely gutless. And you're right. It absolutely matters. Doesn't take the win away, but it's there.

 

Just like the D playing out of it's head, sometimes despite repeated 3 and outs from the offense for the vast majority of the game, does not take away from the win. They still count. But you seem hell-bent on 1) giving Tebow credit for things he's not doing and 2) assuming everyone who is prepared to give credit where it's do thinks he's got nothing at all to do with the wins.

 

He's 5-1, and that's all that matters. Just like Trent Dillfer won a SB. You can't take that away from him. He's got the ring to show it.

 

There are a lot of QBs in the league who'd be 5-1 if all they had to do was put 16 pts on the board to win.

Edited November 28, 2011 by detlef

[Bronco Billy]

And as an aside, the tripe about how "poor tebow didnt get enough reps in a shortened preseason" is bullchit of the highest order. He isnt a rookie, he was on the team all last year, and still has basic fundamental flaws. But lets make excuses "becasue of first team reps and preseaon" for why he has so much trouble with a basic NFL offense and passing the ball.

 

Well, I'm of the opinion that most QBs need to learn how to play the game at the NFL level, that the learning curve is different for each of them and is often measured in years, and that Tebow has shown enough positive qualities that DEN ought to continue to spend sufficient time to coach him up and see what he can do as his experience grows.

 

You on the other hand appear to think that most QBs are either pro ready or not when they enter the league, and therefore cannot show significant improvement with increased reps and training.

 

I'll guess we'll have to let others and time decide which of us is correct.

[Azazello1313]

You do realize that, at no time, have I said that Tebow has had nothing to do with this winning streak.

 

no I get it, you just go out of your way to minimize tebow's contribution and emphasize everything else because that's the corner you've painted yourself into.

[Mr Cliche]

You cant argue with results

[stevegrab]

The shame is, back in their SB year, when Baltimore's D was completely carrying that team, everyone rightly pointed to it. Perhaps because the QB was a guy who we'd all seen enough of and had already decided wasn't really all that good.

 

Now, Denver's D is totally carrying this team and all we talk about is Tebow. If Tebow was simply spreading out his few scoring drives throughout the game, rather than cramming them all into the 4th quarter, he'd just be a basically ineffective QB who is being carried by a D that is playing light's out. But, because he's sucking ass for most of the game, then all of a sudden catching fire and putting up 10 or so points in the 4th (which, of course, only equates to a win because the D is holding the other team to less than 2 TDs), he's "the difference".

 

It would just be nice to give credit where credit is due. And Tebow certainly deserves some of it, but the D is playing out of it's freaking head right now.

 

Well some credit Tebow with the defense playing better, including analysts that are former players. They appear to believe that Tebow's heard and come back ability inspire the defense to play so much better (allowing some 10+ fewer points per game).

 

I agree, Denver Defense and running (which Tebow is a big part of) are the primary reasons for them being 5-1 over the last 6 weeks. Not Tebow's far from stellar play at QB.

[Bronco Billy]

In addition to that, if they used that 1st round pick on a dt or cb, our broncos might be better off.

 

Or might have a bust with that late 1st rounder and still have only Orton (unless you count Quinn) to turn to as QB. At least Tebow is providing some return - which a lot of McD's high draft picks have not.

[detlef]

Well, I'm of the opinion that most QBs need to learn how to play the game at the NFL level, that the learning curve is different for each of them and is often measured in years, and that Tebow has shown enough positive qualities that DEN ought to continue to spend sufficient time to coach him up and see what he can do as his experience grows.

 

You on the other hand appear to think that most QBs are either pro ready or not when they enter the league, and therefore cannot show significant improvement with increased reps and training.

 

I'll guess we'll have to let others and time decide which of us is correct.

Just curious. Are you actually seeing improvement? We knew he could run, and now the Broncos are running the option which is better suited towards his style. So that certainly explains why they're moving the chains better than they did for nearly all of the Miami game and the Detroit game. Have you seen him improve in ways that will lead the team to believe they can move away from that? Like passing? Or do you think they can continue to run that offense long term and have it still be successful?

 

A quick gander at his passing numbers don't show a ton of improvement in his accuracy (though this week was the first time he got to 50% all year). He started a tick below 50% and that's sort of where he's stayed the whole time.

 

I guess that's where my issue lies. That he may be in the right place at the right time but ultimately setting the team up for a major downer. There's so much hysteria about him and now they're winning. But if they're winning by running a scheme that has a short shelf-life and on the backs of a D that is playing great, what happens in the spring? Do they draft a QB because they're afraid that they can't keep running the read option forever? Now you're talking about making him earn his spot again? But what offense are you going to run in camp? If it's a "normal" NFL offense, he's going to look like crap again (likely).

 

Now, were I a Bronco fan, I'd still be stoked that my team had just won 5 of 6 after looking like poop for the last year plus, but I'd still be concerned about the direction.

[detlef]

no I get it,

You don't but that's OK. Sometimes it's nice to pretend.

[MrTed46]

The only stat that matters at the end of the day is winning. He is good in that stat.

[Bier Meister]

The shame is, back in their SB year, when Baltimore's D was completely carrying that team, everyone rightly pointed to it. Perhaps because the QB was a guy who we'd all seen enough of and had already decided wasn't really all that good.

 

 

they also had a 2000 yard rusher that year. it is a formula that can work

 

strong cowbell + top defense + qb that does not turn the ball over and can make enough important plays= wins.

[bpwallace49]

Well, I'm of the opinion that most QBs need to learn how to play the game at the NFL level, that the learning curve is different for each of them and is often measured in years, and that Tebow has shown enough positive qualities that DEN ought to continue to spend sufficient time to coach him up and see what he can do as his experience grows.

 

You on the other hand appear to think that most QBs are either pro ready or not when they enter the league, and therefore cannot show significant improvement with increased reps and training.

 

I'll guess we'll have to let others and time decide which of us is correct.

 

I am of the opinion that if you draft a QB, that he should already have basic fundamentals of the QB position. Becasue Y'know . . they are professionals at this point.

 

I would also have an expectation that if I drafted a linebacker, that I wouldnt have to spend a year teaching him how to tackle or how to read lineman keys. Those are basic skill sets of the position. That is also why Tebow was not viewed as a first round pick by almost everyone.

 

Tebow is immune from said expectations. Tebow, despite getting credit for being "such a hard worker!" still lacks basic skills. Your continued argument is to "coach him up". Well what the hell do you think was being done last year when he was holding a clipboard? Or was he just leading the team in prayer before each game? What do you see as a reasonable expectation with Tebow? From your posts it appears that

 

1.) Tebow should have a offense completely designed around his limited skill set. Most teams draft for their system, but Tebow is "special".

2.) Any incompletion is the fault of the offensive coordinator asking Tebow to make NFL throws. Couldnt possibly be Tebows fault.

3.) He has a blank check of time frame to "develop" and by "develop" you mean "learn how to read a defense and throw a ball with very basic mechanics".

4.) Tebow is to get the credit when things go well, as it is solely his presence that is making the defense play better. Conversely, when things go badly, it is the fault of the offensive coordinator having the balls to call "passing plays".

 

Can anyone think of any other example of a team throwing everything out the window to cater around one guy that has a very limited skill set? Anyone?