Serious Question for the Haters (you know who you are)

CC, thanks for taking the time to make a thorough response. See my comments below.

Okay, for starters, I'm more interested in discussing his passing performance than his running (although a lot of what I have to say has to do with the overall team's rushing stats and play-calling), overall, but I will say I'm not entirely sure I follow your argument here. Tebow had almost exactly as many rushes per game (averaged) in 2010 as in 2011, although since the 2011 offense was so much more run-heavy, his rushes in 2010 were a larger percentage of the snaps.

I'm going to call both the "going through the motions" and the "surprise factor" arguments, specious ones. I'll elaborate on my thoughts on the "surprise factor" further down in my response, and my thoughts on the "going through the motions" argument immediately below. Oakland finished up 8-8 and San Diego 9-7. San Diego and Oakland were the #1 and #2 rated passing defenses in the league in 2010, and #10 and #20 overall. So, Tebow threw for 343 yards and 3 TD's total against the #1 and #2 rated passing defenses in the league - in his first 3 games as a starter. Not too bad for a "sh*tty QB", huh? Houston wasn't 2-14 or anything like that. They were not a bottom of the basement team, they were 6-10, and overall the Denver Defense was actually ranked worse than the Texans Defense. Denver was last in the league. And even though the Texans pass defense was last in the league, they were still an NFL defense, no glorified running back is torching them for 308 yards on a mere 16 completions, sorry.

The winning % of the 3 teams Tebow started against in 2010 was 48%, and the winning % of the 11 teams Tebow started against in 2011 was 51%. Pretty close to the same.

In short, your "going through the motions" argument relies on the assumption of "facts not in evidence". It is not quantifiable. And even if the Broncos did benefit from those teams being in "end of year, not making the playoffs letdown" mode (and there's no way to know that), then it's perfectly reasonable and correct to say that a lot of teams benefit from that effect in their end of season schedules every year. Look at the 2012 Broncos, for instance. 2 of their last 3 games are against Cleveland and Kansas City, neither of whom are making the playoffs and so, in the argument of the Tebow haters, would have "nothing to play for". This is a lot like the 4th quarter comebacks against "prevent" defenses thing. No QB other than Tebow gets criticized for having a lot of 4th quarter comebacks because some of them may have benefited from "prevent" defenses, and no QB other than Tebow gets criticized for good performance or wins against teams at the end of the season simply because those teams weren't making the playoffs.

To catch one team off-guard, sure, maybe. But all three? It's not like he was doing stuff he hadn't done his entire college career, and there was sure enough plenty of film on that. And then 11 teams the next year? How many were "caught off guard" by him, and why? If a guy "can't throw", then just exactly how hard is it to stop his offense, and why did so many teams get beat by him "throwing", even though he "can't throw"? If Tebow's offense was so easy to "figure out", as you put it, then why were teams still losing to the Broncos into December? Should the coaches of those teams have been fired? The last time a team rushed for at least 252 yards against the Patriots was the Eagles on Nov. 4, 1990, a little over 22 years ago. The Patriots were 1-15 that year. The Patriots went to the Super Bowl last year. No one considers Bill Belichek to be a pushover when it comes to his defensive mind. How does that equal Tebow being "figured out"? The Patriots had 11 games worth of 2011 film on Tebow and the Denver offense and yet the Broncos marched up and down the field on them at will in the first half.

What about Dick Lebeau and the Steelers? Did Lebeau have the defensive game plan brain fart of his decade, or did the Steelers just get a little cocky and believe what all the Tebow haters in the media had been saying all year long about Tebow not being able to throw the ball? They dared Tebow to throw the ball, and he obliged, to the tune of an insane 31.6 yards per completion average - and not just in the 4th quarter and OT - probably the best overall passing performance against the Steelers all season (maybe in several seasons). If Tebow was so "figured out" then how did this happen, how did he torch the #1 defense in the NFL, coordinated by one of the top defensive coordinators in the league over the last several decades? How do these late in the season performances equal getting "figured out" and thus accounting for Tebow's very slightly worse passing stats than in 2010, and almost 7 points less per game average in his 2011 starts vs. his 2010 starts? Once is a coincidence, twice is chance, three times is a pattern. If Denver's success last year was strictly limited to Tebow's first 1 or 2 starts and then it was completely shut down then you'd have a very, very strong basis for your argument. One would assume if he was so one dimensional and had been "figured out", that every game after that first one or two would have been a blowout. But that isn't what happened.

I'm not sure I'm following the point you're trying to make here? Twice as productive when? His rushing production in 2011 was all over the map. Denver won some games where Tebow had very meager yards per rush, and they lost some games where Tebow had ridiculously high yards per rush. Same thing in 2010. Tebow had incredible rushing production and moderate passing production against Oakland and San Diego, and they lost. He had very meager rushing production and awesome passing production against Houston and they won.

continued in next post....

 

So....did this stop....and then start up again? How else to explain Tebow's early success against New England in the first game, and the Pittsburgh game? You can't just explain those away as a fluke, much as you might want to.

Ask Dick Lebeau how he feels about that statement.

Do you recall that Tebow completed 10 passes, only 4 of those were to Thomas, and only one of his TD passes was to Thomas? The other 6 completions went for a fairly decent 18.6 yards per completion (!!!), to a combination of Daniel Fells, Lance Ball, and Eddie Royal (who caught the first TD). What's your excuse for how Tebow managed to complete 6 passes to those 3 guys, including some serious gainers?

Sorry, but a "sh*tty QB" doesn't have a performance like Tebow had against the Vikings no matter HOW open the receivers are. Nor does a "good running back".

Well, as easy as Tebow is to "figure out", seems like it sure took some teams a long time to actually figure him out, huh, considering how "simple" he was to stop and how much film there was on him from earlier in the year.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but Dick Lebeau might have been thinking that, also, when he was preparing his gameplan for Tebow.

A lot of people last year were saying after the Miami and Detroit games that lightning wouldn't strike twice - as in, Tebow wouldn't be able to have more comebacks like the Miami game. Guess he showed them.

Against Miami, Prater missed 2 field goals or that game was won by Denver in regulation. We've already been over the Chicago game that should have been won in regulation by Denver if not for the TD pass drop by DT and the blocked field goal by Prater. Not that it matters, a win is still a win, but since you get so much enjoyment out of talking about "Marion Barber this and Marion Barber that", just fair to point out that Marion Barber wouldn't have even been an issue if not for the dropped pass and blocked fg.

Okay, so you've given me your take.

Here's my take: If you recall, my original question was basically, what explains the almost 7 less points per game between Tebow's 2010 starts and
his 2011 starts. My short answer is that it has almost entirely to do with the base offense being considerably more run-heavy in 2011 than 2010 (when Tebow was starting), combined with significant differences in the play-calling. Namely, it was way more predictable and less creative in 2011 than in 2010. New coach, new offense. Further elaboration below.

Looking at the stats, for most of them there isn't a whole lot of difference (at least when averaged) between 2010 and 2011, especially with Tebow's passing stats. Tebow did have quite a bit higher "total passing yards per game" in 2010, but that can largely be explained by the fact that the 2011 offense was considerably more run-heavy and Tebow had a little more than 3 less passing attempts per game in 2011. Considering that his 2011 completion % wasn't hugely different from 2010, less passing attempts obviously means less completions also. His yards per completion were down a little in 2011 from 2010, but he still led the league in that category.

The biggest, most obvious change in the team stats in 2011 has to do with the change from an offense that was already run-heavy during Tebow's starts in 2010, to an offense that was absurdly run-heavy during Tebow's starts in 2011. The Broncos averaged 7 more rushing attempts (and almost one more yard per attempt) and 3 less passing attempts per game in 2011 than in 2010 (with Tebow as starter). In 2011, they also averaged 4 more plays per game and 4 more minutes Time of Possession per game, even though they averaged 1 less Offensive Possession per game. They had basically an identical number of first downs per game in both years under Tebow. All those differences led up to a whopping 7 Total Offensive Yards per game, with 334 in 2010 and 327 in 2011. Is that difference of 7 yards enough to explain why the 2011 Broncos with Tebow scored almost 7 points less per game than in 2010 with Tebow in the last 3 games? In my mind, no, 7 less yards of total offense doesn't equate to an average of almost 7 points less per game.

In my opinion, what very well could account for that almost 7 points less per game is the ridiculously, boneheadedly conservative (or possibly just plain boneheaded) situational playcalling of Fox and McCoy, and that is reflected in the last 3 stats in my original post to start this thread. It also easily explains the higher 3 and out % and the lower 3rd down conversion rate under Tebow in 2011 compared with Tebow in 2010. 3 & Out % with 3 Runs in a Row was a whopping 19% higher in 2011 than 2010, and 3 and Out % with runs on 3rd & 5 or longer was a whopping 20% higher in 2011 than 2010!.

Now, I already showed on another thread that, despite how much the Tebow haters want to harp on that 3 & out stat, it is not a stat that is necessarily predictive of Wins, as we can clearly see that the Broncos had a better Winning % with Tebow in 2011 - while scoring less points - than they did with Tebow in 2010, even though they had more 3 and outs and lower 3rd down conversion rate in 2011. The better Win % in 2011 might have something to do with the fact that the Broncos Defense in 2010 was even worse than it was in 2011 (and considering all the points they gave up to the Packers, Lions, Patriots & Bills in 2011, that's saying something!)

That's all I've got. For now. Do my stats show conclusively that there is a direct correlation between the much more conservative playcalling in 2011 and the lesser points scored in 2011 than in 2010? No, they don't, but given that most of the other stats in Tebow's 2011 starts average out pretty close to the stats (both team and Tebow personally) of Tebow's 2010 starts, I'd say the best place to start looking is where the stats are drastically different between the 2 years. Other than the almost 7 less points per game itself that I'm asking about, these play-calling run and 3rd down play-calling stats are the most obvious and glaring differences.