You catch on fast! :smile: As far as Tebow having "QBd the Broncos to 8-5 after a 7-24 run"... ...most of that "7-24 run" was under Josh McDaniels - a rookie HC who was clearly in over his head. He destroyed a pretty good Broncos team that Shanahan had left him, apparently in an attempt to prove that he could build a winning team without riding the old coach's roster. The "8-5" run was actually a 7-1 start followed by a 1-4 finish. Incoming HC John Fox hadn't had a chance to properly install his system (especially Defense) prior to the start of the season due to the lockout that year. He was forced to work on getting the team up to speed during the start of the season. Reaching Denver's bye week, Fox finally was able to properly tweak the Defense. Tebow started following that. Because Tebow is unable to run a normal pro-style Offense, Fox was forced to change to a run-option Offense that Timmy could handle. NFL teams are built in the off-season to deal with opponents running schemes normally seen in the NFL. Run-option Offenses aren't used in the NFL, so it took Defensive Coordinators a while to adapt to it. It enjoyed the same brief success that Miami's wildcat did. Additionally, there was no useable game-film of Tebow, so they were forced to be generic in their game-planning. Pile on to that the fact that it was just then that Denver hit the soft, white underbelly of their schedule. They had a string of bad teams (like Miami) mixed in with teams injured at critical positions (like Chicago missing Cutler @ QB, Forte @ RB and Major Wright @ S). But once opponents had figured out that containing Tebow in the pocket (not blitzing) and keeping tight coverages on the receivers (no end-of-game prevent Ds) kept Timmy from working the "Tebow magic", it was all over for Denver. Even very bad teams like 6-10 Buffalo and 7-9 KC were able to beat the Broncos...
You might want to check which other teams that the Bills and Chiefs beat that year besides the Broncos ..., before you use Them as reasons to why the Tebow lead Broncos were so "bad" ...
You mean the Chiefs who lost Cassell as their starter, fired their Head Coach mid-season and had to plug in Kyle Orton (whom Denver had scapegoated, benched, and finally put on waivers to appease the Tebowmaniacs)? Yeah, KC was a great team that year...
Okay, CowboysFan, you called your shot and Dennis here just hit it out of the park. Thanks for obliging, Dennis. Below are the new and tweaked list of excuses and historical revisions for Denver's wins with Tim Tebow under center. 1) Denver was only 7-24 because they had a bad head coach, not because they were a bad team. Because, you know, McDaniels was the only bad head coach in the NFL at that time and it was just pure, dumb luck for Tebow that he fell into being drafted by a great team with a bad head coach. Meaning that once they got a good head coach (Fox???), then they would win some games that Tebow had nothing whatsoever to do with, yet allowing him to take all the credit for said wins. Follow? 2) Denver's Defense, with the exception of the 49 point blowout by Green Bay, didn't allow more than 23 points a game in early 2011 before Tebow came in as the starter at half-time against SD. That was quite a bit better than the 29.4 pts./game they allowed in 2010 (31.6 in Tebow's 3 games as starter in 2010), which was good for last in the NFL. But they were only way better than in 2010 because Fox hadn't yet had a chance to "properly install his defensive system" in the first 5 games of the season. Because of the lock-out (but don't you dare even think about using the lock-out as any kind of excuse for Tebow - don't even think it!). The perfect and totally proper installation - not to mention execution - of Fox's Defensive system just happened to coincide exactly with Tebow's first start against Miami. We'll have to get back with you on where it went against Detroit, Buffalo and twice against New England. So, to re-cap, they were performing significantly better in early 2011 than in 2010, but they still went 1-4 before Tebow's first game as a starter. Total coincidence that they started playing a little better after that, in some games. 3) Even though the Run Option doesn't work in the NFL, it worked with varying degrees of good success all the way through the end of the season with Denver. Bill Belichick, noted Defensive mind, didn't have enough film on Tebow through the first 8 games he started, so Belichick needed a real up close and personal look at Tebow running all over the place like a raging bull in their first match-up before he could get a good idea about how to stop him. For some reason, all game film of Tebow's first 8 starts in 2011 had mysteriously disappeared and was unavailable for viewing by Belichick. He also apparently completely forgot everything he learned about the Option offense in visits with Urban Meyer and Tim Tebow (during his college days) about how to run the Option. And he learned so well how to defend the Option offense that New England got beat by both teams they played this year that run that style of offense. Now that is what I call a learning experience! Oh, by the way, did I mention that the Option doesn't work in the NFL? Those 3 teams with Option offenses who were in the play-offs, one in the Super Bowl, are just a mirage. Didn't really happen. 4) That first game against New England and the play-off game against Pittsburgh never happened. Figment of your imagination. And Kansas City did not beat the Packers and hold Aaron Rodgers to under 50% completion and 1 td pass a few weeks before beating Denver. That did not happen. And the Bills Defense did not intercept Tom Brady 5 times during the season. Total falsehood. _________________________________________________ You haters are so predictable. You know that, right? :rofl2:
I don't recall EVER having postulated that either team were great that season ... I did however tell you to perhaps look at the wins those above mentioned team had that same season ...
I have to conclude that you are referring to the Bills win over New England that season. 1. It was the third game of the season. Buffalo was presumably fairly healthy at that point. 2. By the time the Bills faced the Tebow-led Broncos, they were on a 7-game losing streak. In fact, Denver was Buffalo's ONLY WIN in the last 9 games of their season. Buffalo was a very bad team that year. No amount of fluffing is going to change that fact. And Kansas City was even worse...
Yeah like I said ANYBODY could have done it , the punter , the water boy , you , me , it's super easy to get playoff wins also , it's not like that was the only one the Broncos have gotten in almost a decade .......
So the Tebow led broncos had to go 13-0 then win the Super Bowl, that was the expectation ? . So a first time starter with less than a season's worth of starts could not have a bad loss or 3 or 4 in a 13 game stretch? Do you guys actually hear or read what you say?
Apparently. What gets me though is I've seen other quarterbacks, including some who made the Hall of Fame (I think, can't think of an example presently though) stink in playoff games they lost by a lot. Sometimes it isn't your day. I've seen Tom Brady have a handful of awful, awful days in the regular season at least. Not many, but I've seen him play games where he had 5 ints, and was just awful. No one seems to think he is crap on toast, he just had a bad day. Apparently if Tebow stinks the whole game, much as any qb will, that is total proof that the NFL has caught up with the "experiment."
I can answer that for you. The answer is no. Yeah, boy were they sure right about that, huh, considering 3 Option Offense teams were in the play-offs and one is in the Super Bowl.
Tebow has little in the way of a traditional QB skillset. He limits what an Offense can do when he's under center. John Fox was able to hide that for a while, but the blueprint for beating Tebow (contain him in the pocket and play tight man coverage on his receivers) got out and the "Tebow Magic" disappeared. He's not a good QB. John Elway consistently said that explicitly. The only 2 teams that were interested in him were the Jets and the Jags. Both wanted him for the attention he could bring their teams, not for what he could do on the field.
Since none of the other Tebow critics wants to tackle the question of why the Broncos under Tebow in 2010 scored almost 25% more points per game, with Tebow throwing almost 25% more passes per game, maybe you'll be so kind as to give it a whirl? Was Studesville also "hiding" Tebow's awfulness as a QB?
Personally I think the Broncos changed the offense from what had been really successful for them. Something odd happened last year. The Broncos went from being a pretty bad running team to being a very good one using the offense they put in for Tebow. Then for some reason they went away from it. I'd have to review the games to pick up when the emphasis changed. The offense they had even in the playoff win with Pittsburgh wasn't really doing what they did when they had the big rushing numbers. It would make sense if defenses really had "caught up" on what they were doing on offense, but it seems to me they quit doing the innovative things at some point last year and tried to run a regular offense.
It was obvious they caught on to what the Broncos were doing. Toward the end, we saw more stacking the box with 8 or 9 to stop the run. You saw a lot of that before, but before they were running a lot of blitzes and going straight after Tebow. It only took a hole and most would end up behind him as he charged forward and gained 10-15 yards. Once they ran more containment "stay in your lane" schemes, it really limited what he could do. That would have opened up if they were afraid of his passing, but they weren't for obvious reasons. Also what worked early on that stopped working was that run option thing where he would hand the ball off, lean in to sell it, and then decide to let McGahee have it, or take it back for himself. Raiders got killed on that trick like three times in that second game for HUGE yardage. Later in the season though, you saw teams deck BOTH of the players at the exchange. I suppose the Broncos could have got more innovative and tried some other gimmick, but they can only do so much with a QB wo really only brought a really good running ability to the table, and occaisionally being on the mark with a pass here and there. Kind of a two headed running back scenario. So it was more of everyone catching on to the secret the Broncos knew from day one. He can run, but really struggled in the passing department. Teams took advantage of it and only a couple got bit when the blind squirrel found a nut and managed to get a pass here and there to a receiver in a spot where they could actually do something with it rather than stopping to catch balls thrown behind them or at their shoelaces.
Actually, as has been explained to you repeatedly, what the Broncos could have done was to actually run a Spread Option offense, or failing that, just a regular Spread Offense. What do you do when teams try to stack 9 freaking guys in the box ? You send out more than 1 or 2 freaking receivers and force them to play coverage instead of stacking. What do you do when your 2 primary receivers can't seem to get separation from tight man coverage ? You throw more receivers into the mix and force teams to use 3, 4 and 5 DBs in coverage. You also run things like bunch formation to help WRs get separation. There's a ton of things that could have easily been done, if only they had an OC who knew what the hell he was doing.
You realize that the Broncos OC (Mike McCoy) that you claim didn't know what he was doing has been hired as the HC of the San Diego Chargers, right?
I could say some things about John Fox, namely that he is a very fundamentally conservative coach. It's hard to say if he straitjackets coordinators or he picks guys with the same philosophy. In retrospect it doesn't surprise me that he would ok a very run oriented version of the spread. Running the ball is after all what he wants to do above all else. It also kind of fits in my mind, that if it became necessary to pass more out of what he viewed as a very non-standard formation he might be leery. I watched Fox's Panther teams a lot when he was there. The Broncos of this year passed the ball more than I have ever seen one of his teams pass. I guess what I am trying to say is that if you come up with an unusual formation, the wildcat, the spread, or whatever, and you can promise him good results running with hit he will do it. If it takes letting the qb pass like SF did Kaepernick, or the Redskins did with RGIII, well he isn't so keen on it. We'll never know, but I kind of would like to know how much control Peyton Manning had over the Denver offense last year. That was a lot of passes to throw for a Fox team. This is also a long winded way to say it is hard to say what McCoy actually is like as a coordinator or what offense he favors. I think Manning had a lot more leverage over the offense as regards Fox than McCoy did. If you doubt me, well all I can say is go back and watch some of the Panthers games from when he coached them. The past season is the closest I have ever seen him come to having a dynamic offense. If the man had his druthers he'd build a clone of what most of us think of as Steeler football.
Oh, wake up!!! It has already been explained to you. Teams stacked the box because they knew Tebow couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. It hurt when he managed to, but those were few and far in between. He was shut down because of it, and got beat when they backed off and played "not to lose," which is the wrong thing to do with Tebow. Send all those guys, make him panick so he will spend more time looking for an exit than an open receiver.... you get one of the least offensively productive stretches in recent Broncos history. If it really was as simple of matter as running the spread all day, SOMEONE around the league would have taken note and jumped into the Tim Tebow sweepstakes. Since none of them are buying that load of horseshit, he's bound for Canada... if he's lucky.
John Fox has that reputation, but he never had a real QB to sling it either. The best one he ever had was Jake Delhomme. He also called a lot more passes during the Orton era, but he called more passing than the stat sheets say too. The ones where Tebow tucked it in and ran it or the ones where he hung on to the ball for an hour and got sacked didn't register as a pass attempt. Take the Miami game, had he not ran it 9 times, he would have been near the mid 30s in pass attempts. Even if about half of those were called runs, (and I doubt more than 2 or 3 were) it still put him around 29 or 30. Seemed pretty normal to me. This is why the horror show of his passing for most of the Miami game, damn near all of the Detroit game before the starting lineup sat on the bench with a really comfortable lead, and god knows what in practice.... it isn't hard for me to come to the conclusion that the reason pass attempts went down wasn't becuase Fox decided he liked running a lot more, but because his quarterback sucked golf balls through a rubber hose.
