Aaron Schatz - the DVOA guy.

Schatz spooked a few people when he said that the turnaround that the Broncos had did indeed have to do with Tim Tebow--he said it was because his threat as a runner gave better opportunity for McGahee, et al. Wasn't expecting that one.

I can see that, the Michael Vick effect when he was in the Dan Reeves offense anyway did help the other runners on the team due to the defenses hesitation and focus on Vick's movements. I do think the read option and Tebow's running ability likewayse helped the Broncos.

I don't see how anyone could really say otherwise to tell you the truth.

Well, the supposed "contrary to prevailing wisdom" argument was a dramatic improvement in the defense instead, but Schatz said that there was no such improvement. The Patriots would go on to prove that, twice.

The Tebow thing is exactly the type of analysis that no one else does, and builds off of what Chris Brown (the Smart Football guy) was saying. Pretty much every NFL running play starts out as a win for the defense, because the QB is gone and it's 11 against 10. When your QB is a running threat, the FS is no longer a truly "free" player and the passing game is opened up. When have you ever seen the Steelers go Cover 0 against a spread formation? Never except when they were playing Tebow, and it ends up winning the game.

This is the type of football coverage I am interested in, not "ZOMG!!! Rex Ryan said the Giants are soft!." I am only hoping we will get more of it in the future.

Yeah, this stuff is great. Although I'm more into the smartfootball type stuff, dealing with schemes and individual play design, than the stat-based stuff. Stats are usually less interesting, and I also think they're prone to misuse, especially predictively (this piece, and a lot of what nate silver does on politics, epitomizes my issues with even fairly rigorous stats).

Oh, I definitely like looking at the two in combination. I just like the stats because they put to rest all the bullshit you read about during the week and make you watch the game more closely. The Patriots run game is a great example. They rarely break 20+ yard plays, but it seems like every play is a 5-yard gain or a first down, which is what really makes a good running game. The FO stats are all about efficiency over raw numbers. 5 catches for 70 yards and 4 first downs on 6 targets is a much better game than 8 catches for 100 yards and 4 first downs on 12 targets. It makes you really look at who is making meaningful plays.

It never really seemed like the defense was "better," just that in a lot of games they weren't being put in such terrible positions due to turnovers by the offense. In the games where Tebow turned it over, the defense looked just as mediocre as they did when Orton was the QB. I don't understand why so few people made that connection.

fuck stats, gimme jaws breaking down plays all day

Same thing with the running game. I LOVE Willis McGahee. But let's be real here. Look at his production with and without Tebow. Look at his time with the Ravens. He's a talented dude and he stepped up and carried the load and was flat-out awesome at times this year. But anyone who think he wasn't the single biggest beneficiary of the QB change is crazy.

I agree with you, but for different reasoning--when the D was good it was against mediocre to bad offenses. Still, to their credit, they at least shut down those type of offenses.

That was certainly a factor, as well. (Though even the Vikings mediocre offense looked pretty good--except when Ponder was throwing ill-advised INTs.)

Overall, it was a pretty average defense. It was able to stop bad offenses and keep relatively good ones from going on long scoring drives. Good offenses gave them problems and being put in bad situations did, too. So it wasn't a marquee D, but not one as bad as NE made them look either.

That's unfortunate.

lol

At first I thought that there was no way that was real. But then I saw this:

http://www.cnnsi.com/2012/basketball/nb ... &eref=sihp

Awesome.

Oh it's real.

I love everything about that.