Who Is Right About Tim Tebow, Me or President Obama?

The NFL season begins in just one month. So, plenty of stories will be generated from how well (or how poorly) Tim Tebow plays.  Getting a jump on the competition, President Barack Obama told a radio audience yesterday that he thought the Tebow trade was a mistake (See President Obama Weighs in on Tebow, Sanchez).

I have re-posted an article below in which I explain why Tim Tebow is a high caliber NFL quarterback (despite his shortcomings).  I have made a few corrections and updates because the original article was written while Tebow was a Bronco.  The data still holds true, and I still believe the Jets will be glad to have Tim Tebow. –I offer one piece of evidence in MY favor at the end of the post.


Tim Tebow is not the best quarterback in the NFL. He isn’t even in the top 5 of NFL quarterbacks. –And I am not a hater!  I love Tim Tebow. I have enjoyed following him since he entered the Swamp as a freshman at Florida. Tebow supporters have an obligation to be honest about his abilities and his limitations. So, here is my attempt to assess the value of Tim Tebow to the Denver Broncos New York Jets and to the NFL.  Tim Tebow is the 6th best quarterback in the NFL..

You read me rightly. Tim Tebow is the 6th best quarterback in the NFL right now.  You may wonder about the basis of such a statement.  My assessment is not the result of some strange, sports calculus. Unlike both the BCS ranking formula and the ESPN QB Ranking conundrum, my assessment is simple and straightforward. My assessment of a quarterback is related directly to how effectively the quarterback scores touchdowns.

There is no need to lock this secret formula into a vault somewhere; it is both simple and transparent, something that cannot be said of typical QB rankings and passer ratings. Here is a very simple way to assess an NFL quarterback.  How often does he score a touchdown?  On average, on plays in which he is handling the ball, how often does he get the ball in the end zone?

A long, long time ago (it seems now), before Tim Tebow replaced Kyle Orton as the Broncos signal caller, I made the assertion that Tim Tebow gave the Broncos the best chance to win games—much better than Kyle Orton or Brady Quinn or the guy throwing mile-high peanuts in Denver’s stadium.  Tebow was reportedly demoted to 14th string quarterback or something like that before last season. Yet, I made the assertion then that Tebow had something invaluable for an NFL quarterback: Tebow had a nose for the end zone.

He proved (in only 3 starts the prior season) to be willing and able to find pay-dirt.  The classic picture of him in the end zone against his college nemesis Florida State with blood-red paint from his face to his feet was no fluke. He burrowed his way into end zone after end zone in college, and he proved early to be able to do the same thing in the NFL.


In fact, Tim Tebow is the 6th best quarterback in the NFL at finding the end zone.  That is one of the main reasons he and the Broncos were 6-1 over his starting stretch.  Tim Tebow scores a touchdown—on average—for every 18.5 plays for which he is responsible (updated after 2011 Season, Tebow scored a TD for every 17.9 plays on the field).

In other words, when he runs or throws the ball, there will end up being a touchdown (not a field goal) by the 18th play.  There are only 5 quarterbacks in the NFL with better numbers than Tim Tebow.  In order, these 5 are (not surprisingly) as follows: Aaron Rodgers; Tom Brady; Drew Brees; Matthew Stafford; and Matt Schaub.

Before his injury, Matt Schaub was getting 6 points for every 18.06 plays in which he was a primary player.  Peyton Manning’s lifetime number is 18.16.  So, the Broncos did not win in spite of Tim Tebow. They won largely because of the contributions of Tim Tebow (whose TD numbers equal Manning).

The supposedly inept, unorthodox Tebow is scoring more efficiently than Eli Manning, Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, and Ben Roethlisberger.  His efficiency is neither a freak show nor a prep school fad, as some have suggested. It is, instead, basic football well played. “Hey, quarterback, get the ball in the end zone.”  The NFL is not so far removed from the prep school game if one remembers the basic goal of the game—which, for a quarterback, is to get the ball over the goal line.  Tim Tebow reaches paydirt better than most quarterbacks in the NFL.

Jets logo from Wikipedia

So, in favor of my position, I offer the following evidence from the Jets Training Camp:

Rich Cimini of ESPN, “Team insiders say the plan is to use Tebow in the red zone, where they can replace Sanchez with another player/blocker to bolster the running game. “

See Also, Tim Tebow Dominates at Goal Line.

Who is right, me or President Obama?

Follow me on Twitter.
Find me on Facebook.

Abortion’s Opposite Effect

When religious zealots pressed down hard on Stephen and the early Christians, they intended to stomp out the nascent movement before it got any traction.  They were unsuccessful.  Chapter 8 of Acts tells the story of how Christianity spread in its early days: It spread through persecution.  Though the leaders of the day intended to stop the movement, they, instead, caused it to spread more rapidly.  As the Christians were persecuted, they fled to other places, where they preached the gospel to more people.  In this way, persecution had the opposite effect of what was intended by the persecutors.

A similar opposite effect phenomenon is found today in the outcome of abortion.  Abortion was touted as a giant step forward in women’s rights.  Its promise was liberty for women, giving them complete control of their bodies and their futures.  President Obama recently marked the anniversary of the 1973 Roe v Wade decision with comments, again, applauding the decision as a victory for women’s rights.  But I wonder if the foray into full “reproductive health” (as it is euphemistically referenced) isn’t turning out to have the opposite effect for women.

What do I mean?  Two recent studies are building a case against the goodness of abortion for women.  Specifically, Richard Stith, in the article “Her Choice, Her Problem” for First Things, chronicles the oppression which has followed women since the onset of abortion in 1973.  Clearly, this is an opposite effect.  Interestingly, he shows that even feminists could foresee this opposite effect. He traces the arguments from pro-abortion feminist Catherine MacKinnon which were made during the early debates on abortion but were never heeded by abortion advocates.  Stith shows through a review of MacKinnon’s arguments and present statistics on the declining freedom of women how abortion has actually had the opposite effect from that which pro-abortion feminists intended.  In short, his argument boils down to this:

“The presence in the sexual marketplace of women willing to have an abortion reduces an individual woman’s bargaining power.”

Men, it seems, hold the upper hand in sexuality, leaving the woman alone to deal with its consequences.  The man is free to have casual sex with the woman without fear of consequences.  At one time, she might use the fear of conceiving to opt out of sexual favors, but she has lost that bargaining power.  Now, she must yield because abortion “solves” the contraception problem.  If she won’t allow sexual favors, he will find a woman willing to have an abortion who will allow it.  Then, if there is a pregnancy, he is free to leave her all alone to decide what she does “with her body.”  Abortion empowers men and leaves women more vulnerable.  If you don’t believe that, compare the number of unwed mothers before abortion in 1973 and after abortion today.  Look at the number of women living in poverty today contrasted with 40 years ago.  Economists call this “the feminization of poverty.”

And, building on the reality pointed out by Stith, Maggie Gallagher points to a new book which studies sexuality in America: Premarital Sex in America by Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecker.

Gallagher points out from their study that abortion appears to end with depression in women.  Even further, Gallagher points out that the depression comes at least partially from the drastic increase in low commitment sexual encounters.  Because the abortion culture has produced a freedom for men to use women for sex without commitment, it has further pushed women into the role of being used merely for sex—any sex which the man prefers without any commitment to the woman.

In short, Gallagher says, “…we have created a sexual culture that empowers young males (even as it stunts their incentives to grow to become successful, confident and happy family men) and disempowers women.”

Abortion may have had the opposite effect its original adherents intended.