You commit the fallacy of confusing the mechanism with the result. What matters is consistent progress...sustaining drives and punching it in the end zone. A 5 yard run is certainly as good as a 5 yard completion.
Consistent rushing also keeps scoring down, as time runs off the clock much more consistently. Keeping drives going additionally gives the defense a chance to rest.
The rules changes have made it generally easier to score by passing...but if a team can rush consistently, they can control a game and win. it also makes it a lot easier on the defense...short games, and lots of rest between drives generally yield lower scores. ...but Time of Possession advantages, and low number of drives in the game are not the goals and do not cause wins - but rather they merely give insight to how the wins occurred.
This argument is like that of 3rd down conversion rates. Typically teams that give up high conversion rates are poor teams...however, there are teams that give up short stuff through the middle of the field and tighten up near and in the red zone, and give up relatively few actual points. These teams also tend to get a lot of turnovers. This forcing of teams to run a lot of plays gives them a lot of chances to make a mistake and often leads to turnovers.
Is that a bad defense if it doesn’t give up a lot of points? or is it merely a different means to success?
Likewise, if Tebow is running for 5.7 yards a carry, and putting it in the end zone consistently, and opening up running lanes for the RB, then that compensates well for a lot of not passing.
A QBs job is to keep the offense going until it scores, while helping out the Defense by not putting them in a bad position. The stress a running QB puts on a defense can make it struggle mightily...something Aaron Rogers uses to great effect.
As I recall, Tebow had some games where he was ripped by the Patriots, losing his only two lost fumbles of the year. Likewise, 3 of his 6 interceptions were in one game against the Bills. So 18 TDs vs. 8 TOs, in 11 games, might not be top 5, but it’s certainly out of the bottom 10 in any given year.
No actually I’m pointing out the results. Over 50% of the time having Tim Tebow drop back to throw a pass results in the ball hitting the grass. You can’t sustain an offense that way. If you can’t sustain an offense you can’t put up points. If you’re not putting up points you aren’t winning many games.
Rushing consistently is how Denver won games in spite of Tebow not because of him. Without a 1000 yard runner that team was doomed. Actually even with the 1000 yard runner they needed a lot of defense and a lot bad opponents mostly in their own division. A sub 50% QB is simply not going to lead you to victory on a regular basis, he doesn’t have the skills.
If Tebow was an RB a 5.7 running average would be good. As a QB a 5.7 running average is just not throwing passes. As a QB his job is to complete passes, running should be his last resort. Run first QBs (like Kaepernick, Vick, and RGIII) all tend to lack basic QB skills, and rarely progress them. A few months ago there was an article I think by Trent Dilfer on how running is an instinct and passing is a decision and going to that instinct keeps QBs from progressing. I can’t find it now, but it really explained why Tebow (while not being about Tebow) is just plain not a good QB.
A QB that completes less than 50% of his passes is not capable of keeping the offense going. You need to complete passes to keep the offense going. Everything you say shows exactly why a QB’s job is completing passes, and exactly why Tebow is not a good QB. He does NOT complete passes, he does NOT keep the offense going, he does NOT put up points, he does NOT do anything YOU say a QB needs to do.