Phrases like "win you games" and "who can get it done" are clique phrases that most of the time don't have any basis in factual basis in analysis.
Extrapolating the small sample sizes of games Tebow was in especially considering the competition, that it was the end of the season, and considering nobody had professional game tape on him yet (and considering he still didn't do that great in them) seems like a poor way to judge somebody. I highly doubt he would have been able to keep up the same rate of rushing touchdowns. The fact that people on the team think that not only has he not gotten better, but that he has actually regressed from last year is a pretty bad indicative of what he can do right now. All that also ignores Orton's other years with the Broncos which were pretty good. Orton didn't even loose last year because of the offense. It was pretty much the putrid defense that made that was the main thing in making the Broncos lose so much.
I would almost bet the Broncos are doing a sigh of relief right now they didn't trade Orton like they wanted to.
Really? Putrid defense? Please explain why Orton had 20 TDs in 13 games and Tebow had 11 in 3 games. That alone speaks for itself. Extrapolating the numbers is not concrete, but it does give you some indication of what to expect. Let's not pretend it doesn't. Its no coincidence that this method of loose determination of probables, matches up almost identically with his history. Don't think so...
2008:
2746 passing yards
30 passing touchdowns
673 rushing yards
12 rushing touchdowns
4 interceptions
2009:
2895 passing yards
21 passing touchdowns
910 rushing yards
14 rushing touchdowns
5 interceptions
Hmmmmmmm... awfully similar, right. Yes, its been only three games, but his performance on-field doesn't lie and the numbers bear that quite clearly. Again, not exact, but telling. How possibly can these statical probabilities be ignored?