Tim Tebow: New York Jets' Quarterback Will Excel in Wildcat Package
Although many will make a big deal of the Jets' decision to involve Tebow in goal-line scenarios, how could the Jets not?
With that being said, New York would be foolish not to utilize their overexposed addition, even if it is just in a situational package.
Tebow threw for 12 touchdowns and only six interceptions in 11 games during the regular season. His 2:1 touchdown to pick ratio was much better than Mark Sanchez's 1.45:1 ratio. No one will argue that Tebow is a better passer, but the numbers say he is more efficient throwing the ball.
Although each quarterback rushed for six additional touchdowns in 2011, Tebow is by far the better rusher. Tebow ran for 660 yards last season, while Sanchez accumulated only 103 yards on the ground.
How many total touchdowns will Tim Tebow score in 2012?
It would make no sense for the Jets to traverse the 2012 season without a dual-threat package to implement in situations that call for it. We all witnessed Tebow's goal-line magic at Florida and his strength as a runner throughout his career.
So, why not take advantage of a guy that can simply do more than Sanchez inside the red zone?
To say that Tebow will succeed in the Wildcat would be an understatement. Tebow will excel in the Wildcat. He has endless options and places to go with the football in those situations, which will make him one of the hardest quarterbacks to defend down on the goal line.
I'll take Tebow with a full head of steam over Sanchez leaping over the offensive line any day of the week.
This decision to utilize Tebow on a regular basis is a smart one by the Jets, and one that had to be made. This way the fans won't be so quick to jump on the "We want Tebow" chants.
Still, whether they call for Tebow to overtake Sanchez, the Jets' backup will excel in his role in the Wildcat package in 2012.
Follow Bleacher Report Featured Columnist Patrick Clarke on Twitter All Season Long For More NFL Reaction and Analysis.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?