It’s been attempted enough times in football to know that it is not a winning strategy. Football is a different sport from baseball. The rhythm and timing between QB and receivers and linemen is CRUCIAL. Changing abruptly at the most important moment in a game is simply too big of an obstacle to overcome any difference in QB skills that the backup may have. (Also... If he were THAT much better, he would be the starter.)
It’s true, your average football player is nowhere near smart enough to make that adjustment.
(Then perhaps you'd have actual specifics on which teams tried it & what the results were)
Football is a different sport from baseball. The rhythm and timing between QB and receivers and linemen is CRUCIAL.
You said: "Timing...between QB...linemen???" Really?
Listen, whatever "timing between QB...and linemen" that's so "crucial" is going to be of necessity on running plays as well. Which, in turn means that whatever "timing" issues are of necessity between a "QB" and a "lineman" are just as crucial as "timing" between a "RB" and a "lineman." (And we don't see NFL teams hesitant AT ALL about putting in new RB in the red zone, do we?)
The rhythm and timing between QB and receivers...is CRUCIAL. Changing abruptly at the most important moment in a game is simply too big of an obstacle to overcome any difference in QB skills that the backup may have. (Also... If he were THAT much better, he would be the starter.)
LOTS of faulty assumptions there:
Faulty assumption #1:
Let's start with that last comment: "If he were THAT much better, he would be the starter."
I reviewed Tebow's 2011 passing stats from the 31-yard line in: Yeah, he tossed something like 8 TD passes...but he was only 20 of 51. (That's less than 40% accuracy).
You see, Tebow's success deeper in the opponent's turf wasn't usually arm-based. And even on many of those TD throws, his scrambling mobility played a bigger role than "timing patterns" that you seemingly want to reduce the entire passing game to.
Which leads then into Faulty Assumption #2:
Which is, that, the "QB skills" requisite deep in the other team's territory is somehow primarily "QB and receivers." Not only does that less-than-40% completion % negate that focus, but the Bronco run-pass ratio for the same part of the field also cuts down that theory:
I looked over those 13+ games where Tebow ran the 2011 offense: After the Broncos got to the 31 yard line -- or inside of it -- they called:
* 54 RB rushes (& 1 WR around);
* 21 Tebow carries (not sure how many of those were scrambles; the 21 doesn't include 1 sack)
* 51 passes
That means, including the sack as a pass play, that the Broncos only passed the ball 41% of the time deeper in the other team's territory. And I'd say, most teams likely run more than pass in those situations as well.
Which, frankly means that in up to 60% of plays in those scenarios, the "timing" between a WR and a QB means zilch...as in zilcho!
Faulty Assumption #3 -- and a BIG one:
If you what you said was "so" about "timing and rhythm," then no team (or at least MOST teams) would dare put in "new" receivers once they got close to or within the red zone!
I mean, otherwise, per your theory, that would somehow "disrupt" all that accumulated "timing and rhythm" the QB & primary receivers "hooked up" on in the previous (usually) 50 yards!
Tell us, Teacher: What specific NFL team buys into that nonsense?
What? Do you claim that NONE of them or MOST of them wouldn't dare put another receiver in because of this "sacred" notion of "timing & rhythm" earned from their own 20 to the opposition's 30???
Plus, what further makes it faulty can be demonstrated even from the first few full games Tebow played as a Bronco in 2011:
In the first full game, tight end Daniel Fells came in later in the game to replace Virgil Green. Fells only made two catches in the entire game...both on the same drive...both from the 31 yards of the opposition or within...One a 28-yard reception he took to the 3-yard line; and then a 3-yard TD catch.
There was NO "timing and rhythm" Tebow worked up with Fells prior to moving into the opposition's near red zone. If the 2nd or 3rd-team tight end or wide-outs are sidelined a fair amount -- failing to "nail down" all that supposed "timing and rhythm" you talk about -- then you've just made the case for them to remain on the sidelines in red-zone or near red-zone situations. Yet, Fells didn't...and the Broncos were one TD richer for it.
That happened yet again the very next game. Fells only caught one pass...a 5 yarder...and it happened deeper in the other team's territory.
Likewise, in game #10 of that season, Jeremiah Johnson only caught one pass the whole game -- an 8-yarder from Tebow. Again, it occurred deeper in the opposition's territory. There was no "timing and rhythm" work-up foundation.
And these days, tho I haven't taken the time to statistically back it up, I notice MANY MANY games where you have multiple running backs and multiple tight ends and back-up wide outs who wind up getting one or two catches apiece for the ENTIRE game. Your "timing and rhythm" scenario for these teams where it's become a reality is a myth for these types of teams as well.
And, going back to Tebow's less-than-40% completion % in or just beyond the red zone, if all that "timing and rhythm" work-up he & his receivers had "layered up" prior to getting to the opposition's 30-yard line was of such import, it didn't seem to kick in for him the later the drive went.
Tebow was a "closer" despite rookie pass miscues he made...NOT because of all the traditional "QB skillset" you want to assign.
Likewise, some relief pitchers in the Majors (Mike Marshall, Charlie Hough, Hoyt Wilhelm) were successful precisely because of the errant nature of their (knuckleball) pitchers and weaker arms...not because of them.
If you were to impose the modern-day "skill set" template of a "closing pitcher" able to zip fastballs anywhere from 96 to 102 mph, then that would leave a fair number of solid closers in Major League history who proved otherwise.