Video: Eisen Punks Terrell Owens, lol

[CowboyMcCoy]

Originally Posted by theogt

What I am saying is that if Romo is healthy in 2008 and Miles Austin doesn't emerge in 2009, the difference between the two teams is pretty stark -- and that would be due, for the most part, to the loss of production from TO.

But that's whatifery. Miles Austin did emerge, so there wasn't that much of a drop off in production.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by CowboyMcCoy

But that's whatifery. Miles Austin did emerge, so there wasn't that much of a drop off in production.

I don't know what "whatifery" is, but if you're going to engage in a discussion as to whether getting rid of a player helped the team then you're going to have to consider various scenarios with variables outside of what actually occurred. Yes, it's a pointless and purely academic discussion, but if you're going to have the discussion at all, then that's the name of the game.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Originally Posted by theogt

I don't know what "whatifery" is, but if you're going to engage in a discussion as to whether getting rid of a player helped the team then you're going to have to consider various scenarios with variables outside of what actually occurred. Yes, it's a pointless and purely academic discussion, but if you're going to have the discussion at all, then that's the name of the game.

Whatifery is a philosophical fallacy. You're saying what if Miles Austin didn't emerge? And if he did not, then we were headed down a path of less production than the prior year. The fallacy is a fantasy because Miles Austin did emerge.

However, in terms of playoff games, we improved...because we actually won a playoff game and showed some really bright spots along the way.

You really can't compare teams' statistics because the varying factor is things change on a year-by-year basis. So the argument becomes sort of defunct if you figure all the factors that change in a year.

Sure, stats are a good measuring stick. But having Austin is the best thing that happened to this team last year, with Jenkins and Spencer coming in a close second.

We got better, in my opinion. You're entitled to yours, tho.

Does that work?

[theogt]

Originally Posted by CowboyMcCoy

Whatifery is a philosophical fallacy. You're saying what if Miles Austin didn't emerge? And if he did not, then we were headed down a path of less production than the prior year. The fallacy is a fantasy because Miles Austin did emerge.

However, in terms of playoff games, we improved...because we actually won a playoff game and showed some really bright spots along the way.

You really can't compare teams' statistics because the varying factor is things change on a year-by-year basis. So the argument becomes sort of defunct if you figure all the factors that change in a year.

Sure, stats are a good measuring stick. But having Austin is the best thing that happened to this team last year, with Jenkins and Spencer coming in a close second.

We got better, in my opinion. You're entitled to yours, tho.

Does that work?

The question isn't simply whether we got better as a team from 2008 to 2009. If it were, then clearly we would include Austin in the discussion. The question is whether we got better as a team due specifically to letting TO go. If we're going to gauge that particular decision we need to strip away any factors that would affect the results that were beyond our foresight at the time the decision was made. Miles Austin's emergence fits into this category.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Originally Posted by theogt

The question isn't simply whether we got better as a team from 2008 to 2009. If it were, then clearly we would include Austin in the discussion. The question is whether we got better as a team due specifically to letting TO go. If we're going to gauge that particular decision we need to strip away any factors that would affect the results that were beyond our foresight at the time the decision was made. Miles Austin's emergence fits into this category.

In response to the italicized portion, I'd say not specifically per se... but I'd say it was related.

Austin got more reps with T.O. gone. And he finally got a chance, if only because RW got hurt and maybe T.O. wouldn't have. But that's whatifery. The fact is RW got hurt in Dallas, but the competition was more open by not having T.O.'s ego present.

I say by your standard, Austin did emerge because T.O. left and we improved as a result of T.O. leaving.

But it goes beyond personnel logistics. It has something to do with what's called character.

Amen.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by CowboyMcCoy

In response to the italicized portion, I'd say not specifically per se... but I'd say it was related.

Austin got more reps with T.O. gone. And he finally got a chance, if only because RW got hurt and maybe T.O. wouldn't have. But that's whatifery. The fact is RW got hurt in Dallas, but the competition was more open by not having T.O.'s ego present.

I say by your standard, Austin did emerge because T.O. left and we improved as a result of T.O. leaving.

But it goes beyond personnel logistics. It has something to do with what's called character.

Amen.

It's all italicized in a reply. If Jerry Jones was able to predict Austin's emergence to the extent it happened when he cut TO, then kudos to him. But given that they weren't using Austin as a starter until injury occurred, I think it's pretty clear they didn't predict that kind of performance.

It's like saying it was a good idea to quit a job when you just happen to win the lottery the next day. It may have been a terrible decision to quit your job, but you just got lucky by winning the lottery. You judge decisions based on the information you have at the time the decision is made, not based on information that is not available at the time the decision is made.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Originally Posted by theogt

It's all italicized in a reply. If Jerry Jones was able to predict Austin's emergence to the extent it happened when he cut TO, then kudos to him. But given that they weren't using Austin as a starter until injury occurred, I think it's pretty clear they didn't predict that kind of performance.

It's like saying it was a good idea to quit a job when you just happen to win the lottery the next day. It may have been a terrible decision to quit your job, but you just got lucky by winning the lottery. You judge decisions based on the information you have at the time the decision is made, not based on information that is not available at the time the decision is made.

No. It's not ex post facto, imo. They knew Austin had potential. My argument is that Roy had a huge contract and so he was going to play. Crayton paid his dues and established chemistry w/ Romo in years prior. So then Austin was the odd man out by default. But the observations had already been made. That becomes apparent when we look at Jerry's comments early on in the season. Not only that, but Miles was injured. But even T.O. said he wasn't surprised by the year Miles had.

I don't think it was luck at all. I admit I was wrong about Miles, but I didn't have firsthand knowledge of him as a player. But I think some on the coaching staff did.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by CowboyMcCoy

No. It's not ex post facto, imo. They knew Austin had potential. My argument is that Roy had a huge contract and so he was going to play. Crayton paid his dues and established chemistry w/ Romo in years prior. So then Austin was the odd man out by default. But the observations had already been made. That becomes apparent when we look at Jerry's comments early on in the season. Not only that, but Miles was injured. But even T.O. said he wasn't surprised by the year Miles had.

I don't think it was luck at all. I admit I was wrong about Miles, but I didn't have firsthand knowledge of him as a player. But I think some on the coaching staff did.

I don't buy that they felt Austin was going to be the type of player he turned out to be yet kept him out of the starting lineup because of "Roy had the huge contract" and "Crayton paid his dues." If that were the case, they would have kept Austin out of the starting line up after he showed what kind of player he was. They didn't. Once it donned on them, they stuck him in a starting role.

No, Austin was "a miracle" to quote Jerry Jones, just like Romo.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Originally Posted by theogt

I don't buy that they felt Austin was going to be the type of player he turned out to be yet kept him out of the starting lineup because of "Roy had the huge contract" and "Crayton paid his dues." If that were the case, they would have kept Austin out of the starting line up after he showed what kind of player he was. They didn't. Once it donned on them, they stuck him in a starting role.

No, Austin was "a miracle" to quote Jerry Jones, just like Romo.

Jerry also said something like Miles Austin has a chance to produce as much as T.O. once did. If you want to refute that I'm sure I can find the quote. I'm sure you're aware of it though.

I'd say Jerry was terming Austin and Romo miracles because he spent a draft pick on neither.

We're at the point of arguing in circles. I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree here. You can't convince me, statistically or otherwise, that we didn't get better by parting with T.O.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by CowboyMcCoy

Jerry also said something like Miles Austin has a chance to produce as much as T.O. once did. If you want to refute that I'm sure I can find the quote. I'm sure you're aware of it though.

I'd say Jerry was terming Austin and Romo miracles because he spent a draft pick on neither.

I don't care what he said, he's not going to "produce as much as TO" if he's not starting.

[percyhoward]

Here are the interceptions per target from 2007, the year before Romo's hand injury.

2007
Owens 9
Crayton 3
Witten 3
Glenn 2
(undetermined) 2

It's hard to see how an injury which would take place the following year could have had any impact.

[CowboyMcCoy]

Originally Posted by theogt

I don't care what he said, he's not going to "produce as much as TO" if he's not starting.

Personnel decision are difficult to make and often harshly criticized by the fans, media as well as internally. He got his chance, so the transition was safe for the staff to make. How do you insert an injury-riddled, journeyman UDFA into the lineup without taking some heat?

Once he showed his stuff, that pressure was off.

[CowboyMcCoy]

I was glad to see T.O. when he came to Dallas and even happier to watch him go.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by theebs

lol at this thread.

I guess zach thomas was talking about romos hand when he said this was the worst locker room he has ever been in and that it was his worst mistake of his career signing here..

yep, None of that means anything. Just stats.

How am I not suprised?

Did Zach really say this, theebs? I missed that somehow, but that's pretty damning.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by percyhoward

Here are the interceptions per target from 2007, the year before Romo's hand injury.

2007
Owens 9
Crayton 3
Witten 3
Glenn 2
(undetermined) 2

It's hard to see how an injury which would take place the following year could have had any impact.

I never said it had any impact on the 2007 statistics. I had not yet studied or even discussed the 2007 statistics in this thread, so these are completely irrelevant.

But again, I'll show you the statistics in 2008 before injury:

2008 (before hand injury):
Owens - 1
Witten - 2
Austin - 2

Shocking isn't it? Clearly Owens was the cause for Romo's INT problem in 2008. LOL!

And I'll go ahead convert your INT statistics into a times targeted stat to see if Owens was really the problem then too:

Passes targeted per INTs when being targeted:
Owens - 16.7
Crayton and Glenn - 9.2

Whoops! You've got one statistical argument here (i.e., the drop from the second half of 2008 to the entire season of 2009). Pretty thin ice there.