Discussion in 'News Zone' started by pansophy, Oct 11, 2013.
statistics can make anything say anything. what have your own eyes seen these last 7 years? clutch? goat? i got mine.
"Those are all performances by Peyton Manning from three Colts losses during the 2006 season. But no matter, because those were inconsequential mid-season games in a season where Indy would eventually win the Super Bowl. No one remembers those select games where an off day from Manning contributed to a loss.
But unfortunately for Romo, the Cowboys have had very little room for error during his tenure. Consequently, rare critical mistakes by Romo often mark the difference between the postseason and going home early."
This quote pretty much sums up the article after all it's proofs are said and done. I'm pretty critical of Romo, but I agree... This is a huge reason why Romo is perceived as 'unclutch'.
This is incorrect. People who misinterpret or don't understand statistics are the problem. Statistics cannot make anything say anything. That is just something ignorant people say.
There has been very little room for error. But the facts are that it has almost exclusively been Romo putting us in situations where we have any chance at all. It hasn't been the run game getting us there and it certainly hasn't been great protection.
aqh ha ha hahaaaa haaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
I had an Algebra teacher in college that was a statician for the marines who said he could make statistics say whatever he wanted them to say.
Guess he was just ignorant...
That said, Romo is not a "Choker". Ignorance is involved with people who believe he is, but it has nothing to do with statistics.
I said it in another thread and I'll say it here. Our team is so bad across the board that Romo has to play a near flawless game. He can never make a mistake.... ever or else we lose. How sad is the state of our team. Romo does more with less than anyone except Peyton when he was with the colts.Yes he has Dez, who just came into his own the 2nd half of last year. That's one wr that he can count on, no running game and damn sure no defense and no pass protection until this year... oh by the way still no running game or defense. It is grossly unfair to hold him accountability for the complete lack of talent on this team. Like many of you, I was praying for Tony not to throw an interception before that final drive BUT not because I thought it was his sole responsibility but because this team just cannot win without a perfect performance from him. I love Aikman, Staubach, and even Danny White... watched all of them play but during their winning years they never did what Romo has done (They have all even said as much) with so little. Like many of you, I hold my head in frustration but it's because I look back at all the dropped passes, all the drive killing penalties, the runs to darkness when there is another 10-15 yards with one step to the left or right, the lack of pressure of any kind, the horribly misplayed defensive play, and lets not forget the obvious penalties that DON'T get called for us. That's an awful lot for any quarterback to overcome... even superROMO.
How about if the stats are worthless in the first place? Like pretending that a 4th quarter QB rating implies hes clutch. Is every 4th quarter a pressure situation? Who were we playing? Was it garbage time? How does a QB rating translate into a clutch performance by itself?
Anyone who implies 4th quarters in regular season games defines whether or not someone is a winner, while ignoring actual opportunities to show it, like Washington last season, or his 90% failure rate in elimination games is starting from a position of ignorance.
Romo plays a role in his own demise over and over again. Don't need stats to prove that. But you obviously need stats to try and explain it away, which is the only use I'm seeing from those in denial.
Data: factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation.
I get what you are saying. "Don't give me numbers! I have an opinion and no amount of information is going to change what I think"
That's a load of poop. He can convince someone who doesn't understand statistics of things but not those with any level of education in statistics.
Yeah my former Marine Statician was full of poop.
I'll go ahead and take his word over yours, mkay?
I'm sure he had to go to the bathroom every now and then.
But I bet he acknowledged the foul odor of his poop.
So are you saying guys who were in the marines can't be full of poop? Or use hyperbole to make a point?
I'm guessing you didn't read the whole article.
Happy to pm you my qualifications here. Sound like your guy knew enough to fool the ignorant though.
Yeah whatever. A PM would make your opinion more valid than an Algebra instructor/Statitician.
You winz the interwebz.