1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Mythbusting Tony Romo....Yeah another stupid Romo thread

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by jobberone, Jun 27, 2013.

  1. jobberone

    jobberone Right turn Clyde Staff Member

    39,041 Messages
    4,538 Likes Received
    Our new guy, NewsBot, posted this but I thought since it's the offseason and its a kool post I'd put it back up here. It's kinda buried in one article. More conversation to follow. Here's a snippet:

    http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013...y-they-keep-tony-romo-aaron-rodgers-matt-ryan

    http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013...-bad-games-matt-ryan-tom-brady-peyton-manning

    Yesterday, in a post titled "Judging NFL QBs By The Company They Keep", we took a look at games in which currently active NFL QBs recorded a passer rating of 100.0 or more, compared W/L records in those games and looked at 100+ rating games as a percentage of games started.

    What we found was that some QBs get a lot more help from their teams when they have a good game than others do, a reflection of the fact that it's not one player who wins and loses games. Today we're going to turn things around and look at poor QB performances to see which teams bail out their QBs when they have a bad day.

    In yesterday's post, we saw that when the passer rating was initially developed in 1973, a passer rating of 66.7 was considered average, and everything below that was obviously below average. 40 years later, the NFL average has improved significantly: in 2012, the NFL average passer rating was 83.8. For the purposes of this post, we'll stick to the 66.7 passer rating, except we won't consider it an average or below average performance, we'll call it what it is: a poor performance.


    I thought this was a very interesting way to look at a QBs supporting cast. I'm not convinced its predictive but I'm having a hard time criticizing it; but statistics was never my best subject. I am convinced it gives you a good look at who is and isn't a good QB.

    I'd like to see what our turnover differential is in all our wins vs losses over the last 10 years as well as Romo's tenure. I'd like to see how much Romo contributed to that and I'd like to see the correlation of those results with his rating and the wins and losses. Since we've only won two games when Romo has had a passer rating less than 67 then that will be a small sample. And of course his turnovers will correlate with his rating however he may be able to overcome some of those and the other team could have done worse.

    Anyway have at it.
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2013
    EST_1986 likes this.
  2. Ntegrase96

    Ntegrase96 Well-Known Member

    2,904 Messages
    1,406 Likes Received
  3. Ntegrase96

    Ntegrase96 Well-Known Member

    2,904 Messages
    1,406 Likes Received
    Overall I liked the article. It tries to cut down on variables but at the same time it's, of course, not a perfect science-- although nothing is.

    For instance, one game that comes to mind is 2007 vs Buffalo. Romo had an awful game, but his team wasn't the reason the Cowboys were able to crawl out of that hole. He got a lot of help from the special teams to recover the onside kick, but that game was salvaged by Romo, despite the bad passer rating just under 50 (IIRC).

    A 66.7 passer rating is a pretty decent indicator of poor play, but sometimes the bad rating can be skewed by play earlier in the game or later. With poor play at the beginning of the game but a strong finish by a QB, one could assign the victory to the quarterback-- like the buffalo game . Strong play at the beginning, and poor play toward the end would result in the opposite-- blame for the QB (like the DET game, although Romo's rating was only in the 80s that game).

    Simply put, I enjoyed this article, but it's only a lukewarm indicator of 'getting help'.
    ufcrules1 likes this.
  4. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    8,671 Messages
    2,801 Likes Received
  5. Future

    Future Intramural Legend

    16,540 Messages
    1,802 Likes Received
    He also got a TON of help from the Bills coaching staff who completely blew that game for the team. Something that Tony has been on the wrong side of far too many times.
  6. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    8,671 Messages
    2,801 Likes Received
    Best part of those two articles was this list (abbreviated here):

    Percentage of Starts w/ 100+ Rating (Active Players) / Team Win % in those games
    Rodgers 60% / .809
    Romo 52% / .771
    Brady 48% / .940
    Rivers 47% / .830
    Schaub 44% / .778
    Brees 43% / .836
    Ryan 43% / .970
    PManning 41% / .891
    Roethlisberger 40% / .902
    Flacco 39% / .903

    There was actually a guy who figured this out and posted spreadsheets a couple of years ago on this forum. Name escapes me, but that was a lot of work before PFR came out with their Player Game Finder and Team Game Finder search tools.
    Carharris2 likes this.
  7. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    8,671 Messages
    2,801 Likes Received
    These are only the QB who have had 100+ ratings in at least one-third of their career starts.

    Losses w/ 100+ Rating, 2006-2012
    Romo 11
    Brees 10
    Rivers 9
    Rodgers 9
    Schaub 6
    Roethlisberger 5
    Brady 4
    Newton 4
    Flacco 3
    PManning 3
    pancakeman likes this.
  8. hairic

    hairic Well-Known Member

    2,484 Messages
    261 Likes Received
    That was me. I'll see if I can find it. I used different rules than other stats. QB had to play the entire game, have the majority of attempts, or be pulled for sucking (not injury or being preserved for the playoffs). I recall feeling Roethlisberger benefiting from those rules a lot, for reasons I can't directly recall (probably injury and low attempts). I also did 2012, but didn't add it to the career to 2011 one.

    Don't have the full spreadsheet, just this:

    [IMG]

    Here's the 2012 stuff that I did in March:

    2012 passer ratings split in 4 (0-39, 40-79, 80-119, 120-158). QB had to attempt 15 passes to have it count as a game and had to have played at least 5 games. Included team W/L.

    Here's the NFL (503 games accounted for, so missing a minimum of 9 QB performances. A few Oakland, Pittsburgh, one Miami, etc.)

    NFL 2012 totals

    0-39: 19x - 3.8% of total
    40-79: 184x - 36.6% of total
    80-119: 233x - 46.3% of total
    120-158: 67x - 13.3% of total

    NFL 2012 W/L

    0-39: 2-17 - 10.5% win (both wins predictably vs ARI as their QBs were just as bad)
    40-79: 52-132 - 28.3% win
    80-119: 141-90-2 - 60.5% win
    120-158: 59-7-1 - 88% win

    Individual QBs. Team W/L included, not doing %. Better delivered as a table, but lazy.

    Tony Romo

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 6x - 2-4
    80-119: 6x - 3-3
    120-158: 4x - 3-1

    Andrew Luck

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 9x - 5-4
    80-119: 7x - 6-1
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Eli Manning

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 5x - 2-3
    80-119: 9x - 6-3
    120-158: 1x - 1-0

    Joe Flacco

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 7x - 2-5
    80-119: 7x - 7-0
    120-158: 2x - 1-1

    Tom Brady

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 5x - 2-3
    80-119: 6x - 5-1
    120-158: 5x - 5-0

    RG3

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 3x - 1-2
    80-119: 9x - 6-3
    120-158: 3x - 3-0

    Russell Wilson

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 2x - 0-2
    80-119: 8x - 7-1
    120-158: 5x - 4-1

    Cam Newton

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 7x - 2-5
    80-119: 6x - 3-3
    120-158: 3x - 2-1

    Sam Bradford

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 5x - 3-2
    80-119: 10x - 4-5-1
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Matthew Stafford

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 7x - 2-5
    80-119: 8x - 2-6
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Aaron Rodgers

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 0x - 0-0
    80-119: 12x - 8-4
    120-158: 4x - 3-1

    Peyton Manning

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 1x - 0-1
    80-119: 10x - 8-2
    120-158: 5x - 5-0

    Drew Brees

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 4x - 0-4
    80-119: 7x - 4-3
    120-158: 4x - 4-0

    Matt Ryan

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 3x - 3-0
    80-119: 9x - 6-3
    120-158: 4x - 4-0

    Carson Palmer

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 5x - 1-4
    80-119: 9x - 3-6
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Josh Freeman

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 7x - 2-5
    80-119: 6x - 3-3
    120-158: 2x - 2-0

    Matt Schaub

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 7x - 3-4
    80-119: 7x - 7-0
    120-158: 2x - 2-0

    Michael Vick

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 5x - 1-4
    80-119: 4x - 2-2
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Nick Foles

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 2x - 0-2
    80-119: 5x - 1-4
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Ben Roethlisberger

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 2x - 0-2
    80-119: 7x - 4-3
    120-158: 4x - 3-1

    Andy Dalton

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 7x - 3-4
    80-119: 6x - 4-2
    120-158: 3x - 3-0

    Brandon Weeden

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 8x - 3-5
    80-119: 6x - 2-4
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Chad Henne

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 6x - 0-6
    80-119: 2x - 1-1
    120-158: 1x - 0-1

    Blaine Gabbert

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 3x - 0-3
    80-119: 4x - 1-3
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Matt Hasselbeck

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 3x - 1-2
    80-119: 3x - 1-2
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Jake Locker

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 6x - 1-5
    80-119: 4x - 3-1
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Alex Smith

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 3x - 2-1
    80-119: 2x - 1-1
    120-158: 4x - 3-0-1

    Colin Kaepernick

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 1x - 0-1
    80-119: 6x - 4-1-1
    120-158: 1x - 1-0

    Philip Rivers

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 5x - 0-5
    80-119: 9x - 5-4
    120-158: 2x - 2-0

    Ryan Fitzpatrick

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 6x - 1-5
    80-119: 9x - 4-5
    120-158: 1x - 1-0

    John Skelton

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 3x - 1-2
    80-119: 1x - 0-1
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Kevin Kolb

    0-39: 0x - 0-0
    40-79: 2x - 0-2
    80-119: 2x - 2-0
    120-158: 1x - 1-0

    Ryan Lindley

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 5x - 1-4
    80-119: 0x - 0-0
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Ryan Tannehill

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 6x - 0-6
    80-119: 7x - 5-2
    120-158: 1x - 1-0

    Jay Cutler

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 5x - 3-2
    80-119: 6x - 5-1
    120-158: 2x - 2-0

    Mark Sanchez

    0-39: 3x - 1-2
    40-79: 7x - 2-5
    80-119: 4x - 2-2
    120-158: 1x - 1-0

    Christian Ponder

    0-39: 2x - 1-1
    40-79: 5x - 2-3
    80-119: 8x - 6-2
    120-158: 1x - 1-0

    Matt Cassel

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 6x - 1-5
    80-119: 2x - 0-2
    120-158: 0x - 0-0

    Brady Quinn

    0-39: 1x - 0-1
    40-79: 5x - 0-5
    80-119: 0x - 0-0
    120-158: 1x - 1-0

    Unrelated to 2012, here's Romo's career split the same to Dallas W/L... aligns about right with NFL 2012 win% (0-30-60-90).

    94 games total:

    0-10: 0-0
    10-19: 0-0
    20-29: 0-2
    30-39: 0-1
    0-39: 0-3 (0% win. 3.1% total)

    40-49: 1-4
    50-59: 1-4
    60-69: 1-4
    70-79: 5-4
    40-79: 8-16 (33% win. 25.5% total)

    80-89: 7-5
    90-99: 3-5
    100-109: 9-4
    110-119: 10-5
    80-119: 29-19 (60% win. 51.1% total)

    120-129: 10-1
    130-139: 1-0
    140-149: 5-1
    150-158: 1-0
    120-158: 17-2 (89% win. 20.2% total)
  9. jobberone

    jobberone Right turn Clyde Staff Member

    39,041 Messages
    4,538 Likes Received
    Luck was bailed by his team a good deal and the reason I point this out is just how important RZ play is. The Colts played very well in the RZ both D and O. Of course some of that is due to Luck (who I really like BTW). Romo on the other hand was on the opposite end of the spectrum.
  10. dwmyers

    dwmyers Well-Known Member

    2,049 Messages
    38 Likes Received
    Not what I've heard. I've heard that it was set up akin to school grades. 70 was a C performance, 80 a B, 90 a A and 100 on up about as good as you could expect.

    D-
  11. jobberone

    jobberone Right turn Clyde Staff Member

    39,041 Messages
    4,538 Likes Received
    Of course I didn't write that part and I have not researched this at all. If you have some info I'd love to hear it. I'll try to look at the topic at some point today. Looking forward to hearing from you.
  12. TwoDeep3

    TwoDeep3 Well-Known Member

    6,445 Messages
    2,298 Likes Received
    What I want to know is this.

    Why do you people, the very same people that post this type of information in EVERY Romo thread on this site, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, care what anyone thinks?

    You are trying to justify this guy to those who still have questions if this truly is the team concept that you continue to proffer, or does Tony have a flaw in his character that causes him to panic and toss these picks at the wrong time in games where the results tend to end your season.

    It doesn't matter.

    You will not change the minds of those who do not see it your way.

    Not the players, the coaches, the owners, the journalists, the former players on sports shows, fans of other teams or fans of this team.

    Until Romo wins a championship this will never go away.

    If he does, there will be people who still say the very same things you people say about Eli.

    If he does not, this argument will go on until the next great Dallas quarterback comes along.

    But posting this stuff over and over just burns up Reality's bandwidth.

    So why do you care what anyone else thinks? I would truly like an answer to that question.
    Ren likes this.
  13. jobberone

    jobberone Right turn Clyde Staff Member

    39,041 Messages
    4,538 Likes Received
    I thought I'd answered this question for you once. Perhaps I responded to another. The answer is most people aren't trying to change anyone's mind or defending their 'position'. I just found the use of that data interesting. It doesn't just apply to Romo. It applies to all QBs. The tidbit about Luck reinforced my belief that RZ play is critical. I just didn't know how right I was until seeing some stats to back it up. There's a lot more to take home from the thread than Romo is elite. He's actually better than I thought if you throw this data in.

    Many of us have said the same thing about Romo from 2006 on and we weren't just echoing Coach Parcells. Tony must protect the ball. This isn't divine revelation nor are we rocket scientists. This is football 101. Tony must continue to be Tony but find a way to be less Tony. Ask Yogi what I mean.

    As far as burning up bandwidth, this thread has been a very good one. You're under no obligation to post in this or any other thread about Tony. It's a little hypocritical for you to accuse us of wasting bandwidth when you go from thread to thread telling us Tony will never be elite until he wins a SB. I posted a reply to this in another thread that named Kelly, Tarkenton, Moon, Marino, and Fouts as elite QBs who never won a SB. Technically, Johnny Unitas never won a SB since Earl Morrall won that one although he did win a NFL CC game before the merger. I could throw in some other names of QBs who are elite, IMO, who never won or some who even made it to a SB: John Brodie, yada. I could also name some QBs who won a SB or made it to a SB who aren't anywhere near being considered elite. You know who they are.

    Last question; if you think those that believe Romo is an elite QB are foolish to think they will change anyone's mind then how about those who insist Romo isn't an elite QB?
    AmberBeer likes this.
  14. TwoDeep3

    TwoDeep3 Well-Known Member

    6,445 Messages
    2,298 Likes Received
    Forget that I asked.

    I will not get the answer I was seeking and this is just as inane as the endless stats.

    Sorry.
    ufcrules1 likes this.
  15. Heisenberg

    Heisenberg Pow! Pow!

    9,053 Messages
    321 Likes Received
    From the article:

    Wow.
  16. Pandora

    Pandora Member

    33 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    That's not accurate. The system was devised with an average performance coming out as 1.0, an excellent performance as 1.5 and an outstanding performance as a 2.0. (See also: www.baseball-statistics.com/Greats/Century/passer-rating.htm)

    "an "average" performance in each of those four categories would score one point, and a record-level performance would score two points. And of course, playing very poorly will score zero."

    Unfortunately, that simple system was then multiplied by 100 and divided by six to arrive at what we know as the current slightly awkward passer rating system.
  17. ufcrules1

    ufcrules1 Well-Known Member

    7,270 Messages
    1,460 Likes Received
    I have already read this article and it does nothing to change my opinion of Romo. It's just more statistical gymnastics for those who are in love with Romo. Seeing him give away the Washington game by himself was the nail in the coffin with regards to my opinion on him.
    windward likes this.
  18. Hostile

    Hostile Tacos are a good investment Zone Supporter

    119,103 Messages
    3,116 Likes Received
    A poster recently told me you post like William Shatner talks. Now I can't get his voice out of my head as I read your posts. Damn that guy.

    You constantly tell people on this site that you are traumatized by people who disagree with your opinions of Tony Romo. You call it an aversion. Why do you care what they think? Same question you are asking can be asked of you. It doesn't matter. Your very own words to everybody else ought to apply to yourself too. Shouldn't they? So, why do you care what anyone else thinks? I would really like an honest answer to that question, but I doubt I will get it. Oh, and don't over react to the word traumatized and try to change the subject. No one on this site points out that others disagree with you more than you do. You clearly care. Why? Answer your own question.

    Oh, and it's traffic, not burned bandwidth. It helps his site. They are Cowboys fans who want to defend their QB. not sure why that is so hard to understand, or why it isn't the answer you want to hear. It's the honest answer.
    Rhubarb likes this.
  19. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,855 Messages
    1,696 Likes Received

    Romo could win the MVP of 5 SBs in a row and you would still hate him. we get it.
  20. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    8,671 Messages
    2,801 Likes Received
    The Colts had a really strange season. You can usually look at passer rating differential to explain why one team won more games than another. Not in the Colts' case. They ranked 27th in that category, making them one of only two teams (the Vikings were the other) that made the playoffs without ranking among the Top 12 in passer rating differential. They finished 11-5, despite being outscored by their opponents 387-357. But they were 9-1 in games decided by a TD or less. (Cowboys were 7-5)

    The Colts defense bent a whole lot, but for the most part did not break. As you said that defense was good in the red zone. Offensively in the red zone, they were actually worse (21st in TD%) than Dallas (20th).

    The Colts benefited from one of the NFL's easiest schedules in 2012. Theirs was the 28th most difficult (or 5th easiest). The Cowboys had the 6th most difficult schedule.

    The Colts also had 6 return TD compared to the Cowboys' 2.
    Idgit likes this.

Share This Page