Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by percyhoward, Jul 14, 2013.
It was probably your post where I saw it.
No but it generally scores points which was my point. Regardless of how high that number is, if that was the total output for the opposing QB most teams would take it because that isn't much and generally isn't enough to win unless your own team gives up scores on special teams or their defense scores. Having a great rating doesn't really mean your team has scored a lot of points. 70 QBR separates Romo and Eli but only 4 points on the scoreboard.
Eli not having to pass is somehow a point in favor of QBR? Had he thrown only 1 more pass and completed it for 7 yards his QBR drops even though he improved his production in terms of completion percentage and yardage. QBR rewards efficiency (in terms of YPA), not production, but production is what generally wins game. Having a high QBR could mean that you have a stud QB who carried you or it could mean you have a dud QB who was given limited opportunities but hit on a big play.
They'd both have have QBRs but I'd bet one situation is more preferable than the other for just about anyone who was asked.
In this case the Giants won the game not because they were awesome on offense but because Dallas made more mistakes and went flat. QBR was a product of the way the game played out, not the other way around.
Great discussion and great points overall.
Talking about Dal vs NYG game, keeping in mind that the Cowboys didn't play well as a team and Hochuli's crew (if a I'm correct) had a really bad day, how about Patrick Crayton who dropped a wide open pass and then stopped a route in the endzone in the last but one play of the game? Or Reeves, that couldn't cover my grandmother in a wheelchair all day?
It's incredible, at times ridicolous, how the media and people who has played the game at professional level forget how football is always a team effort.
In a general sense, maybe. Specifically, though, having a 125+ rating in the playoffs really means your team won the game.
What you're doing there is called research by proclamation.
Production (total yardage) is not what wins games. By that I mean it's been proven over and over that it doesn't. You can see this proof in correlation studies and random samples. Completion percentage is a measure of efficiency, and it does have a slight correlation with wins, although nowhere near that of passer rating or yards per attempt. Passing yardage is a measure of production and it has no correlation at all.
I put some specific examples in the last two paragraphs of my previous reply to you. The correlation info you can find anywhere.
Great Post Percy and I can’t disagree with anything you’ve said.
I will add one thing though.
I bet if you add that stat to your list of teams, you’d find they all were on the wrong side of that particular fence.
This argument on Romo being a choke or clutch is old.
If his career ended today, he would be remembered as a choke in most peoples' eyes, other than those on this forum.
I don't care what his 4th quarter QB rating is. I don't care about his furious comebacks that usually fall just short. I care about stacking post-season wins which he has yet to do.
It's sad to see people settle for peace of mind regarding why they aren't winning. Trying to make up excuses for why this team has failed and failed and failed when it counts the most.
You said it right there "team" of which Romo is only a part (even if it's the most important part).
I see many of your point of views in regards to defining moments in games. However there is statistical support for regression to the mean. In the end the stats will prevail despite whatever anomalies occur.
He's contributed to the failures, but there are 21+ other guys that generally contribute as well.
It's hard to argue that if your defense is bad beyond a certain point, then it's basically impossible for the QB to win.
It's even harder to argue that if your defense is really bad and your running game is really bad, that losing is probably not the QB's fault.
The only possible counter argument that I can think of would be in regards to how interceptions by your QB affect your defense's performance. If your QB throws 5 INTs then your defense's passer rating is probably going to be worse than if your QB threw zero INTs.
Dallas ranked 10th in turnover differential in 2011, then ranked 27th in 2012. That kind of flip-flop in the rankings from one season to the next happens about 40% of the time, so it doesn't work very well as a two-year stat.
Yes, the shorter fields for your opponent would make TD more likely and boost their passer rating. The way around that effect would be to use a different stat that, like passer rating, correlates highly to wins, but that, unlike passer rating, does not include touchdowns. Yards per attempt, for example. Turnovers by your own QB don't affect the opposing QB's yards per attempt in any way.
Since 1960, teams whose QB averaged at least 10.5 YPA in a playoff game are 61-5.
As for how the scenario you described relates to the Cowboys, neither the Giants nor Vikings converted a Romo turnover into a passing TD to help their quarterback's rating. And season-wise, the Dallas pass defense was 24th and 26th in YPA allowed the past two seasons.
What is truly old, is constantly putting everything on Romo. It's not "he", it's "the team". And yes, I do want to have a greater understanding of why we're not winning. Repeatedly being fed false correlation, and then have people (Cowboy fans or not) regurgitate that same misinformation, is very frustrating to those of us who want to have intelligent conversation about our team, and know what we're talking about.
This is such an interesting post, but Sadistics was not my favorite class in college. I even had a hard time with Algebra 101.
But, to see how you guys put the info together is cool to read. Plus, it totally makes sense.
That's what I said. But QB's generally take all the blame when the team chokes, and all the glory when the team wins.
Whenever I think Cowboys fans are being absurdly negative about Romo, I go to other NFL team's message boards, read what their fans are saying about their team's starting QB, and then suddenly Cowboys fans almost seem reasonable by comparison.
Well that says a lot.
"My mind's made up, don't bother me with the facts."
Maybe on a Year by Year basis, but I wonder what you would find if you went on a game by game basis.
2011 was an anomaly for the Cowboys. In the first 8 games of the season the defense only generated 10 turnovers (pretty much on par with most of their last 6+ years) and the offense turned the ball over a good deal more than the previous year (where Romo was very good at avoiding turnovers). This was a big reason we were 1-7.
However when Phillips got fired and Pasqualoni took over the running of the defense they generated 20 turnovers in the last eight games and Kitna and the offense in general reverted back to 2010 form and we went 5-3.
So even though we were 10th overall in turnover differential on the year, I would bet if you looked at the 10 games we lost we were on the wrong side (as far as winning goes) of that differential in each game.
In a nutshell you could go three games in a row generating 3 turnovers in each and conceding none in each of those games winning all three, then go the next three games generating no turnovers but conceding two in each game loosing all three. The overall differential would be +3 which would look good until you looked at each individual game.
Just my two cents.
You're mistaking 2010 for 2011.