Revisiting Romo's Late Game Stats

[TrailBlazer]

No, that is dumb. You are totally ignoring every other position on offense and Defense when you use W/L.

Elway, Staubach, Montana, Manning, Brady. Top 5 winning percentage for qb's.

Find a stat with a better top five than that. Only on a cowboys board would W/L record mean nothing.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Elway, Staubach, Montana, Manning, Brady. Top 5 winning percentage for qb's.

Find a stat with a better top five than that. Only on a cowboys board would W/L record mean nothing.

It's not a real stat. Keep fantasizing though.

 

[Idgit]

Elway, Staubach, Montana, Manning, Brady. Top 5 winning percentage for qb's.

Find a stat with a better top five than that. Only on a cowboys board would W/L record mean nothing.

The point is that a good QB is necessary, but not sufficient for winning a lot of football games. Not that the QB is not important. Elway, Stauback, Montana, Manning, Brady...they all had support to get into that top 5.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I'm just not a huge stats are everything guy. I'm a did we win or lose guy and we're talking about one player in this one thread who has cost us some crucial games.

And won you crucial games as well.

But you, as well as others, try to conviently forget that very simple fact on a regular basis.

Romo isn't the best QB in the league, he's not the best of all time, but this notion that he's some sort of useless QB who only loses games is just plain stupid.

 

[TrailBlazer]

This mentality is so frustrating to try to debate. You're literally saying you don't care about explanations, you only care about wins and losses, and then you're perfectly happy ignoring the tons of things that contribute to teams losing football games that have little or nothing to do with QB play. It is, obviously, a completely irrational argument to try to make.

And then, to write off people pointing out the exceedingly obvious as avoiding the point....gah! Your point is not your point. Your point is you're trying to hold somebody accountable for something they cannot be held solely accountable for. That's not an argument, that's a misunderstanding about how football games are won and lost.

Wins and losses are what matter. Not numbers on a page. 1 playoff win in your entire career? At some point you have to admit he's had a big hand in that. I'm sure when we win you give romo credit. But when we lose all I hear from some fans is explanations but no accountability or any blame for the loss.

 

[TrailBlazer]

The point is that a good QB is necessary, but not sufficient for winning a lot of football games. Not that the QB is not important. Elway, Stauback, Montana, Manning, Brady...they all had support to get into that top 5.

They're all great bc they won 70%-75% of their games. The best qb's of their time, regardless of the help they got from their teams.This top five will stay intact for quite awhile. It's that impressive. We're talking double digit superbowl rings in that top five. Winning percentage is relevant.

 

[TrailBlazer]

It's not a real stat. Keep fantasizing though.

Winning percentage is a stat, *******.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Winning percentage is a stat, *******.

Not for quarterbacks.

Here is a link to the official stat records for Troll Blazer and his cronies. There is no mention of QB winning percentage. It is not a stat. It's not real. There is no definition of it.

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten.../pdfs/Records/2013/Individual_Performance.pdf

If Romo starts a game, is injured after his first handoff, and Orton comes in and the Cowboys win the game... who gets the (phony) QB win? Cite the source while you're at it. I'd like to read the rule.

 

[Vintage]

Winning percentage is a stat, *******.

Then how come it only applies to the QB position? Are QBs the only ones on the field? Are they the only ones who impact games?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Wins and losses are what matter. Not numbers on a page. 1 playoff win in your entire career? At some point you have to admit he's had a big hand in that. I'm sure when we win you give romo credit. But when we lose all I hear from some fans is explanations but no accountability or any blame for the loss.

That's where you've got it wrong. I give Romo the credit or blame for the things he does, whether the team wins or loses. Obviously, the things he does are important to the outcome of the game, but they are among the many many things that ultimately determine that outcome.

 

[Vintage]

Not for quarterbacks.

Here is a link to the official stat records for Troll Blazer and his cronies. There is no mention of QB winning percentage. It is not a stat. It's not real. There is no definition of it.

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten.../pdfs/Records/2013/Individual_Performance.pdf

Depends. Who is winning before the injury? Who wins the game?

When in doubt, attribute the loss to Romo.

If Romo starts a game, is injured after his first handoff, and Orton comes in and the Cowboys win the game... who gets the (phony) QB win? Cite the source while you're at it. I'd like to read the rule.

 

[Idgit]

Wins and losses are what matter. Not numbers on a page. 1 playoff win in your entire career? At some point you have to admit he's had a big hand in that. I'm sure when we win you give romo credit. But when we lose all I hear from some fans is explanations but no accountability or any blame for the loss.

Wins and losses *are* what matter. When you're evaluating a TEAM. Or a coaching staff. Or a GM. Because those positions are above the player positions in the organizational hierarchy.

You cannot hold a player responsible for an entire game where there are ~135 snaps and he throws the ball less than 40 times. It just doesn't make any sense at all. I've asked this before, but, honestly, how much better does Romo have to play than the other QB (who's also throwing it ~40 times) for him to overcome limitations on the team the other 95 snaps where he's either off the field or just handing off the ball? If he's twice as good as the other QB with his 40 passes, does he close the gap entirely? What if he plays just about as well as the other guy, because the other guy is a good QB, too...is that Tony's fault?

You guys are making the mistake of overvaluing QB play because he's the guy that touches the ball on every offensive snap, and he's the guy on the throwing end of most of the scoring. But that's not the same thing as being solely responsible for wins and losses.

And, no, I don't give Romo credit automatically when the team wins. When he plays poorly and we win, then he played poorly. The thing is, he's a good player, so he plays well more often than not, even when we're only winning half the time. Funny how that works.

 

[Risen Star]

We get it, Percy. Aaron Rodgers is better than Romo.

 

[Idgit]

They're all great bc they won 70%-75% of their games. The best qb's of their time, regardless of the help they got from their teams.This top five will stay intact for quite awhile. It's that impressive. We're talking double digit superbowl rings in that top five. Winning percentage is relevant.

Ok. I'm going to stop going in circles on this one until you get to a point where you can explain why in the world you'd use a team metric to measure an individual performance.

And your argument has to be an actual reason to believe something like that and not just pointing out the QBs of the teams that had the top 5 team metric for a period and asking me to look at it. Otherwise, you're just chasing your tail and then asking me to follow.

We get it, Percy. Aaron Rodgers is better than Romo.

He's insanely good. And actually underrated somehow.

 

[ufcrules1]

That's where you've got it wrong. I give Romo the credit or blame for the things he does, whether the team wins or loses. Obviously, the things he does are important to the outcome of the game, but they are among the many many things that ultimately determine that outcome.

That is correct but we all know the QB touches the ball on every single snap and can certainly have a huge impact in winning or losing a game. If I had to point to one player who can have the biggest impact I would say the QB.

 

[dstovall5]

Yeah maybe if you're evaluating a DT.

For a qb, wins and losses matter and they will eventually reflect ones legacy.

Maybe they'll matter when Football is played one on one, but for right now it's 46 on 46. If you're going to assess an individual, then you look at his individual performance, not what the team has done as a whole.

Answer this. If you're trying to evaluate an individual performance, why would you do so by looking at a team statistic? That's not a very logical thing to do ...

 

[Super_Kazuya]

That is correct but we all know the QB touches the ball on every single snap and can certainly have a huge impact in winning or losing a game. If I had to point to one player who can have the biggest impact I would say the QB.

And you'd be wrong, but what else is new?

 

[Idgit]

That is correct but we all know the QB touches the ball on every single snap and can certainly have a huge impact in winning or losing a game. If I had to point to one player who can have the biggest impact I would say the QB.

The two players that have the biggest impact are the QBs, this is true. But the point remains, that impact is still not big enough to be deciding the game on its own. the other 104 players on the rosters, cummulatively, have a bigger impact on the outcome than the two QBs do.

 

[JD_KaPow]

That is correct but we all know the QB touches the ball on every single snap and can certainly have a huge impact in winning or losing a game. If I had to point to one player who can have the biggest impact I would say the QB.

The QB touches the ball on every OFFENSIVE snap. That's only around half of the team's plays in a game.

But yes, the QB has a bigger impact than any other individual player. But that doesn't make his impact 100%, or even 50% (it can't be 50% because he's not even on the field half the time). The rest of the team combined has a greater impact than the QB, so in what universe does it make sense to assign wins or losses to the QB?

 

[Denim Chicken]

That is correct but we all know the QB touches the ball on every single snap and can certainly have a huge impact in winning or losing a game. If I had to point to one player who can have the biggest impact I would say the QB.

Does he touch it on defense? You are ignoring half of the game with this thinking.