Did you guys know Romo though 09-16 won 15 games?

Galian Beast

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,735
Reaction score
7,457
Here are the rushing stats:

Will show Year - Total Ranking - Average Yards Per Carry (Ranking) - Rushing Attempts (Ranking)

2006 - 13 overall / 4.1 ypc (15) / 472 attempts (12)
2007 - 17 overall / 4.2 ypc (10) / 419 attempts (21)
2008 - 21 overall / 4.3 ypc (12) / 401 attempts (25)
2009 - 7 overall / 4.8 ypc (2) / 436 attempts (17)
2010 - 16 overall / 4.2 ypc (15) / 428 attempts (16)
2011 - 18 overall / 4.4 ypc (9) / 408 attempts (24)
2012 - 31 overall / 3.6 ypc (30) / 355 attempts (31)
2013 - 24 overall / 4.5 ypc (8) / 336 attempts (31)
2014 - 2 overall / 4.6 ypc (3) / 508 attempts (3)
2015 - 9 overall / 4.6 ypc (5) / 408 attempts (18)
2016 - 2 overall / 4.8 ypc (3) / 499 attempts (1)
2017 - 2 overall / 4.5 ypc (3) / 480 attempts (1)
2018 - 10 overall / 4.5 ypc (14) / 439 attempts (10)
2019 - 5 overall / 4.8 ypc (5) / 449 attempts (8)

Interesting info, if you ask me. Dak has definitely had the better rushing attack but that is to expected considering the change in offensive philosophy in 2014. However, Romo's rushing attack wasn't quite as bad as I had anticipated. With the exception of 2012, we've had average at worst rushing attack for an efficiency standpoint but several times were below average in rushing attempts.

I'll spend some time and compile some comparative defensive numbers in a bit.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Romo rarely had both good run support AND a good defense, so when we look at Romo and compare him to Prescott it is very apple and oranges due to the supporting cast.

Had Romo played when he returned healthy in 2016, I believe we would have competed for a Super Bowl and I think unless further injury occurred, he would still be the starting QB today. He's significantly better than Prescott and was finally putting together the best elements of his ability.

His 2014 season was a nearly perfect season of football. I think one of the best in the history of football. With an upgrade with Zeke and with La'el collins continued development, we really would have been something.
 
Last edited:

Aviano90

Go Seahawks!!!
Messages
16,758
Reaction score
24,485
The point I'm trying to make here is that Romo rarely had both good run support AND a good defense, so when we look at Romo and compare him to Prescott it is very apple and oranges due to the supporting cast.

Had Romo played when he returned healthy in 2016, I believe we would have competed for a Super Bowl and I think unless further injury occurred, he would still be the starting QB today. He's significantly better than Prescott and was finally putting together the best elements of his ability.

His 2014 season was a nearly perfect season of football. I think one of the best in the history of football. With an upgrade with Zeke and with La'el collins continued development, we really would have been something.
I believe we still would have lost to Green Bay with a defense that gave up 34 points. Now, I'll be willing to reevaluate that opinion if you can point me to a time when our defense gave up 34 points in a playoff game and Romo was able to score 35 or more points.
 

Aviano90

Go Seahawks!!!
Messages
16,758
Reaction score
24,485
Points per drive don't mean anything, because ultimately it isn't about how many drives a defense sees rather how many points they give up.
It puts things into perspective. If a defense takes the field 12 times a game rather than 9 times a game, they will probably give up more total points and more total yars. Prior to 2014, our offense was as ball control oriented. So, the overall defensive numbers can be skewed by keeping them on the bench longer. When we break it down on a per drive basis, we can see how the defense performed all by themselves when they had to take the field and compare it to how another year's defense performed when they took the field. While not perfect, it is certainly a whole lot better than simply looking at the overall numbers and trying to compare.
 

Corso

Offseason mode... sleepy time
Messages
34,613
Reaction score
62,845
The point I'm trying to make here is that Romo rarely had both good run support AND a good defense, so when we look at Romo and compare him to Prescott it is very apple and oranges due to the supporting cast.

Had Romo played when he returned healthy in 2016, I believe we would have competed for a Super Bowl and I think unless further injury occurred, he would still be the starting QB today. He's significantly better than Prescott and was finally putting together the best elements of his ability.

His 2014 season was a nearly perfect season of football. I think one of the best in the history of football. With an upgrade with Zeke and with La'el collins continued development, we really would have been something.
GET
OVER
IT
 

Galian Beast

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,735
Reaction score
7,457
I believe we still would have lost to Green Bay with a defense that gave up 34 points. Now, I'll be willing to reevaluate that opinion if you can point me to a time when our defense gave up 34 points in a playoff game and Romo was able to score 35 or more points.

What I'll do is point to you where with this offense Dak 3 points on its first four drives and only 6 points on its first five drives. On drive 6 Dak was intercepted. Drive 7 was another field goal.

7 drives, 1 interception and 9 points. I think Romo would have done better and I think the result would have been an easier time for the defense as well.
 

Galian Beast

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,735
Reaction score
7,457
It puts things into perspective. If a defense takes the field 12 times a game rather than 9 times a game, they will probably give up more total points and more total yars. Prior to 2014, our offense was as ball control oriented. So, the overall defensive numbers can be skewed by keeping them on the bench longer. When we break it down on a per drive basis, we can see how the defense performed all by themselves when they had to take the field and compare it to how another year's defense performed when they took the field. While not perfect, it is certainly a whole lot better than simply looking at the overall numbers and trying to compare.

You're doing it because the numbers don't help your argument. The context matters. We were ball control-oriented because we could be. Even with ball control oriented offense that changes how teams play you as well so you're skewing regardless. You can't discount the fact that Romo had worse defenses. Just looks at the Denver game where he scored 49 points but lost to 51.

Dak Prescott has a 76 QB rating in games lost. Tony Romo has an 83.8. Significantly higher, especially when you account for inflation. What that means is Romo had to be more perfect in order to win games. That's a tall task.
 

Galian Beast

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,735
Reaction score
7,457
I’ll give you zeke. But what solid defense are you talking about? Do you watch the games or just quote PFF?

Romo had at times some of the worst defenses in the NFL. Prescott has had defenses ranked about 10th in the league on average. Not necessarily elite, but solid enough that Romo with the same defense would have been able to progress through the playoffs more consistently.
 

Aviano90

Go Seahawks!!!
Messages
16,758
Reaction score
24,485
You're doing it because the numbers don't help your argument. The context matters. We were ball control-oriented because we could be. Even with ball control oriented offense that changes how teams play you as well so you're skewing regardless. You can't discount the fact that Romo had worse defenses. Just looks at the Denver game where he scored 49 points but lost to 51.

Dak Prescott has a 76 QB rating in games lost. Tony Romo has an 83.8. Significantly higher, especially when you account for inflation. What that means is Romo had to be more perfect in order to win games. That's a tall task.
I know Romo bad worse defenses. He played in the league longer than Dak has. It might be possible that in 6 years Dak gets to play on a team with a worse defense than Tony has. And while Tony has played on teams with a worse defense, it is also true he has played on teams with a better defense. But stating that doesn’t help your argument that Tony “needed to be more perfect.”

As for the Denver game, Romo lovers love to bring up this game as proof Romo needed to be perfect as if this game was the norm. It wasn’t. It is an outlier of a game. We didn’t get into many shootouts during his tenure as QB but this game we did. It’s the type of game that whoever has the ball last wins the game. We had the opportunity to have the ball last and win the game and we put Denver in game winning field goal range. But, so you don’t lose sight of the point; this game was an outlier. The defense giving up 51 points in a game was not what Romo faced on a weekly basis, not even in 2013.
 

Aviano90

Go Seahawks!!!
Messages
16,758
Reaction score
24,485
Romo had at times some of the worst defenses in the NFL. Prescott has had defenses ranked about 10th in the league on average. Not necessarily elite, but solid enough that Romo with the same defense would have been able to progress through the playoffs more consistently.
Romo played 10 years and didn’t always have worse defenses. He has had better defenses than Prescott, too and still wasn’t able to progress through the playoffs.
 

Aviano90

Go Seahawks!!!
Messages
16,758
Reaction score
24,485
What I'll do is point to you where with this offense Dak 3 points on its first four drives and only 6 points on its first five drives. On drive 6 Dak was intercepted. Drive 7 was another field goal.

7 drives, 1 interception and 9 points. I think Romo would have done better and I think the result would have been an easier time for the defense as well.
That is just woefully inaccurate. You’ll need to go refresh your memory but it’s clear to me now why you believe Romo would have won that game. :lmao:

While reviewing, you might want to look at the reasons why we didn’t score on every possession. You haven’t forgotten about the interception, so that is good. Telling, but still good you remember something accurate.

Now contrast your inaccurate memory of the 2016 GB game to your memory of the 2007 NY Giants game. What do you remember of that game?
 

SSoup

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,087
Reaction score
1,194
Good lord. Andy Dalton won more games and had a better winning percentage during the same time period.
Why is this surprising?

From 2009 through 2015, Dallas was a winning team only twice. The other five years we didn't have a winning record. We just weren't that good of a team during this era.

From 2009 through 2015, Cincy was a winning team (and a playoff team) 6 out of 7 seasons. Dalton was drafted in 2011 and the Bengals were a winning team each of his first five seasons, 2011 through 2015. Not too shabby, despite the fact that the Bengals were always outclassed in the AFC and usually even in their own division.

The Bengals were just a better team than we were during the 09-15 era. No matter how glamorous people think we are or how doofy you think Dalton was.
 

keysersoze

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,336
Reaction score
2,004
Romo had at times some of the worst defenses in the NFL. Prescott has had defenses ranked about 10th in the league on average. Not necessarily elite, but solid enough that Romo with the same defense would have been able to progress through the playoffs more consistently.
And 2014?
 

Redball Express

All Aboard!!!
Messages
16,253
Reaction score
12,758
Yeah it means teams with winning records usually have good to great pass defense and teams that don’t usually lose. The Cowboys were consistently bottom ten in pass defense most of those years.

It also means that Tony didn’t block very good on the offensive line and that he wasn’t a very good tackler on defense and he missed a lot of easy field goals and his drafts and front office work were just awful.

So yeah - it means Tony Romo lost games and I’ll never get these five minutes back responding to this thread.
So let's do like the refs do 5 times a game.

"Please reset the clock back 5 minutes for this poster. Illegal waste of time. First down".

There..fixed.
 
Top