BR: Tony Romo Has Not Only Been the Best Version of Himself, He Might Be the NFL MVP

[Toruk_Makto]

Passing more doesn't mean passing more effectively, any more than passing less improves an offense.

The Packers are 3-2 when Rodgers exceeds 36 attempts, 7-2 when he doesn't. The Broncos are 2-3 when Manning goes over 36 attempts, 8-0 when he doesn't. Saints 1-8 when Brees is over 36, 5-0 when he isn't.

That's because game context which he doesn't understand.

Teams that pass more are doing so because things are going poorly. Probably from pass number 1-10.

 

[percyhoward]

I'm not looking at their win totals. I'm looking at their efficiency. Can't help it if your QB plays great and the team still loses. That's not on the QB, it's on the team.

To connect the dots, you asked "why aren't we passing more when passing more effectively wins more games?" I was showing that "passing more" and "passing more effectively" don't mean the same thing. That's why teams that pass more than 36 times in a game are a combined 532-1,071 since Romo became the starter in 2006.

That's about 1 out of every 3 games played during that time. IOW, 2 out of 3 games, you won't throw the ball that much. And when you do, you'll lose 2 out of 3 times anyway.

 

[big dog cowboy]

My head hurts.

 

[Staubacher]

So from Percy's facts ANY NFL QB fits into the "less is more" canard that is specifically applied to Romo as a way to explain away being dreadfully wrong about him.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

You know what's kind of been troubling is that I remember when Peyton came back form the neck injury and got so much praise. And it was deserving. He played INSANE. People wrote Romo off in this summer even worse than they did Peyton. I don't think anyone would've gave Romo a 100 million dollar deal like Peyton was given coming off the back surgeries he had.

We all heard how he didn't look right. Even week 1, the cries got even LOUDER about how the Cowboys were fools for not drafting Manziel because Romo was finished. Look where we are at now. Truly amazing. I can't say Romo is MVP but for me....he's been this team's MVP and people will disagree but he's been more important to this team than Demarco. That's just the real. This is not the same team with Brandon Weeden or Mark Sanchez or Colt McCoy or whatever backup QB you would've had a shot at.

But I understand the hate for Romo. He won't get what he deserves until he strings some some solid post season performances together. And you know what? Maybe that's how it should be. I can't really sit here and knock anyone for dogging a guy who has only 1 playoff win since entering the league and he's 34 now. But I think the quarterback we always wanted for this franchise and wanted Romo to be is finally here. He may not throw 10 deep balls a game like guys want him to but he's one of the better QB's in this league and I have nothing but the utmost respect for what the guy does weekly for this team to succeed and for us fans to have a winner.

 

[Idgit]

Hooray for Tony. It's easier to pass the ball better when you're passing in advantageous down/distance situations a higher percentage of the time. It's probably not surprising that this is the case for most quarterbacks. I imagine the best hurdlers in the world clear a higher percentage of short hurdles, too.

It's fun watching the offense control the clock a bit and have success running the ball. It does seem like we're scoring a bit more often when we have it than we did last year, but we're really not all that much more effective relative to the rest of the league this season. Our defense is less pathetic, and that's helped.

What's interesting is that we're winning more games despite having a worse cumulative TO differential this season. This year we're at +1. Last year we ended the year at +8. Does that surprise anybody? Maybe we've done a better job of letting the TOs accumulate in losses, but that number surprised me a bit. Maybe it's something we do a better job with from here on out and it's an easy way for the team to improve with the kinds of plays that really do affect the outcomes of close games against good teams.

 

[rpntex]

I think it would be hard to name Romo the MVP THIS year when I don't even think he is the MVP on his own team.

I think Murray and the Offensive Line has been the MVP of this team this year.

Even if Murray is not racking up yards in a few games this year, he still presents a threat to do so, so the defenses have to put more men in the box and opens up the passing game a little more.

Also the Offensive line has given Tony a much better chance to make plays. How many times have we seen him sitting back there with 7+ seconds to scan the field over and over before throwing the ball.

So No...I don't think he should be NFL MVP this year, I don't even think he is the team MVP.

But that is just me and I am not a Romo basher by any means. In previous years I think he was the MVP of the team as he did not have much of an oline, much of a running game and was a one man houdini act in the passing game where he had to run around to avoid being killed because the oline played like it was the keystone cops.

With all due respect, I heartily disagree with your assessment. Murray is a near shoo-in for OPOY, but I prefer to think of MVP in the literal sense. We've seen just what happens to this team without Romo. I have a sneaking suspicion that the drop off won't be anywhere close to that when Murray is out of the lineup. Therefore, I think Romo is far more valuable to this team. I got a feeling we may find out Sunday how much we'll miss Murray.

Murray for OPOY

Romo for MVP

 

[Yakuza Rich]

So from Percy's facts ANY NFL QB fits into the "less is more" canard that is specifically applied to Romo as a way to explain away being dreadfully wrong about him.

Problem is Percy's facts don't explain how Romo's passing becomes less effective after his 35th throw (on average). And that does *not* apply to all QB's like Rodgers who is still effective after his 35th throw.

The other issue is that Percy is looking at wins. I'm not. I'm looking at *QB Rating.*. Why? Because the point of my original post is Romo's effectiveness. Not whether the team wins or not. If the QB plays great and the team still loses, then you have other issues.

What's crazy about the logic of 'Less is not more with Romo' is that we know that the team that passes more effectively wins games 80% of the time. And that if you are a great passing team like the Packers, you can get out to big leads early and close out the game in the second half. The opponents odds of winning go way down.

Everybody here seems to accept the fact that the O-Line's pass protection is entirely better. And it was excellent in 2013.

So the idea of arguing against 'less is more with Romo' precludes itself to the logic that we should throw more than we are with Romo. Hey, the pass protection is there and if Romo is so great, then we should throw more and take advantage. Except we are seeing it right before are very eyes that less is actually more with Romo. He's best when he can make big plays and he can't make big plays if he's throwing every down and on average, after the 35th throw he starts to throw for *less* yardage and starts to make more interceptions.

In 2013, we threw the ball a ton despite having a really good running game. And the logic should be 'throw the ball because more is more with Romo.' We did and we weren't nearly as efficient on offense and Romo isn't nearly as good. We were in close games like KC and threw the ball 85% of the time! We were leading against GB and decided to not run the ball despite averaging 7 yards a carry!

This year the mentality is completely different. Yes, we have Martin, but it still doesn't take from the fact that the O-Line's pass protection was as good as it is this year and the running game was very good to great in the 2nd half of last season (Packers defensive players commented on our zone blocking being unstoppable and we had the best zone running scheme in the league).

Instead, this season we have stuck to the run. And we don't see those late game interceptions anymore. We've stopped trying to win every game primarily from Romo's arm. This has forced defenses to come up and try to stop the run and it makes it easier for the passing offense (Romo and the WR's) to get big plays thru the air. When we tried to go 'more is more with Romo', we became a shotgun passing offense that struggled to be efficient and really struggled to get big passing plays.

Guys like Rodgers don't struggle with that. They may lose a game if they throw it 40+ times in a game, but they tend to remain efficient on their pass attempts 35-45. Again, they are the exception, not the rule.

I tend to believe one of the reasons for that is many defenses seem to figure out where Tony is going to go with the ball on a blitz after a while. I notice Haslett does this...he'll throw blitzes at Romo early and try to see where the offense is going with the ball on those blitzes. Then he tries to bait Romo by showing the same blitz, but disguising the coverage and trying to get one of his defenders in the passing lane. You could see that in last year's Packers game as well. Romo was throwing the ball extremely well, but towards the end he petered out because the Packers defense figure out where Romo was going to go with the ball.

Either way, less is more with Romo and it seems to hurt people's feelings for whatever reason.

I hate to be the guy that says I told you so, but I told you so - Bobby Heenan







YR

 

[Doomsday101]

Myself not phased one bit with the view of less is more, Fact is the Cowboys have put an offense in place that closely resembles that of the 90's teams. We are balanced in our attack, we are 7th in points scored with 27.2 a game, 1st in 3rd down conversions at 48%. I don't really care which QB puts up more yards, nor was I concerned with that when Aikman was here. What I am concerned about is the Cowboys winning football game and this team is showing there is still room in this league for a strong running attack and a balanced offense. In games where Romo has had to step up and lead this team down field as he did vs Philly he has done that but no longer is it a case of saying Romo you have to carry this entire team. Dallas did not ask Troy to do it and now we no longer have to ask Romo to do it and it works

 

[goshan]

YR,
I completely understand the point you are trying to make, but there are a wealth of factors and variables that affect passing efficiency post 35 attempts including offensive scheme, win/loss record, playing from behind, etc.. You can't make a direct correlation that a QB is better because they are more efficient after 35 passes.

To make this discussion more productive, why don't you post passer ratings for the top 20 QBs the past 5 years or so across the various attempt windows you keep talking about (0-20, 20-35, 35-50).

 

[gbrittain]

Couldn't disagree more. The Cowboys could stand to lose Murray a heck of lot more than Romo. It's not even close.

One could ask it this way. Would you rather see Romo and Randle or Weeden and Murray?

 

[Doomsday101]

One could ask it this way. Would you rather see Romo and Randle or Weeden and Murray?

Rather see Romo, Murray and Dez. Said the same thing about Troy, Emmitt and Irvin.

 

[Red Dragon]

So, "Secretariat sucks! He'll lose!" suddenly turns into, "Oh, look, Secretariat won! I told you all along he'd win!"

 

[Staubacher]

LOL at I told you so.

Are you glad Romo wasn't traded?

I am

Problem is Percy's facts don't explain how Romo's passing becomes less effective after his 35th throw (on average). And that does *not* apply to all QB's like Rodgers who is still effective after his 35th throw.

The other issue is that Percy is looking at wins. I'm not. I'm looking at *QB Rating.*. Why? Because the point of my original post is Romo's effectiveness. Not whether the team wins or not. If the QB plays great and the team still loses, then you have other issues.

What's crazy about the logic of 'Less is not more with Romo' is that we know that the team that passes more effectively wins games 80% of the time. And that if you are a great passing team like the Packers, you can get out to big leads early and close out the game in the second half. The opponents odds of winning go way down.

Everybody here seems to accept the fact that the O-Line's pass protection is entirely better. And it was excellent in 2013.

So the idea of arguing against 'less is more with Romo' precludes itself to the logic that we should throw more than we are with Romo. Hey, the pass protection is there and if Romo is so great, then we should throw more and take advantage. Except we are seeing it right before are very eyes that less is actually more with Romo. He's best when he can make big plays and he can't make big plays if he's throwing every down and on average, after the 35th throw he starts to throw for *less* yardage and starts to make more interceptions.

In 2013, we threw the ball a ton despite having a really good running game. And the logic should be 'throw the ball because more is more with Romo.' We did and we weren't nearly as efficient on offense and Romo isn't nearly as good. We were in close games like KC and threw the ball 85% of the time! We were leading against GB and decided to not run the ball despite averaging 7 yards a carry!

This year the mentality is completely different. Yes, we have Martin, but it still doesn't take from the fact that the O-Line's pass protection was as good as it is this year and the running game was very good to great in the 2nd half of last season (Packers defensive players commented on our zone blocking being unstoppable and we had the best zone running scheme in the league).

Instead, this season we have stuck to the run. And we don't see those late game interceptions anymore. We've stopped trying to win every game primarily from Romo's arm. This has forced defenses to come up and try to stop the run and it makes it easier for the passing offense (Romo and the WR's) to get big plays thru the air. When we tried to go 'more is more with Romo', we became a shotgun passing offense that struggled to be efficient and really struggled to get big passing plays.

Guys like Rodgers don't struggle with that. They may lose a game if they throw it 40+ times in a game, but they tend to remain efficient on their pass attempts 35-45. Again, they are the exception, not the rule.

I tend to believe one of the reasons for that is many defenses seem to figure out where Tony is going to go with the ball on a blitz after a while. I notice Haslett does this...he'll throw blitzes at Romo early and try to see where the offense is going with the ball on those blitzes. Then he tries to bait Romo by showing the same blitz, but disguising the coverage and trying to get one of his defenders in the passing lane. You could see that in last year's Packers game as well. Romo was throwing the ball extremely well, but towards the end he petered out because the Packers defense figure out where Romo was going to go with the ball.

Either way, less is more with Romo and it seems to hurt people's feelings for whatever reason.

I hate to be the guy that says I told you so, but I told you so - Bobby Heenan







YR

 

[DFWJC]

So from Percy's facts ANY NFL QB fits into the "less is more" canard that is specifically applied to Romo as a way to explain away being dreadfully wrong about him.

Correct!

But we've always known that there are several special "Romo-only" rules that are alive and well.

 

[DFWJC]

Problem is Percy's facts don't explain how Romo's passing becomes less effective after his 35th throw (on average). And that does *not* apply to all QB's like Rodgers who is still effective after his 35th throw.

The other issue is that Percy is looking at wins. I'm not. I'm looking at *QB Rating.*. Why? Because the point of my original post is Romo's effectiveness. Not whether the team wins or not. If the QB plays great and the team still loses, then you have other issues.

What's crazy about the logic of 'Less is not more with Romo' is that we know that the team that passes more effectively wins games 80% of the time. And that if you are a great passing team like the Packers, you can get out to big leads early and close out the game in the second half. The opponents odds of winning go way down.

Everybody here seems to accept the fact that the O-Line's pass protection is entirely better. And it was excellent in 2013.

So the idea of arguing against 'less is more with Romo' precludes itself to the logic that we should throw more than we are with Romo. Hey, the pass protection is there and if Romo is so great, then we should throw more and take advantage. Except we are seeing it right before are very eyes that less is actually more with Romo. He's best when he can make big plays and he can't make big plays if he's throwing every down and on average, after the 35th throw he starts to throw for *less* yardage and starts to make more interceptions.

In 2013, we threw the ball a ton despite having a really good running game. And the logic should be 'throw the ball because more is more with Romo.' We did and we weren't nearly as efficient on offense and Romo isn't nearly as good. We were in close games like KC and threw the ball 85% of the time! We were leading against GB and decided to not run the ball despite averaging 7 yards a carry!

This year the mentality is completely different. Yes, we have Martin, but it still doesn't take from the fact that the O-Line's pass protection was as good as it is this year and the running game was very good to great in the 2nd half of last season (Packers defensive players commented on our zone blocking being unstoppable and we had the best zone running scheme in the league).

Instead, this season we have stuck to the run. And we don't see those late game interceptions anymore. We've stopped trying to win every game primarily from Romo's arm. This has forced defenses to come up and try to stop the run and it makes it easier for the passing offense (Romo and the WR's) to get big plays thru the air. When we tried to go 'more is more with Romo', we became a shotgun passing offense that struggled to be efficient and really struggled to get big passing plays.

Guys like Rodgers don't struggle with that. They may lose a game if they throw it 40+ times in a game, but they tend to remain efficient on their pass attempts 35-45. Again, they are the exception, not the rule.

I tend to believe one of the reasons for that is many defenses seem to figure out where Tony is going to go with the ball on a blitz after a while. I notice Haslett does this...he'll throw blitzes at Romo early and try to see where the offense is going with the ball on those blitzes. Then he tries to bait Romo by showing the same blitz, but disguising the coverage and trying to get one of his defenders in the passing lane. You could see that in last year's Packers game as well. Romo was throwing the ball extremely well, but towards the end he petered out because the Packers defense figure out where Romo was going to go with the ball.

Either way, less is more with Romo and it seems to hurt people's feelings for whatever reason.

I hate to be the guy that says I told you so, but I told you so - Bobby Heenan







YR

2 things.

1) can you provide stats to back this claim up on throws 35-45
2) "guys like Rodgers"...just how many are there? You say it as though there are a lot of them.

 

[Doomsday101]

2 things.

1) can you provide stats to back this claim up on throws 35-45
2) "guys like Rodgers"...just how many are there? You say it as though there are a lot of them.

This year Rodgers and the pack are 4-3 when he has to throw 35 or more passes. I think even GB would rather he not have to throw 35 plus times a game.

40 passes or more 1 and 2

 

[DFWJC]

This year Rodgers and the pack are 4-3 when he has to throw 35 or more passes. I think even GB would rather he not have to throw 35 plus times a game.

40 passes or more 1 and 2

Exactly
I didn't look it up, but I kind of wanted YR to do it so he'd realize his claims were not on solid ground.
I just checked it out myself.
In all but one of the games where Rodgers had to throw in the 40 range, he had his lowest QB ratings of the year.

Anyway, at some point (> 35 throws , over 45?), less is probably more for almost all QBs.

 

[Crown Royal]

In '06 Romo was extremely effective. And the O-Line and the running game...well, wasn't very good. But, Parcells has the philosophy to stick with the run. And given that it was his 1st year as a starter, he was incredibly effective under Parcells. From there, we added TO and actually had a good O-Line in '07. Romo's production was excellent, but he made too many turnovers. And from there we started to see more of the same until 2009 when he really started to work to protect the ball. But, his big play ability became less.

The KC game last year was a great example. We just threw the ball because we had no patience for the running game not getting going early on. The game was well within reach and we threw the ball 51 times and ran it 9 times.

If we had the same philosophy last year and let Romo freely audible out of run plays...we would have thrown the ball about 50 times against the Eagles.

This makes the offense easier to figure out. And then it is harder to pull off the big pass play and we become a dink-n-dunk offense that often times has to do a lot things correctly just to complete a 6 or 7 yard pass.

A few weeks ago Garrett talked about this....you have to stick with the run, even when they have 8 or 9 in the box. And you have to stick with the run even when you get those 'ugly' runs (his words, not mine) that may only gain a yard or two.

I think they are finally getting it and how the run can work to help supplement the passing game. And that is creating less Romo than we are used to and it is creating a more productive Romo and a more productive offense.

Amazing how that concept offends people.


YR

I agree with what you're saying - I think I misread that quote though. I thought you were saying we would have been a better football team without Tony Romo. Now I think you are saying we would have been a better football team if we had run the ball more, as opposed to just revert to throwing all the time. Which I agree with - we were a very good running team last year but would just get away from it too quickly.

 

[rpntex]

Exactly
I didn't look it up, but I kind of wanted YR to do it so he'd realize his claims were not on solid ground.
I just checked it out myself.
In all but one of the games where Rodgers had to throw in the 40 range, he had his lowest QB ratings of the year.

Anyway, at some point (> 35 throws , over 45?), less is probably more for almost all QBs.

I tend to agree, and the reasoning isn't far-fetched at all. When a QB has to throw the ball 35 or 40 times (or more), it usually means his team isn't running the ball well enough, and had to resort to chuckin' it up there. In essesence, that team has become one-dimensional, making them much easier to defend. Any QB is going to lose effectiveness when the defense knows it's coming.