News: BTB: Tony Romo: The Choke Artist Myth And Elimination Vs. Playoff Hunt Games

[TheDude]

This past season Romo has more input in the gameplan, and his 1st qtr rating is 90.6.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

'

Nothing could rival 2012

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

My opinion is a little different than some of you. I think it is possible with the right coach and everything Romo could lead his ream to the superbowl but I'm really not sure one way or the other. I lean towards him not winning one though because in elimination/ playoff games he shrinks. If i saw him play better in those games or even play at his normal regular season level I may feel differently. 2012 versus Waahington really stands out in my mind. It was very winnable and Romo really played horrifically. I have given up on him and am looking forward to drafting a new QB.

The only hope I have with Romo winning a SB is if we finally start running the ball to take pressure off him. I don't know if we'll ever do that. Garrett talks about it every year but every year it's the same thing. I think Romo is good enough to win a SB but he doesn't have football smarts. That means he doesn't learn from his mistakes. He has a lot in common with our coach. I think we're really too late because he's too old to change now. He is who he is and it's a shame because he has a lot of talent and he has been exciting to watch. Like I said, when this era of Cowboy football is over it'll just be a waste.

 

[tyke1doe]

What the....you think those teams listed that year were "last" in defense?

I think you have it exactly backwards.
You listed the top rated defenses each of those years...at least as measured by total yards per game.

So yes, you were correct to question what you were reading.
NFL.com lists the backwards...with most yards given up as 1st, and least yards as 32nd. So Dallas would have been 1st worst) in 2013.

I don't think that's the case because when I looked up Dallas for 2013, they were ranked #32.

 

[tyke1doe]

They're not correct.

Don't know what you did there. It's not yards or points, which would be the most common stats. And definitely not points per drive or defensive passer rating, which would have the highest win correlations.

Well, since you said "on average" have you looked into your statement to see if it is correct?
What is the average? How are you establishing the average?
If you offered that, it would be nice for you to back it up.
Thanks.

 

[percyhoward]

Well, since you said "on average" have you looked into your statement to see if it is correct?
What is the average? How are you establishing the average?
If you offered that, it would be nice for you to back it up.
Thanks.

That 4-12 is based on our ranking in the three defensive categories with the highest win correlations--points per drive, pass rating, and touchdown percentage.

 

[tyke1doe]

That 4-12 is based on our ranking in the three defensive categories with the highest win correlations--points per drive, pass rating, and touchdown percentage.

But what were the records of other teams that were ranked #32 in defense based on those three defensive categories?
Did you calculate that?

 

[CCBoy]

Well, since you said "on average" have you looked into your statement to see if it is correct?
What is the average? How are you establishing the average?
If you offered that, it would be nice for you to back it up.
Thanks.

If one doesn't know that Percy is never half baked on any information that he puts out...one hasn't paid attention to his posting history or really likes to argue for the argument's sake.

 

[CCBoy]

But what were the records of other teams that were ranked #32 in defense based on those three defensive categories?
Did you calculate that?

How many lines are you drawing in the sand without a little work of your own, in return?

 

[5Stars]

If one doesn't know that Percy is never half baked on any information that he puts out...one hasn't paid attention to his posting history or really likes to argue for the argument's sake.

I'll go with this...

 

[percyhoward]

But what were the records of other teams that were ranked #32 in defense based on those three defensive categories?
Did you calculate that?

No, but I certainly can do that for you.

 

[tyke1doe]

How many lines are you drawing in the sand without a little work of your own, in return?

What are you talking about?
I didn't make the claim that the worst defensive teams had "on average" a 4-12 record. PercyHoward did.
So I simply asked him for facts to support his statement.
Maybe asking for facts to substantiate a claim represents drawing lines in the sand for YOU, but not for people who understand having a simple conversation.

 

[tyke1doe]

No, but I certainly can do that for you.

That would be helpful.
Thanks.

 

[CCBoy]

What are you talking about?
I didn't make the claim that the worst defensive teams had "on average" a 4-12 record. PercyHoward did.
So I simply asked him for facts to support his statement.
Maybe asking for facts to substantiate a claim represents drawing lines in the sand for YOU, but not for people who understand having a simple conversation.

three French hens, two turtle doves, and a partridge in a pear tree!

 

[percyhoward]

But what were the records of other teams that were ranked #32 in defense based on those three defensive categories?
Did you calculate that?

DPR Raiders 4-12
PPD Falcons 4-12
TD% Commanders 3-13

 

[tyke1doe]

If one doesn't know that Percy is never half baked on any information that he puts out...one hasn't paid attention to his posting history or really likes to argue for the argument's sake.

I'm sorry I don't spend all my time here, or I don't memorize who says what. No, I haven't paid attention to Percy's posting history.
Besides, a part of normal conversation is asking questions and asking for confirmation of facts.
Maybe YOU trust everyone, and you don't need verification to process the information on your own, but I do.
I don't see why you guys get ssssoooo offended when people as you for verification of your opinion or verification of a particular claim.
However, that's what people with higher-level critical-thinking skills do.

 

[tyke1doe]

three French hens, two turtle doves, and a partridge in a pear tree!

Translation: You've exhausted your intellect and now want to play the silly fool. Continue on, I'll just excuse myself.

 

[DFWJC]

I don't think that's the case because when I looked up Dallas for 2013, they were ranked #32.

Look again.
I know it's whacky but it is backwards for sure. You're examples were the BEST teams, not the worst.

Instead of looking at the numbers 1-32, look at the data.

Anyway, it's an NFL.com site problem.
Right when you go to team stats, it pulls up 2013 and has it listed correctly...logic-wise.
But to show you their sorting problem, Try pulling up the team stats again, then go to 2012, for example. It will have worst as #1. THEN go back to 2013 and it will then have Dallas as #1 (or worst).

 

[CCBoy]

Translation: You've exhausted your intellect and now want to play the silly fool. Continue on, I'll just excuse myself.

Just stick to a day job, if one has one...Kiddo. And common sense goes farther than a wise ***.

 

[DFWJC]

DPR Raiders 4-12
PPD Falcons 4-12
TD% Commanders 3-13

Yes.
By all accounts, having the leagues lowest ranked Total Defense" should mean a record in the 2-14 to maybe 5-11 at best.
Dallas going 8-8 was almost unheard of.

 

[tyke1doe]

Look again.
I know it's whacky but it is backwards for sure. You're examples were the BEST teams, not the worst.

Instead of looking at the numbers 1-32, look at the data.

Anyway, it's an NFL.com site problem.
Right when you go to team stats, it pulls up 2013 and has it listed correctly...logic-wise.
But to show you their sorting problem, Try pulling up the team stats again, then go to 2012, for example. It will have worst as #1. THEN go back to 2013 and it will then have Dallas as #1 (or worst).

Well, I figured something wasn't right. It just didn't sound right. Besides, I did it on the fly and didn't have a chance to closely analyze it.
Thanks.