Cowboys, oh Cowboys, where for art thou Cowboys....?

[CCBoy]

Cowboys, oh Cowboys, where for art thou Cowboys...




Let's take a quick snap shot and start to figure this baby out...

So, the Cowboys went strongly to a 'Romo favorable' team, let's start right there -

*(information taken from The Sporting News-for perspective)

The NFL's top ten quarterbacks showing this quality:

ACCURACY

1. Kurt Warner
2. Payton Manning
3. Drew Brees
4. Tom Brady
5. Ben Roethlisberger
6. Aaron Rodgers
7. Brett Favre
8. Matt Shaub
9. Phillips Rivers
10. Carson Palmer

THROWING THE DEEP BALL

1. Philip Rivers
2. Peyton Manning
3. Brett Favre
4. Tom Brady
5. Drew Brees
6. Aaron Rodgers
7. Ben Roethlisberger
8. Carson Palmer
9. Donovan McNabb
10. Jay Cutler

RUNNING THE 2-MINUTE OFFENSE

1. Peyton Manning
2. Drew Brees
3. Tom Brady
4. Brett Favre
5. Ben Roethlisberger
6. Eli Manning
7. Kurt Warner
8. Phillip Rivers
9. Donovan McNabb
10. Carson Palmer

LEADERSHIP

1. Tom Brady
2. Peyton Manning
3. Drew Brees
4. Ben Roethlisberger
5. Brett Favre
6. Carson Palmer
7. Kurt Warner
8. Donovan McNabb
9. Eli Manning
10. Philip Rivers

BUYING EXTRA TIME TO THROW

1. Ben Roethlisberger
2. Donovan McNabb
3. Tony Romo
4. Brett Favre
5. Aaron Rodgers
6. Drew Brees
7. Philip Rivers
8. Tom Brady
9. Peyton Manning
10. Jay Cutler

Now these categories are not definitive as to a team's quarterback, or how he individually is developing with his team to strengthen aspects that go into how he is seen with regards to the above groups. That stated, a tendency to disappear and yet retain a team at the top graded levels for the NFL, pushes the envelope of credability involving Tony Romo.

The NFL has gone to a pass supportive animal in how it approaches business as usual. This elevates the role and demands upon successful passing offenses in the scheme of things. Go to the officials, and they go out of their way to protect both the quarterback and to keep the receivers from being interupted in going out and catching the ball. Try looking on the other side of the offense, running the ball. Here, the runner gets little help or do his blockers in what is considered a penalty in gaining advantages. It is a passer's world in the NFL. The running game explodes the effects of the passing game now. Plain and simple.

The old indicator of total yards passing, once was milestone stuff when looking at a quarterback. Enter now, Tony Romo. He quickly achieved, in very passing friendly offenses...high totals for games during a season. That WAS the Cowboy way of life now. This was the chosen format, and has been carried fourth by Jason Garrett at the cost of game management and even team strengths. It was their chosen weapon...and as such, it changed general perceptions of Tony Romo the quarterback.

When very quickly, Tony reched milestones of completion percentages and totals in his formative years, comparable to the very best older times of the Dallas Cowboys....well, expectations soon overran the on field productions sustainable by the same. His numbers put him right up there with the very best that Cowboy history had provided: Roger Staubach, Don Meredith, and Troy Aikman.

That is pretty 'high cotton' for a new starting quarterback to try and absorb the function on a daily basis with.

Now enter the realities with Tony Romo. Hey, he is a good kid...and I learned a long time ago, to never underestimate an opponent on the field, when team sports are involved. They rely on how the whole operates together, and not ongoing statistics no matter how tempting and mouth watering they may appear from time to time. It boils down to consistant and top levels of production.

Here, when one expects his quarterback to lead his favorite team, each and every success is appreciated. Expectations are short termed in view. As the sport demands some successes no matter what the level. That stated, a Dallas Cowboy fan has grown to want and to even expect successes at the very top levels of play. That involves quite a few functioning levels for success. But, they all include the function of it's top leader for that level of ultimate success. At the very worst, the quarterback can NOT lose a game for team success.

I didn't include statistics of effeciency in not turning over the ball, as today's NFL excells upon the merits of the offense to either go out and win the game, or to give enough support over a game's entire battle, to forge ahead using the limiting ability of it's defense. Very, very few teams pitch a complete shutout on the defensive side of ball....so we are back at the quarterback and how things evolve around him.

As far as Tony Romo is concerned, we all have been tempted by a large group of success. That stated, he hasn't lead the team to crucial game success all the way up to and including the loss against the pressed and limited Green Bay Packers. That is a pretty hard set of real factors for consideration as well. He has not won a playoff game....and even recently, hasn't fared well in the month of December as a rule. That is when the tough get going, and the NFL strong start to survive.

What the above categories indicate, is that today, Tony Romo is lacking in the strongest of indicators for a Championship type of team leader in today's NFL. That is hard to work around. He is lacking in demonstrated abilities that forge championship achievements at the top levels. He is tempting and generally good, but tempting now at best.

Is this intended as a forecast of approaching doom? No, just a reality check of what we have before us. Tony Romo needs to grow further, for his team to be successful. He has to earn league respect for his abilities, or they will, when chips are finally on line, to attack him as the team face. They will sell out the farm to beat him...and in the process, the Dallas Cowboys themselves.

Now failure is a very strong motivator in life. It adds long suffering and discipline to directions of individuals inclusive. This applies to Tony Romo as well. He has the sting of suffered humiliations at the playoff level, as well as season ending dramas of insult and failure. This could well push him to forge new and better skill sets and apply them in game conditions where they all have to be shown, to BECOME credable. This was the path of even an Eli Manning, who climbed up in areas of respectability, that LEAD his team to success.

The Dallas Cowboys have been set to compliment his tendencies and to give him full benefit of opportunity. As the old adage goes, the ball's in his court now. We all shall shortly see just where he sorts out to ultimate values of accomplishment. I am hoping and pulling for an unknown walking onto the court. Good luck, Tony...you are going to need it now.

On a fan's level, don't let us down!

 

[CCBoy]

I'll push agendas a little here, and apologize. But there is a reason for my initial posting. It was to put the focus, metaphorically, where indicators will play out. This is important than just the blatantly obvious reason. This season has put the very credability of Jerry Jones as head of the organization and it's functional GM at the point of responsibility. As does Tony Romo goes, so does the immediate credability of Jerry Jones as the GM. If a fan is to be both honest and fair, in today's NFL...the value of Jerry himself has to be so adjudged. This could be taken to another thread's posting, but I wished to put my motivations here to the front, and not try and get some feelings as to posting a thread for the first time here. I'm going to discussion as motivation, and trying to lend perspective beyond a single game or view. Hope this helps a discussion...

 

[BAT]

LOL. I watched Staubach, White and Aikman lose to inferior teams too. Puh-leeese. This article is ludicrous, this is the frikking NFL where "every given Sunday" is a battle cry. If Romo cannot win a playoff game after 6 or 7 seasons, then they can cry overrated all they want, but a little perspective here people.

 

[theebs]

The sporting news has a statistical way to evaluate LEADERSHIP?

Interesting.

 

[AdamJT13]

RUNNING THE 2-MINUTE OFFENSE

1. Peyton Manning
2. Drew Brees
3. Tom Brady
4. Brett Favre
5. Ben Roethlisberger
6. Eli Manning
7. Kurt Warner
8. Phillip Rivers
9. Donovan McNabb
10. Carson Palmer

Not having Romo in this category at all is laughable. Just look at his career rating in the final two minutes of halves -- 103.1 (before today).

Compare that to the players on the list (before today) --

Peyton Manning 79.7
Drew Brees 83.7
Tom Brady 86.1
Brett Favre 82.1
Ben Roethlisberger 74.4
Eli Manning 74.2
Kurt Warner 76.7
Phillip Rivers 89.9
Donovan McNabb 80.9
Carson Palmer 84.1


Today's winning drive was in the "two-minute offense," even though there were more than two minutes left, so it wouldn't be included in those splits. However, it would fall in the "late & close" splits, in which Romo's career rating is 112.7 (also before today).

Compare that to the players on the list in "late & close" situations (before today) --

Peyton Manning 90.6
Drew Brees 85.8
Tom Brady 86.1
Brett Favre 71.8
Ben Roethlisberger 83.1
Eli Manning 90.3
Kurt Warner 77.9
Phillip Rivers 83.8
Donovan McNabb 78.4
Carson Palmer 84.1


Rergardless of public perception, when it comes to running the two-minute offense, nobody has been better than Romo.

 

[CATCH17]

Not having Romo in this category at all is laughable. Just look at his career rating in the final two minutes of halves -- 103.1 (before today).

Thats the 1st thing I thought when I opened my new sportingnews on the thinking chair earlier.

 

[CCBoy]

Not having Romo in this category at all is laughable. Just look at his career rating in the final two minutes of halves -- 103.1 (before today).

Compare that to the players on the list (before today) --

Peyton Manning 79.7
Drew Brees 83.7
Tom Brady 86.1
Brett Favre 82.1
Ben Roethlisberger 74.4
Eli Manning 74.2
Kurt Warner 76.7
Phillip Rivers 89.9
Donovan McNabb 80.9
Carson Palmer 84.1


Today's winning drive was in the "two-minute offense," even though there were more than two minutes left, so it wouldn't be included in those splits. However, it would fall in the "late & close" splits, in which Romo's career rating is 112.7 (also before today).

Compare that to the players on the list in "late & close" situations (before today) --

Peyton Manning 90.6
Drew Brees 85.8
Tom Brady 86.1
Brett Favre 71.8
Ben Roethlisberger 83.1
Eli Manning 90.3
Kurt Warner 77.9
Phillip Rivers 83.8
Donovan McNabb 78.4
Carson Palmer 84.1


Rergardless of public perception, when it comes to running the two-minute offense, nobody has been better than Romo.

The statistics you presented is interesting, but lacking as well. First you include a static value of end of half play. That no where approaches game progression and reasons for having to franticly attempting to come back to secure a short period accomplished win. The statistic does not even evaluate the effectiveness in accomplishing a Red Zone degree of efficiency that goes to the heart of the category you attacked as such.

There are reasons why over the past two games, the offense has gone South in the scoring department, and hence greatly put winning at a disadvantage for both games. The running game was added yesterday, and the team did a very strong showing against a strong Washington defense. The fact that scoring was at the cruxt would seem to concentrate problem indicators in other areas.

It would be a very hard sell that the cause of the diminishing returns was upon the same receiver group who had put up tremendous and consistant numbers the whole rest of the season.

Now, I touched upon the very credability of Jerry Jones, as his team direction has been cherry picked and directly an extension of his view and choice selections. He has to now accept some of their indicators as well. That is part of realisticly rooting for a team, with blemishes or development included. Real causes for failure are acceptable, if the motivation and causes are not lied about and are open in the process. There is good in the struggles of attempting to overcome and achieve. To lie and cause veiled motives is another topic to be pinned against a wall and tossed darts at. That isn't my objective here, although...just to be objective at arriving at a potential later evaluation point.

Here, Tony Romo is FULLY suspect. He has been very key in a variety of situations. That, when using such statistical props doesn't conceal the more immediate and telling storyline. That of HIS...INCREASING inaccuracy, and his inability to remain for an entire game even, focused and on target with his receivers. More often he is on the wrong shoulder of his receiver when they are covered closely, or extends them to harms way with an overly high pass. That use to be the sign of a very POOR QB in just a few years back. Wonder why Roy Williams had those rib problems? Wonder why he seems to have a problem connecting with Tony Romo. I would be sticking my head in the sand in ignoring these immediate indicators as well.

Now, at one point in Kurt Warner's career, he had to concentrate upon intensive work on a very quick delivery and ACCURACY. He has contininued that aspect with specific technique workouts on a regular basis. Doubt the delivery accuracy differences in Warner and Romo? I don't at this point...that doesn't mean that when fully focused AND motivated, that Tony isn't a very top notched quarterback. The question is, is he disciplined enough with his own technique and habits to lead....lead the Cowboys starting at the opening whistle when all is on the line. His more recent track record suggests that this is the very reason for his NOT being included in the categories as observed by talent evaluators and observers around the NFL.

He's OUR Dallas QB, and has our love already...don't expect, because he has to franticly hustle and come back at the conclusion of time, that he has entered a historical reference point. Things like WINNING a NFC East Title would help as to credabilities, but he has to get past an obvious trip point of losing in December and a 'pressure' soft label that other teams DO pay attention to and bring to the entire team. They know from past successes, if you bring the heat to Romo, the Cowboys fall in line.

This is a stronger consideration in successes. There is NO doubt he is the very best quarterback on the Dallas Cowboy roster. Now, we are finding out just where that value lies...and the clock is ticking.

That Tony has struggled mightily against the stronger defenses...recently, is NOT an endorsement of a high QB rating for end of halves. It goes to the core of leadership qualities of him at the head of the Dallas Cowboys. That is NOT an easy position, but concealing the real features does not remove his having to own up to the fruits of his labors here. He HAS to get better at controlling HIS passes. It's not all up to his receivers to catch everything in God's green earth.

Does anyone think that it is a fault in both Roy Williams and Miles Austin to not catch the very high balls that has been their steady diet recently? How about the Green Bay game, where Romo MISSED a touchdown open pass to Miles Austin, and then to a Marty Bennett? How about the back shoulder interception to Witten that foiled yet another Red Zone episode. That a good closing picture?

Go back to the Denver game, when on TWO occasions, he forced the ball into a Sam Hurd....Sam Hurd?

No, MORE than a closing half-time picture is involved here...and for the sake of our beloved team, TONY ROMO better get the picture...or Wade Phillips walks, and then the responsibility stops back at the team's GM-Jerry Jones.

A win cures a lot, but a BAD habit has to be replaced with a GOOD habit, or the process repeats itself. December has been a BAD time for Tony Romo. Playoffs have been a BAD time for Tony Romo...HE has to change THIS picture now...and ONLY with GOOD habits. That part of the deal is on HIS shoulders.

Time will tell...

 

[AdamJT13]

The statistics you presented is interesting, but lacking as well. First you include a static value of end of half play. That no where approaches game progression and reasons for having to franticly attempting to come back to secure a short period accomplished win. The statistic does not even evaluate the effectiveness in accomplishing a Red Zone degree of efficiency that goes to the heart of the category you attacked as such.

{remainder of gibberish snipped}

What are you talking about?

None of your incomprehensible post has anything to do with the two-minute offense, which was the point of my post.

 

[CCBoy]

What are you talking about?

None of your incomprehensible post has anything to do with the two-minute offense, which was the point of my post.

Hardly gibberish...and your post WAS directly addressed. Maybe, if your reading skills were where your general analytical skills are, you wouldn't have ignored the dileniation from the strength that you were putting in a late surge of effectiveness compared to the established and honored evaluation of top leadership aspects to the position of quarterback.

Maybe, just maybe if you included comparative features to statistics being focused upon, that directly indicated effectiveness at the end of the game and winning. Not merely using both halves with the time restraint of 2 minutes receiving the arbitrary importance.

The two minute category was used instead, and this implied the relevance of overcoming and winning in addition to pass completion and yardage gained in a closing period for BOTH halves. Statistics that you presented to establish the basis of YOUR presumption that the ranking by The Sporting News, not myself, was left field material to begin with.

I wasn't going the homer route in my posting, or further explanation. That I didn't glorify your chosen stat wasn't an act of insult towards yourself. I was commenting on how it supported a view of Tony Romo...well, that includes the concept that he really isn't a very accurate quarterback much of recent games.

As to gibberish, take that rocket science approach to a refined area of your chosen focus and use them to tell why Tony Romo has had about four games where he was approaching non-functional in his passes for most of those games. Then maybe they can glean why his passes on crossing routes have been off back shoulders instead of where the receiver has a legitimate chance to catch the ball in stride. Maybe your stats could then be used to show why when Tony Romo throws down the center of the field, where teams have started to double up deep, his passes have had the tendency to be extremely high. When somehow the data supplied in your statistics, in this area being left open by opponents; well, you could then explain why he is leaving his receivers wide open and exposed with arms extended. Then maybe you could further show how Roy Williams' ribs were broken due to this...and could be why there is hesitancy for these receivers to go over the middle harder.

I'm sorry that your reading skills are so sophisticated that short of writing a book, that what I wrote wasn't readily gleaned...but in response, you really weren't looking for what I was saying. And it wasn't directed at you.

Gibberish and all...but on issue of Romo needing to either be much more focused in the delivery of hs passes...or at the least, providing better opportunity for his receivers to have success in his types of delivery.

Maybe some air underneath some of his deeper passes can allow for the reciever to create to HIS advantage. Instead of a straight line ball that goes high and over his head.

I'm sorry that you feel my attempt was so demeaning to your sophistication.

It also included a direction that involved real tool types of observations concerning a realistic evaluation of roles involving other 'players' in the Dallas Cowboy team - specificly Wade Phillips and Jerry Jones as well. Not in disclaiming them or their contributions, but as to a general indicator to what and how they are influencing what the product on the field is developing from and to.

Yea, I have to agree, without a tractor trailor's worth of stats similar to your 'gift', but applied in a very specific manner...yea, this probably proves my comments to be real hobocum stuff...

 

[SaltwaterServr]

I wish someone understood how often they don't have a clue about Shakespeare.

Wherefore art thou refers TO A NAME.

Juliet is lamenting that Romeo is from a rival family, she's not asking where he is.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

What are you talking about?

None of your incomprehensible post has anything to do with the two-minute offense, which was the point of my post.

Honestly, it almost looks schizophrenic in it's composition and wandering nature.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

I wish someone understood how often they don't have a clue about Shakespeare.

Wherefore art thou refers TO A NAME.

Juliet is lamenting that Romeo is from a rival family, she's not asking where he is.

Nerd alert

 

[CCBoy]

I wish someone understood how often they don't have a clue about Shakespeare.

Wherefore art thou refers TO A NAME.

Juliet is lamenting that Romeo is from a rival family, she's not asking where he is.

It wasn't intended or even offered in the vein of a Shakespearean quality or reference....FIRST.

It was presented as an ironic humor that has qualities that a simple mind and apprediation would have from an art form by Red Skelton or even Cantiflas...but you are so sophisticated in your understanding. Ever watch the cup twirling and fine scene in the most recent rendering of Tombstone? No, that wasn't from the 'old English' stock and language source either.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Maybe, just maybe if you included comparative features to statistics being focused upon, that directly indicated effectiveness at the end of the game and winning. Not merely using both halves with the time restraint of 2 minutes receiving the arbitrary importance.

So, what's the specific methodology for deriving the ranking?

The passer efficiency rating -- which is the universal indicator of quarterback play -- does not account for wins. Might you explain this new method of rating quarterbacks that "directly indicates effectiveness at the end of the game and winning"?

 

[CCBoy]

Honestly, it almost looks schizophrenic in it's composition and wandering nature.

No...and the sophistication wasn't even ballroom area here. You danced around a non objective viewing of short idea presentations, that if brought together would indicate much more intensive associations and directions for discussion...if the rush to label and then personalize had been set aside for a moment to allow a discussion. Instead, and this must be simple enough for yourself to understand....visualization of direction. Not hiding from content.

I'll simplify MY approach for YOU....emotional hyperbole, that establishes supporting elements without boring you with minute development of topic. Leaving that to your own mental ability of analysis. Yea, a dog-face sodier is a real schizophrenic after 23 years of service and a veteran. Man, 20/20 or some new eye standard there...

 

[CCBoy]

So, what's the specific methodology for deriving the ranking?

The passer efficiency rating -- which is the universal indicator of quarterback play -- does not account for wins. Might you explain this new method of rating quarterbacks that "directly indicates effectiveness at the end of the game and winning"?

Did you, since Shakespeare appears to be a popular association, realize that the Greek intelectuals-who developed articulated associations of discussion and philosophy, were ALSO by inclination, homosexual as well?

The presentation origin was of groups of accomplished NFL quarterbacks that were chatergorized on observable tendencies. That doesn't require some mechanic's listings of torque settings, compression readings, or even horserpower amplitudes to be able to tell if a car is running well.

Just by implying sophistication as to standard, doesn't remove the quality of observing and making valid judgements above the stat sheet...by the way, at a game, do YOU take a slide ruler to see just how good a quarterback is doing, and then apply a stop watch? Duh....as if talent evaluators carry extensive tables to determine if play on the field compares.

What is happening here, is the selection of a specific aspect in presentation, and then forcing topic area to comply with a single observation...but WITHOUT approaching topic presented. How so very metropolitan of you...

 

[CCBoy]

What are you talking about?

None of your incomprehensible post has anything to do with the two-minute offense, which was the point of my post.

You want a short retort to stat de jure...then explain HOW Romo THEN missed Sam Hurd TWICE in the END ZONE, in a two minute....more SPECIFICLY, one minute drill? That was some sure fired rocket science I must agree....

 

[SaltwaterServr]

No...and the sophistication wasn't even ballroom area here. You danced around a non objective viewing of short idea presentations, that if brought together would indicate much more intensive associations and directions for discussion...if the rush to label and then personalize had been set aside for a moment to allow a discussion. Instead, and this must be simple enough for yourself to understand....visualization of direction. Not hiding from content.

I'll simplify MY approach for YOU....emotional hyperbole, that establishes supporting elements without boring you with minute development of topic. Leaving that to your own mental ability of analysis. Yea, a dog-face sodier is a real schizophrenic after 23 years of service and a veteran. Man, 20/20 or some new eye standard there...

Perhaps not schizophrenic, but quite possibly bordering on a razor fine line between educated lunacy and senility.

 

[CCBoy]

So, what's the specific methodology for deriving the ranking?

The passer efficiency rating -- which is the universal indicator of quarterback play -- does not account for wins. Might you explain this new method of rating quarterbacks that "directly indicates effectiveness at the end of the game and winning"?

Observable tools aren't as complex as you would indicate, or ignore strengths of other statements. If QB ratings over a specifcied period of time, which has not been denoted by yourself, and hence, an abstract concept to begin with...were the only tool for evaluation of quarterbacks, then money spent on them would be in DIRECT correlation to the numbers YOU are using. Nope, there is much MORE to coaching and even talent evaluations than that ALL KNOWING and preferenced indicator that STILL doesn't address the topic on thread.

What HAS been presented wasn't even a QB rating for a player, but a specified and restricted application to wit. That being very generalized in it's specific use...including BOTH first and second half inclusion of data for compilation of final indicators. Here, it is obvious through casual observation in the NFL...that things change dramaticly from the first half to second halves and thus, the validitiy of those very stats as an indicator even for final two minute considerations are from the start, very diluted in direct correlation. Point, match, set....

 

[CCBoy]

Perhaps not schizophrenic, but quite possibly bordering on a razor fine line between educated lunacy and senility.

You FIRST have to get a functional handle on the terms that are being thrown around....first, WISDOM COMES WITH AGE.

By the way, know why the 'fat guy' in Macbeath, was so endearing to the audience?