Creative sprinkling of Romo

[JJB500]

We're not the Cleveland Browns. We don't need co-starting QBs.

I agree, worked well for Tom Landry in 1971....Biggest mistake he ever made.

 

[waldoputty]

Maybe you're blocking out commercials, either mentally or electronically? If not, by all means, watch more TV and don't drink.

Like youself, I had a close call with death years ago, due to intestinal trouble. Now, I have to watch my diet and alcohol intake.

Hang in there, bro! Life ain't always easy but it's manageable. Good thing we've got the Cowboys to make it all worthwhile.

previously, mentally or with remote control.
now just cut the cord, and will be streaming.
appreciate your comments.
with me, it was not intestinal, but accidental ingestion of bad things.
that was a bad 6 months... last year.

 

[waldoputty]

I agree, worked well for Tom Landry in 1971....Biggest mistake he ever made.

lol, i know. not suggesting alternating.

 

[waldoputty]

Do you follow the Cowboys or do you just skim through em?

i am so annoyed by commercials that I mentally turned them off as well as using the remote.
now just cut the cord, and going to stream cowboys games.

 

[SDCowboy]

but seriously, no.

 

[Doomsday101]

Many of you are going to hate this because it can disrupt team chemistry.

I am just thinking of what Jerry said, and interpreting it a little.
May be FO thinks Romo cannot stay healthy if he were to play every game.
Perhaps they are saving him for the post season.

Obviously you cannot just put him in totally rusty.
Perhaps there is some way of sprinkling him in.

For example, it is safer to put him in for 1st downs where run and pass are both options.
Never put him in on 3rd and long.
On some 1st downs, you can also put him in with 4 wideouts where he hands the off to Zeke.
The 4 wideouts and possibly 1 safety would only leave 6 to defend the run or blitz.
In that case, he would simply make the D respect the pass a little more and give Zeke a little more room.
Perhaps even run from the shotgun?
Limit his passing plays to may be 3-4 per game on 1st and 10?

Running away as fast as possible

I would never alternate QB within a game. Landry did this and it created a lot of problems. it got to the point where teammates asked Lee Roy Jordan to go to Landry and tell him he needed to make a choice. Unlike all other position the QB is viewed differently in the eyes of the player they look to that QB to lead them. When the team feels Romo is able to come in and play to a level they expect out of Romo then he will get the start until then this is Dak team and they look to him.

 

[waldoputty]

Offensive TOP per drive
2016 1st
2015 3rd

Yards per rush
2016 4th
2015 6th

Yards per pass
2016 5th
2015 22nd

Points per drive
2016 3rd
2015 27th

nice stats to see.

i understand the point - correlation between passing efficiency is highly correlated with points whereas rushing efficiency is not highly correlated.

again i need to read through some old stats stuff, but here is what i remember:

1. you do not go regressing stuff where there is an obvious issue. anyone knows that if you are ahead in the 2nd half, you want to run to milk the clock. if the defense knows you are running, your efficiency goes down. that artificially reduces your rushing efficiency. so you have a flawed data set that turns the regression into mush.
2. some are going to the extreme to say that lack of correlation means it is not important to invest in improving rushing efficiency. again, what is an regression. it is drawing a line through a bunch of data points. if one simply does a least square fit through a plot of rushing efficiency vs. points, it does not take account of things like the amount of investment needed for each individual decision. For example, Cowboys already have a dominant line that the investment of the #4 pick could increase yards after contact (Elliott). Are you telling me that drafting Elliott did not affect our points or our passing efficiency in a meaningful way?
3. All coaches say they must stop the run first. We have seen 8 in the box etc. So that reduces the rush efficiency against us. What does that do - open things up for the WRs. However, rush efficiency goes down while pass efficiency may go up or down, depending on the ability of the QB/OL/WR to cope with the situation. Thus your correlation is going to be poor if you regress rush efficiency and pass efficiency. In reality, improving the rush helps open things up for the passing, but it depends on the rest of the team - the ultimate team game.

 

[xwalker]

I just dont think Romo can stay healthy for too many plays.

Give Romo a few snaps as a RB to see if he can take a hit...

 

[waldoputty]

Give Romo a few snaps as a RB to see if he can take a hit...

actually may be he should go out for a pass after handling off to elliott

 

[waldoputty]

nice stats to see.

i understand the point - correlation between passing efficiency is highly correlated with points whereas rushing efficiency is not highly correlated.

again i need to read through some old stats stuff, but here is what i remember:

1. you do not go regressing stuff where there is an obvious issue. anyone knows that if you are ahead in the 2nd half, you want to run to milk the clock. if the defense knows you are running, your efficiency goes down. that artificially reduces your rushing efficiency. so you have a flawed data set that turns the regression into mush.
2. some are going to the extreme to say that lack of correlation means it is not important to invest in improving rushing efficiency. again, what is an regression. it is drawing a line through a bunch of data points. if one simply does a least square fit through a plot of rushing efficiency vs. points, it does not take account of things like the amount of investment needed for each individual decision. For example, Cowboys already have a dominant line that the investment of the #4 pick could increase yards after contact (Elliott). Are you telling me that drafting Elliott did not affect our points or our passing efficiency in a meaningful way?
3. All coaches say they must stop the run first. We have seen 8 in the box etc. So that reduces the rush efficiency against us. What does that do - open things up for the WRs. However, rush efficiency goes down while pass efficiency may go up or down, depending on the ability of the QB/OL/WR to cope with the situation. Thus your correlation is going to be poor if you regress rush efficiency and pass efficiency. In reality, improving the rush helps open things up for the passing, but it depends on the rest of the team - the ultimate team game.

Have fun with this, like I said, I need to go through some old stats stuff...

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

I think it would be a huge insult to Dak to make him "slash"... some gadget, running, "package" guy. The guy is a QB capable of managing a full NFL game and he's improving. Playing two QB's is a disaster imo. I think we should stick with Dak but if you're gonna play Romo he has to just play and face all situations.

 

[StarHead69]

As one of the older guys on this board, I actually remember some big time college programs ruining their season by rotating QBs.
Sounds good in theory, but there are simply not enough snaps in practice (or games) for either guy to stay sharp.

 

[waldoputty]

I think it would be a huge insult to Dak to make him "slash"... some gadget, running, "package" guy. The guy is a QB capable of managing a full NFL game and he's improving. Playing two QB's is a disaster imo. I think we should stick with Dak but if you're gonna play Romo he has to just play and face all situations.

dak is the future and he is a rookie.
you do not mess with him.
but i think sprinkling romo in in such a trick play scenario (3-4 times a game) may be ok.
doing it the other way around will risk dak's future.
and that is not ok since it is the cowboys' future.

 

[waldoputty]

As one of the older guys on this board, I actually remember some big time college programs ruining their season by rotating QBs.
Sounds good in theory, but there are simply not enough snaps in practice (or games) for either guy to stay sharp.

agreed, a full on rotation will be a disaster, probably.
but romo will be the backup soon, given the Jerry statements.
as backup, romo will need reps.
i am just say give romo a small number of change of pace plays - say 5 plays a game in which it is perhaps 3 rushes and 2 passes.

 

[xwalker]

nice stats to see.

i understand the point - correlation between passing efficiency is highly correlated with points whereas rushing efficiency is not highly correlated.

again i need to read through some old stats stuff, but here is what i remember:

1. you do not go regressing stuff where there is an obvious issue. anyone knows that if you are ahead in the 2nd half, you want to run to milk the clock. if the defense knows you are running, your efficiency goes down. that artificially reduces your rushing efficiency. so you have a flawed data set that turns the regression into mush.
2. some are going to the extreme to say that lack of correlation means it is not important to invest in improving rushing efficiency. again, what is an regression. it is drawing a line through a bunch of data points. if one simply does a least square fit through a plot of rushing efficiency vs. points, it does not take account of things like the amount of investment needed for each individual decision. For example, Cowboys already have a dominant line that the investment of the #4 pick could increase yards after contact (Elliott). Are you telling me that drafting Elliott did not affect our points or our passing efficiency in a meaningful way?
3. All coaches say they must stop the run first. We have seen 8 in the box etc. So that reduces the rush efficiency against us. What does that do - open things up for the WRs. However, rush efficiency goes down while pass efficiency may go up or down, depending on the ability of the QB/OL/WR to cope with the situation. Thus your correlation is going to be poor if you regress rush efficiency and pass efficiency. In reality, improving the rush helps open things up for the passing, but it depends on the rest of the team - the ultimate team game.

Great post.

The stats are meaningless in regards to rushing for many reasons with respect to statistical analysis.

The threat of rushing helps passing efficiency but can't be measured with simple stats. D-Coordinators will go 8 in the box, etc. to limit a great rushing threat. Two offenses can have 50 yards rushing in a game, but the the defense played 8 in the box against 1 offense and 7 in the box against the other. The offense that faced 8 in the box had a benefit to their passing game because 8 in the box is not the best pass defense. The rushing yardage stats were the same for both offenses so correlation to winning in regards to the rushing stats would be meaningless.

Then you get into the issue you mentioned of teams trying to catch up in the 4th quarter would go all pass, no run while teams up on the scoreboard would do the opposite. All of these things would obviously skew the stats.

These are just simple examples, but I'm certain a professional statistical analyst would see many reasons to abandon simple correlation to simple stats when analyzing football.

It's possible that teams have advanced statistical data that could be much more meaningful (i. e. How do defenses play coverage vs a strong rushing threat compared to how they play vs a weak rushing threat, etc.).

As the saying made famous by Mark Twain goes, " There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" .

 

[waldoputty]

Great post.

The stats are meaningless in regards to rushing for many reasons with respect to statistical analysis.

The threat of rushing helps passing efficiency but can't be measured with simple stats. D-Coordinators will go 8 in the box, etc. to limit a great rushing threat. Two offenses can have 50 yards rushing in a game, but the the defense played 8 in the box against 1 offense and 7 in the box against the other. The offense that faced 8 in the box had a benefit to their passing game because 8 in the box is not the best pass defense. The rushing yardage stats were the same for both offenses so correlation to winning in regards to the rushing stats would be meaningless.

Then you get into the issue you mentioned of teams trying to catch up in the 4th quarter would go all pass, no run while teams up on the scoreboard would do the opposite. All of these things would obviously skew the stats.

These are just simple examples, but I'm certain a professional statistical analyst would see many reasons to abandon simple correlation to simple stats when analyzing football.

It's possible that teams have advanced statistical data that could be much more meaningful (i. e. How do defenses play coverage vs a strong rushing threat compared to how they play vs a weak rushing threat, etc.).

As the saying made famous by Mark Twain goes, " There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics" .

We are in total agreement.
The key is passing efficiency can go up or down as a response to 8-in-the-box. That all depends on the rest of the team.

Furthermore, since there is a salary cap, overcommitment in the running game in terms of resource generally has a negative impact on resources available to the passing game (or defense). So the situation is far too complex than to brute force a least square regression on two parameters.

I had an econometrics class where my assignment was to prove that the second world war had no effect on durable consumption (e.g. cars, refrigerators etc.). Obviously, that is a ridiculous hypothesis. But we had to use all the tools in our graduate stats class toolbox to do the impossible. I actually found a way to successfully complete my assignment...

Stats do have their place, but can be easily manipulated on purpose or by mistake.

I have been meaning to read up on the old notes and write an article, just have not gotten around to it yet.

 

[CVN68_Cowboys]

OP is 100% right. Many of us do hate this idea.

 

[xwalker]

We are in total agreement.
The key is passing efficiency can go up or down as a response to 8-in-the-box. That all depends on the rest of the team.

Furthermore, since there is a salary cap, overcommitment in the running game in terms of resource generally has a negative impact on resources available to the passing game (or defense). So the situation is far too complex than to brute force a least square regression on two parameters.

I had an econometrics class where my assignment was to prove that the second world war had no effect on durable consumption (e.g. cars, refrigerators etc.). Obviously, that is a ridiculous hypothesis. But we had to use all the tools in our graduate stats class toolbox to do the impossible. I actually found a way to successfully complete my assignment...

Stats do have their place, but can be easily manipulated on purpose or by mistake.

I have been meaning to read up on the old notes and write an article, just have not gotten around to it yet.

 

[jwooten15]

If you have to protect Romo by situationally inserting him into the game, then he may as well sit on the bench the whole time.

I do agree though. He does need to get some game action if they expect him to start later in the season.

So if it were me, I'd wait until we are comfortably up in the second half of a game, and see what Romo can do out there with the rest of the starters. You know that the defense is gonna send crazy blitzes his way, no matter the score. So if he can handle a few hits and is a "close-to-2014" version of himself, then maybe they can start thinking about having him be the starter again.

Just my two cents.

 

[Established1971]

Many of you are going to hate this because it can disrupt team chemistry.

I am just thinking of what Jerry said, and interpreting it a little.
May be FO thinks Romo cannot stay healthy if he were to play every game.
Perhaps they are saving him for the post season.

Obviously you cannot just put him in totally rusty.
Perhaps there is some way of sprinkling him in.

For example, it is safer to put him in for 1st downs where run and pass are both options.
Never put him in on 3rd and long.
On some 1st downs, you can also put him in with 4 wideouts where he hands the off to Zeke.
The 4 wideouts and possibly 1 safety would only leave 6 to defend the run or blitz.
In that case, he would simply make the D respect the pass a little more and give Zeke a little more room.
Perhaps even run from the shotgun?
Limit his passing plays to may be 3-4 per game on 1st and 10?

Running away as fast as possible

Us older guys remember 1971 and Landry doing this with Morton & Staubach and nearly costing what would be their first super bowl win