Dak vs. Romo The Money Stats

Who told ya that?
The Easter Bunny. How many eggs does the bunny carry? Check the stats. Dak can beat winning teams, same as a blind squirrel finds a nut. Problem is, when Dak has to play against a team in the playoffs, he turns into ice, frozen in the moment.

But, damn! Those stats, dude, the stats!

Carry on, did not mean to interrupt your convo with stat man, carry on, and good luck.
 
You first have to understand why it's called what it is. If you don't, I can see where the confusion can set it. Stats are very helpful. The lie part is mainly focused on the user applying the statistics. In some cases statistics can be used to paint a picture that is not reality, yet has statistics to back them up. This usually includes, but not limited to, cherry picking. For example. There were statistics floating around a year or two ago showing virtually identical stats from Dak and Mahomes. Almost the same numbers. They are most definitely not the same QB.

That's why I have a problem with people placing big game wins or losses solely on the quarterback.

The biggest game in the world is the Superbowl. They try to make us believe that a quarterback is measured by Superbowl wins, right?

Well when I mention that Nick Foles and Trent Dilfer has more Superbowl wins than Jim Kelly and Dan Marino.... now the goalposts get moved. If quarterbacks are measured by Superbowl wins, that clearly means Dilfer and Foles were better quarterbacks than Marino and Kelly.

You see how that works?

It's either one way or another, we can't keep moving goalposts if it's established that quarterbacks are judged by big game wins or losses.
 
I admittedly started reading some of this info expecting to be pessimistic. But I was unexpectedly humbled. They are close in all of the key categories albeit it with Dak having better numbers.

We know neither plays their best ball in the playoffs. But for those who question Daks mental capacity to play the QB position vs. Romo these numbers show that is flat out not the truth.

Tony Romo had a .550 winning percentage against teams with a winning record (.500 or better) in his NFL career. This means he won 55% of his games against teams that were also above .500 at the time.

Dak Prescott has a win percentage of 62.3% against teams that finished the season above .500. This means he's won 28 out of 45 games against teams with a winning record.

Tony Romo's average touchdowns per year over his 13-year NFL career was approximately 18.5. During his time with the Dallas Cowboys, Romo threw for a total of 248 touchdowns in 13 seasons, resulting in an average of 19.1 touchdowns per year.

Dak Prescott averages approximately 25 touchdowns per season since 2016. This translates to an average of 7.5 touchdowns per game.

Tony Romo's 3rd-down conversion rate on throws, since 2001, was 45.1%. This places him among the top quarterbacks in the league, with a rate comparable to others like Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers.

Dak Prescott has a career 63.4% completion rate on 3rd down attempts, with 1,978 passing yards and 11 touchdowns in 76-46-0 passing attempts. He has also thrown for 11 touchdowns on 3rd down plays. His 3rd down completion percentage is 66.8%, and his yards per attempt on 3rd down is 7.6.
LOL at “Money stats”

Romo: ZERO NFCCGs and SBs

Dak: ZERO NFCCGs and SBs

Both above average QBs

Nuff said
 
That's why I have a problem with people placing big game wins or losses solely on the quarterback.

The biggest game in the world is the Superbowl. They try to make us believe that a quarterback is measured by Superbowl wins, right?

Well when I mention that Nick Foles and Trent Dilfer has more Superbowl wins than Jim Kelly and Dan Marino.... now the goalposts get moved. If quarterbacks are measured by Superbowl wins, that clearly means Dilfer and Foles were better quarterbacks than Marino and Kelly.

You see how that works?

It's either one way or another, we can't keep moving goalposts if it's established that quarterbacks are judged by big game wins or losses.
See if this works on the stats. In the NFL, how many teams carried a ten year coach that never won the SB?

How many teams in the NFL kept a coming on nine years QB that is getting old and injured and has not won when it counted, then tried someone else at QB and got better?

And you still rah rah for Dak? Tell me the stats? Convince me.
 
See if this works on the stats. In the NFL, how many teams carried a ten year coach that never won the SB?

How many teams in the NFL kept a coming on nine years QB that is getting old and injured and has not won when it counted, then tried someone else at QB and got better?

And you still rah rah for Dak? Tell me the stats? Convince me.


I rah rah for the Dallas Cowboys lil bro. That's what fans do, cheer for their favorite team and the players that play on that team.

I cheered for every quarterback the Dallas Cowboys had, from the time I started watching Roger Staubach to Dak Prescott. Guess what.... when Dak is gone, I'll be cheering on the next quarterback and the next quarterback after that.

Any quarterback who plays for the Dallas Cowboys will have my support. No disrespect to you and your methods of being a fan of your favorite team..... but only dumb people with very low IQs cheer against the players who play for their "supposed" favorite team.

Now with that said, you mentioned "quarterbacks can't win when it counted", correct?

So according to your logic, Dilfer and Foles were clearly better than Marino and Kelly because Dilfer and Foles won the biggest game when it counted.... Marino and Kelly didn't, right?
 
So according to your logic, Dilfer and Foles were clearly better than Marino and Kelly because Dilfer and Foles won the biggest game when it counted.... Marino and Kelly didn't, right?
Hmm, not really sure, "lil bro"? But thanks for the little dig at me. That tells me a lot about your character and culture.

By the way, I asked you about the stats, not my or your logic.

Tell your buddy in the basement, I said, "Hey..."!
 
Hmm, not really sure, "lil bro"? But thanks for the little dig at me. That tells me a lot about your character and culture.

By the way, I asked you about the stats, not my or your logic.

Tell your buddy in the basement, I said, "Hey..."!

Which basement, I own three properties. You know nothing about my character or my culture. I DO know you lack courage. I'll leave that right there.

With that said, I've asked you many football related questions that you ducked and dodged. So as soon as you answer any of my questions, I'll answer yours sir.

I guess you're going to cry again and say "sir" is a dig too, huh....
 
That's why I have a problem with people placing big game wins or losses solely on the quarterback.

The biggest game in the world is the Superbowl. They try to make us believe that a quarterback is measured by Superbowl wins, right?
I mistakenly thought that after Matt Stafford won a SB with the Rams that this would slow down. He was the go to quarterback for the "What has he ever done" crowd. But it didn't do the trick.

Every QB needs the proper environment around him to win a championship. They don't have that every year. Some may never have that, or very few chances. Same goes for intelligent people. It doesn't matter how smart you are, if you don't have vital information, you can't solve a problem. You can't determine how far away the sun is before knowing how big it is just through observation.
 
Which basement, I own three properties. You know nothing about my character or my culture. I DO know you lack courage. I'll leave that right there.

With that said, I've asked you many football related questions that you ducked and dodged. So as soon as you answer any of my questions, I'll answer yours sir.

I guess you're going to cry again and say "sir" is a dig too, huh....
Internet muscles...or real courage? Test yourself.

"sir"? I'm just a five star.
 
I mistakenly thought that after Matt Stafford won a SB with the Rams that this would slow down. He was the go to quarterback for the "What has he ever done" crowd. But it didn't do the trick.

Every QB needs the proper environment around him to win a championship. They don't have that every year. Some may never have that, or very few chances. Same goes for intelligent people. It doesn't matter how smart you are, if you don't have vital information, you can't solve a problem. You can't determine how far away the sun is before knowing how big it is just through observation.

Matt Stafford led the league in interceptions the year the Rams won the Superbowl. That goes to show how good that Rams team was.

Stafford's career record vs winning teams is like 14 - 70.
 
Matt Stafford led the league in interceptions the year the Rams won the Superbowl. That goes to show how good that Rams team was.

Stafford's career record vs winning teams is like 14 - 70.
He was still a good quarterback. He can't help his team sucked for most of his career. Similar to Marino. Besides 1984, I didn't think they had any team good enough to get to the SB. And they didn't, shocker.
 
Every post that says our quarterback can't beat winning teams while his record vs winning teams says different.

It's plenty of them out there. I'm sure you've seen them.
I didn't ask about dak. Im asking who told you only qbs are solely responsible an accountable".

Well ok... So you read that in a dak thread? Where you're supposed to talk dak?

You expect people to criticize every single other aspect first before getting to dak. Even in dak thread.

You acting Iike someone criticizing dak in any way means it's solely daks fault. One of the biggest lies I've seen here in 20 years.
 
That's why I have a problem with people placing big game wins or losses solely on the quarterback.

The biggest game in the world is the Superbowl. They try to make us believe that a quarterback is measured by Superbowl wins, right?

Well when I mention that Nick Foles and Trent Dilfer has more Superbowl wins than Jim Kelly and Dan Marino.... now the goalposts get moved. If quarterbacks are measured by Superbowl wins, that clearly means Dilfer and Foles were better quarterbacks than Marino and Kelly.

You see how that works?

It's either one way or another, we can't keep moving goalposts if it's established that quarterbacks are judged by big game wins or losses.
somebody called Marino and Kelly losers.....
 
I didn't ask about dak. Im asking who told you only qbs are solely responsible an accountable".

Well ok... So you read that in a dak thread? Where you're supposed to talk dak?

You expect people to criticize every single other aspect first before getting to dak. Even in dak thread.

You acting Iike someone criticizing dak in any way means it's solely daks fault. One of the biggest lies I've seen here in 20 years.

And what you're saying is clearly a lie because I'VE criticized Dak on a few posters and they're there to back up what I've said.

Nothing is wrong with the criticism that Dak deserves..... he's earned that criticism. But when people act like we failed SOLELY because of Dak, THAT'S the biggest lie you've heard in 20 years, but you don't bring it up.

I have plenty of posts criticizing Dak. I apologize in advance for killing your narrative that I'm protecting Dak or something. Thats far from the truth.
 
He was still a good quarterback. He can't help his team sucked for most of his career. Similar to Marino. Besides 1984, I didn't think they had any team good enough to get to the SB. And they didn't, shocker.

Stafford gets a pass due to what his TEAM couldn't do??? Hey... im all on board for that if we use that same method regarding all quarterbacks.

According to what you've posted, this is still a TEAM game. I'm good with that.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
464,924
Messages
13,838,775
Members
23,782
Latest member
Cowboyfan4ver
Back
Top