Elite QB + No Team or Elite Team + No QB

[percyhoward]

Please look into the Defensive Passer Rating (a top 5 statistic as far as correlation with winning) of the Saints, Packers, Patriots, and Colts teams that won Super Bowls before calling them average. It just isn't close to being accurate.

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

In fact, passer rating differential (the difference between your passer rating and your opponent's) has an even higher correlation with winning.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Thanks for saving me the trouble.

In fact, passer rating differential (the difference between your passer rating and your opponent's) has an even higher correlation with winning.

Scoring more points than your opponent has a 100% percentage in winning. Every time.

 

[percyhoward]

Scoring more points than your opponent has a 100% percentage in winning. Every time.

And your point is...

 

[TwoDeep3]

And your point is...

I think stats are misleading. I think stats are tossed out here as an excuse for whatever position is being heralded.

I think the only stats that are worth their weight in gold are winning and losing because they are the ultimate stat.

No team prior to the 1992 Dallas Cowboy had ever fielded the season rushing leader and won the Super Bowl.

So the argument in 1991 could have been made we need to limit Emmitt or doom the team.

They did it in 1993 as well.

Wow, and they did it in 1995 as well.

So stats are only as good as a guideline and not set in stone. But people on this site use them as empirical evidence.

They are not unless they are wins and losses.

Because, no two situations are exactly alike in football. Even though many try and make them out to be.

 

[percyhoward]

I think stats are misleading. I think stats are tossed out here as an excuse for whatever position is being heralded.

I think the only stats that are worth their weight in gold are winning and losing because they are the ultimate stat.

No team prior to the 1992 Dallas Cowboy had ever fielded the season rushing leader and won the Super Bowl.

So the argument in 1991 could have been made we need to limit Emmitt or doom the team.

They did it in 1993 as well.

Wow, and they did it in 1995 as well.

So stats are only as good as a guideline and not set in stone. But people on this site use them as empirical evidence.

They are not unless they are wins and losses.

Because, no two situations are exactly alike in football. Even though many try and make them out to be.

I think you're painting with an awfully broad brush there.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I think you're painting with an awfully broad brush there.

Not at all. I don't believe every person on this board uses stats to back their positions. Or that posters who use stats are necessarily wrong in their conclusions.

What I do find interesting is the group that does use stats liberally and where those stats are offered and what the discussion is to fall into categories in defense of losing.

Now not all arguments or debates here that use stats end up being about the quarterback. But the majority are.

And this is where I have the issue.

Because I see results being justified by stats.

I don't grade on the curve. I believe every player on the team has a responsibility. And while it is a team sport, I see few people rush to the defense of defenders that err and the game is lost.

The defense is the usual reason for losses to some.

I believe responsibility should be placed wherever it belongs, and not wished away to the cornfield by stats that prove nothing.

This is not an assault on Romo.

I think it is a commentary about fans who put him ahead of the team and do so with stats as the underlying reason why he is above reproach.

 

[percyhoward]

Not at all. I don't believe every person on this board uses stats to back their positions. Or that posters who use stats are necessarily wrong in their conclusions.

What I do find interesting is the group that does use stats liberally and where those stats are offered and what the discussion is to fall into categories in defense of losing.

Now not all arguments or debates here that use stats end up being about the quarterback. But the majority are.

And this is where I have the issue.

Because I see results being justified by stats.

I don't grade on the curve. I believe every player on the team has a responsibility. And while it is a team sport, I see few people rush to the defense of defenders that err and the game is lost.

The defense is the usual reason for losses to some.

I believe responsibility should be placed wherever it belongs, and not wished away to the cornfield by stats that prove nothing.

This is not an assault on Romo.

I think it is a commentary about fans who put him ahead of the team and do so with stats as the underlying reason why he is above reproach.

It depends on the stat, and how (and even when) it's used. Stats can provide insight and perspective when used the right way. The post I responded to in this thread is a great example, because of the popular belief that Brees, Rodgers, Brady, and Manning took average or below-average teams, put them on their shoulders, and won Super Bowls with them. Not true. Because people were keeping records of things beyond just W-L, we know that this is not true.

When you look at the passer rating allowed of those teams' defenses, you find that they ranked 3rd, 1st, 7th, 15th, 3rd, and 1st the years they won the Super Bowl. Counting the playoffs, none of those defenses allowed more TD passes than they had interceptions in a season, which is something that's true of only about 4 or 5 defenses per year. These exceptional defensive performances played a huge role in these championships.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Welcome to the number 1 excuse maker. You are the king my friend.

So by what he posted then you're disagreeing and saying that those teams won entirely because of Flacco and Eli?

What part of football being a team game and that teams win Superbowls, not individuals, is anything other than a fact?

 

[Doomsday101]

So by what he posted then you're disagreeing and saying that those teams won entirely because of Flacco and Eli?

What part of football being a team game and that teams win Superbowls, not individuals, is anything other than a fact?

Yep. I don't make excuses for any of the players. Has Romo made mistakes? You bet. There are times he tries to do too much and forces the action and it can cost him when he does. However much of the offense ends up being by the seat of the pants due to a lot of break downs along the line. To win consistently we can't continue to have the break downs forcing Romo to improvise on the run. That is not a functioning offense the fact we were in the race says a lot about Romo. From the mid season point Dallas avg 28 points a game but the defense was giving up point’s right and left often winning games in the last minuets

Romo is responsible protecting the ball in my view they way you fix it is by putting an offense that function around him so that we are not having to play by the seat of the pants on offense.

 

[Miller]

BS Flacco is not a great QB, he is a good QB. Hell Raven fans have been hollering about him like you guys do with Romo. He is not great he plays on a qaulity football team. When did the Pats win their last SB? No doubt they are a well coached, solid fundamentals and they don't beat themselfs and have won with some guys who are HOF type players and have gone with less than at times.

Hell Eli is not great, he is a good QB great QB's do not have poor season and Elie has had more poor season than great ones add to that a damn fine defense who can shut down opposing teams, their last SB win came aginst one of the highest scoring teams avg 32 points a game and yet held them to 17 points and the SB between those 2 in 2007 NE set a record on points scored avg 34 points and NY shut them down to 14 points. Eli sure as hell did not have anything to do with how NY Defense dominated. QB mean a lot but no one is winning just because of the QB, it take a team. Water down or not

This is a lot of blah, blah excuses. You just basically did everything possible to discount what they did. We won't know what these guys are considered until later in their career but right now they played ELITELY in their SB stretches and made clutch throws. Plain and simple. I didn't call them great. I said in the history of the league and SBs the list of QBs on the winning teams is filled with greatness more than guys just steering the ship. ALOT more. I just think its strange that we have all these "football" fans here and many, like me, have watched since the 70s. Yet all of those great QBs and plays are now discounted and don't mean much just because our QB needs people around him. That is strange to me. EVERY team sport has greatness involved in it. Whether it is Jordan in basketball, Barry Sanders/Emmitt in football, etc. You can't win unless you have superior people at certain positions. It is strange that I have supported Romo but understand his faults yet others claim he can't do it himself and then in the same breath say we would be 3-13 instead of 8-8 without him....so which is it? Soes he make a 5 game difference himself or needs a team to win an extra 5 above .500?

As I've said all along, QBs make a difference. Romo has great skills and has shown that. I'm glad we have him. I also see his mistakes and think he loses big games at times. I just don't have this mentality that we have to build a perfect team around him. My mentality is just to use him better. Throw 25-35 a game vs 45-50. Minimize putting the game squarely on him. Run a hurry up to utilize his skills and to help the running game. Look at NE. Their RBs have gotten better but their running game is deceptively high every year because they use it right out of their hurry up. Yeah we need a better line but it doesn't mean we have have to create a 90s type team for Romo. That is impossible now.

 

[Doomsday101]

This is a lot of blah, blah excuses. We won't know what these guys are considered until later in their career but right now they played ELITELY in their SB stretches and made clutch throws. Plain and simple. I didn't call them great. I said in the history of the league and SBs the list of QBs on the winning teams is filled with greatness more than guys just steering the ship. ALOT more.

It is not an excuse. Romo is responsible for the ball no matter how the pass protection is, if he is trying to do to much then that is on him. What i don't do is the mindless bashing you and others do. I understand you guys don't get it you put it on 1 fricken player this game is way over your head go back and play Madden that is about your speed.

Can Romo win yes but like any of those other QB it is a team who will win it, forget it you have no clue, just the same old Bashing.

 

[Miller]

It is not an excuse. Romo is responsible for the ball no matter how the pass protection is, if he is trying to do to much then that is on him. What i don't do is the mindless bashing you and others do. I understand you guys don't get it you put it on 1 fricken player this game is way over your head go back and play Madden that is about your speed.

Can Romo win yes but like any of those other QB it is a team who will win it, forget it you have no clue, just the same old Bashing.

I know we can't memorize every poster but I don't bash Romo. Read my second paragraph I was editting while you were probably writing. I've been a supporter of him here. I flew to the Minny playoff game from Houston and watched him get killed behind a crap line. I've always said I'm glad to have him and that he plays great. I just, at the same time, won't make excuses for his bad plays too or not acknowledge that he has failed in some big games. Ever since I started watching football in the 70s teams that won have had greatness on their teams. Whether that was Staubach and Bradshaw or Montana and Elway or Aikman, Young and Favre. Certain players can take over games and their skill set lend to teams being better. Romo has that talent, he just has a 10 cent brain at times that doesn't lend itself to what some elite QBs have done. There is nothing wrong with admitting that. Being so stubborn on one side of the other is ridiculous, A list of SB winners shows that a majority of teams had guys like this. Maybe that changes with parity and watered down teams but in history great QBs have come through. You can't surround a guy with every amenity. He might have a RB but not a top WR2. He might have a line but only a pedestrian back. It's the reality of this league. I see the Steelers, Packers, Patriots stay consistently good by adjusting their schemes to their players. We don't do that so its not all on Romo. But I don't buy that he can't be a reason we win games.

 

[ufcrules1]

It is not an excuse. Romo is responsible for the ball no matter how the pass protection is, if he is trying to do to much then that is on him. What i don't do is the mindless bashing you and others do. I understand you guys don't get it you put it on 1 fricken player this game is way over your head go back and play Madden that is about your speed.

Can Romo win yes but like any of those other QB it is a team who will win it, forget it you have no clue, just the same old Bashing.

Show me one poster that puts all the blame on just Romo. I'm his biggest critic here and even I know Romo is far down the list with the problems our team has. I have listed out the problems in order several times. I haven't seen any other posters here that put all the blame on Romo either.

 

[Miller]

Show me one poster that puts all the blame on just Romo. I'm his biggest critic here and even I know Romo is far down the list with the problems our team has. I have listed out the problems in order several times. I haven't seen any other posters here that put all the blame on Romo either.

Exactly. As I said above, I've supported the guy and said he isn't the biggest issue but if you even breath that he may be any type of issue you get slammed here. Doomsday didn't even read my post before calling me a basher. I could take pics camping outside his house waiting for an autograph but if I joke that he fumbled the pen before signing I'd get killed. I just don't get why people can't see that he can have a great skill set and do well and at the same time have issues that hamper us. That has always been Romo. You take the good with the bad and hope it gets corrected because the reality is he is a top 12 QB and there aren't good alternatives.

 

[Red Dragon]

Exactly. As I said above, I've supported the guy and said he isn't the biggest issue but if you even breath that he may be any type of issue you get slammed here. Doomsday didn't even read my post before calling me a basher. I could take pics camping outside his house waiting for an autograph but if I joke that he fumbled the pen before signing I'd get killed. I just don't get why people can't see that he can have a great skill set and do well and at the same time have issues that hamper us. That has always been Romo. You take the good with the bad and hope it gets corrected because the reality is he is a top 12 QB and there aren't good alternatives.

I've found that posters get slammed either way, just because Romo's performance at quarterback is such a polarizing issue.

Those who say positive things about Romo get slammed. I've supported Romo ever since he became the starting QB, and I've been slammed on CowboysZone and other message boards more times than I can count.

Those who say negative things about Romo get slammed.


It goes both ways. It's just a topic that draws out ire and fire from Cowboys fans of all types.

 

[ufcrules1]

Exactly. As I said above, I've supported the guy and said he isn't the biggest issue but if you even breath that he may be any type of issue you get slammed here. Doomsday didn't even read my post before calling me a basher. I could take pics camping outside his house waiting for an autograph but if I joke that he fumbled the pen before signing I'd get killed. I just don't get why people can't see that he can have a great skill set and do well and at the same time have issues that hamper us. That has always been Romo. You take the good with the bad and hope it gets corrected because the reality is he is a top 12 QB and there aren't good alternatives.

Exactly, you are spot on. I don't see how anyone can watch a game like in week 17 and say Romo doesn't have issues he needs to fix. I think just about all players need to improve on the team. Just because Tony doesn't have an elite team around him doesn't mean he does no wrong himself. Every player is going to mess up from time to time, I get that, but it's the not learning from your same mistakes year in and year out that needs to be fixed. I have mentioned the things Tony needs to work on time and time again on here. Doesn't take sacks when he is supposed to, throws off his back foot, doesn't throw the ball away enough when there is no play there, hikes the ball with zero seconds on the clock, doesn't protect the football, etc.

I can't absolve him from any blame just because the team is undisciplined and the owner has played huge roll in us sucking the last 17 years.