Explaining Romo's sack

[Rockport]

I brought up the QB ratings to show @dstovall5 how it's worthless to throw out "14 tds, 2 ints" as some sort of defense of Romo's red zone capabilities. His QBR was ranked in the bottom third of the league. And yes you can have it both ways. Believe it or not Romo isn't the only one playing behind a porous oline. Most people would argue that the Bears is the worst yet Cutler still had a very high QBR in the red zone.

No you can't have it both ways. Chicago had the 10th best rushing attack last year. If you're going to crap on Romo, you better be better prepared.

 

[Zordon]

No you can't have it both ways. Chicago had the 10th best rushing attack last year. If you're going to crap on Romo, you better be better prepared.

And the Falcons were ranked 29th. How do you explain Ryan's 102 red zone QBR?

 

[imbatman]

Is this a good thread to bring up vanilla play calling?

 

[Rockport]

And the Falcons were ranked 29th. How do you explain Ryan's 102 red zone QBR?

Tony Gonzales.

 

[Zordon]

Tony Gonzales.

Ok what about Rivers' 101.0 rating with 27th rated rush attack?

 

[Rockport]

Ok what about Rivers' 101.0 rating with 27th rated rush attack?

So what you're saying is the Cowboys having the 31st rated rushing attack has no effect on red zone proficiency?

 

[Zordon]

So what you're saying is the Cowboys having the 31st rated rushing attack has no effect on red zone proficiency?

Could you answer my question first before I answer yours.

 

[Rockport]

Could you answer my question first before I answer yours.

People who understand football know you can't be proficient in the red zone unless you have a good consistent running game. You can hide behind some one-off statistics to bolster your point all you want. That's the problem with you haters. You take one play, the sack in the Oakland game, or one play and roll with it. It really shows your lack of understanding of the game.

 

[Zordon]

People who understand football know you can't be proficient in the red zone unless you have a good consistent running game. You can hide behind some one-off statistics to bolster your point all you want. That's the problem with you haters. You take one play, the sack in the Oakland game, or one play and roll with it. It really shows your lack of understanding of the game.

Now you've gone off the reservation. SMH I thought we were getting somewhere there for a second but you've been backed in the corner and panicked when you've been presented evidence that there isn't a 1:1 correlation btw rushing offense and red zone passing efficiency.

 

[Rockport]

Now you've gone off the reservation. SMH I thought we were getting somewhere there for a second but you've been backed in the corner and panicked when you've been presented evidence that there isn't a 1:1 correlation btw rushing offense and red zone passing efficiency.

There is a correlation to having a good running game that leads to a higher proficiency in the red zone. You're just too ignorant to understand. Ignorant meaning lack of knowledge.

 

[Zordon]

There is a correlation to having a good running game that leads to a higher proficiency in the red zone. You're just too ignorant to understand. Ignorant meaning lack of knowledge.

Nobody denies that. I'm refuting the point that you made earlier that "you can't have it both ways". That's not true. I've shown you two examples that prove it. There are many more if you'd like them.

 

[tupperware]

Nobody denies that. I'm refuting the point that you made earlier that "you can't have it both ways". That's not true. I've shown you two examples that prove it. There are many more if you'd like them.

Give it up. Apparently everything has to be perfect with this team before Romo can be expected to perform up to that 108m dollar contract.

 

[jobberone]

Slam me for it if you want, but for 108 million your QB should have been able to make some kind of a play with the time he had on that play.

Consider yourself slammed!

 

[jobberone]

This thread bothers me because apparently now I'm a 'Romo Stan,' which sounds really terrible, and I have absolutely no idea what it even means. But, since I have zero problem with him giving up a coverage sack in a preseason game, it's pretty clear that I am one. I guess you guys can start calling me that now. I won't deny it.

More like Idgitstan a country between Russia and Afganistan.

 

[AsthmaField]

More like Idgitstan a country between Russia and Afganistan.

If RomoStan means "Lover of Romo", then clearly people in Afghanistan love blankets.

Not sure what Idget loves though.

 

[jobberone]

If RomoStan means "Lover of Romo", then clearly people in Afghanistan love blankets.

Not sure what Idget loves though.

Why he loves the Cowboys like the rest of us! And his wife and Chinese food, too.

 

[AsthmaField]

Why he loves the Cowboys like the rest of us! And his wife and Chinese food, too.

So why isn't he Wifeymoogoogaipanistan?

Or Cowifeykungpoistan?

 

[jobberone]

So why isn't he Wifeymoogoogaipanistan?

Or Cowifeykungpoistan?

LOL. You'd better ask him.

 

[5Stars]

Welcome to the "Romo Stan" club! I got initiated yesterday! You're only allowed to "criticize" Romo here, if you speak anything positive about Romo you're instantly initiated to "Romo Stan" status. And if you speak of "Romo haters" you're instantly accused of creating an "imaginary enemy", because we all know there are no "Romo haters", just only people who "criticize" him.

What the hell is a "Romo Stan"? Who started that juvenile phrase?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And the Falcons were ranked 29th. How do you explain Ryan's 102 red zone QBR?

You going to keep searching for the one exception that proves the rule? Using Matt Ryan who led a very good pass first offense that actually had a stout run game when they wanted to run (go check out how many TDs Michael Turner who was on his last legs scored last year from the redzone) isn't helping you.

And then you brought out Phillip Rivers? Nevermind the fact that you are taking a small sample size (1 season) and making it even smaller (redzone pass attempts).

You should be embarrassed. Or maybe you're just that obtuse.