How Bad Have Tony Romo's Defenses Been?

[Idgit]

One day I expect to come here and see a thread filled with stats and find out Romo and company won five straight Superbowls.

I mean the reason for these threads are so blatantly trying to justify history, are they not?

No. You're misreading them. These threads are trying to explain why it is we actually lose the games we do lose. They don't justify anything. Losses are still losses and the reasons for the losses are still the reasons for the losses. Blaming the wrong people for the wrong things is counter-productive.

 

[Nav22]

Another dead horse and sore subject: article says Eli should get more credit for his own feats... Just saying... His d wasn't much better. BTW no not a big fan but don't mind giving respect where it's due.

Hahahahaha. Yeah, the Giants D only held Tom Brady and arguably the best offense ever to 14 points. Eli won it on his own with the 17 points the Giants O scored!

Then the next time they faced the Pats, the Giants D held them to 19 points.

In those playoff runs, the Giants D made upper-echelon QBs like Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Tony Romo and Matt Ryan all look average or worse.

"His D wasn't much better"? Yes, it was. Get a clue.

 

[NeonDeion21]

Hahahahaha. Yeah, the Giants D only held Tom Brady and arguably the best offense ever to 14 points. Eli won it on his own with the 17 points the Giants O scored!

Then the next time they faced the Pats, the Giants D held them to 19 points.

In those playoff runs, the Giants D made upper-echelon QBs like Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Tony Romo and Matt Ryan all look average or worse.

"His D wasn't much better"? Yes, it was. Get a clue.

I believe Eli should get more credit for getting his team into the playoffs. Not for his SB rings. His defenses carried him in the post season, but he has "typically" carried them in the regular season.

 

[percyhoward]

I believe Eli should get more credit for getting his team into the playoffs. Not for his SB rings. His defenses carried him in the post season, but he has "typically" carried them in the regular season.

Even in the regular season, Eli got a lot of help from his RB in the red zone, especially in the 2nd SB year (2011).

Red Zone Passer Rating
Romo 105.9
Eli 75.9

Red Zone Rushing TD
Dallas 4
Giants 18

If those rushing numbers were reversed, the Cowboys would have won the division and the Giants would never have made the playoffs.

 

[TwoDeep3]

No. You're misreading them. These threads are trying to explain why it is we actually lose the games we do lose. They don't justify anything. Losses are still losses and the reasons for the losses are still the reasons for the losses. Blaming the wrong people for the wrong things is counter-productive.

I read English and have seen these threads for a long time now. I can discern what the intent is. The second you hear about Eli, regardless of which post it is, then this is about Romo. You say tomato, I say Army boots. But again with the stats that change nothing.

 

[OhSnap]

You are correct. Both those stats do have higher correlations to winning. I may need to do this article in two parts.

Something else you might consider is working the running game into the mix. The overall touches dropped after 2011 but so did the ypc. Maybe it's a chicken and egg(wich came first) thing but it's easier to throw when they bring that extra guy up to stop the run.

 

[percyhoward]

But again with the stats that change nothing.

Except one's understanding of how different elements of a team performed relative to each other, and to other teams.

 

[Idgit]

I read English and have seen these threads for a long time now. I can discern what the intent is. The second you hear about Eli, regardless of which post it is, then this is about Romo. You say tomato, I say Army boots. But again with the stats that change nothing.

The Eli stuff is unrelated to the point of the thread.

The stats change nothing because that's not the job of stats. What the stats do is explain what happened--in this case, why we lose games to good teams. That doesn't affect any outcomes, but it sure ought to inform what we do going forward.

At least, let's hope it does, because the picture it paints is beyond obvious, and has been for some time.

 

[The Natural]

Where did Green Bays defense rank the year Rodgers lead them to Super Bowl? Just curious

 

[Idgit]

Where did Green Bays defense rank the year Rodgers lead them to Super Bowl? Just curious

Low, with a lot of takeaways, if I remember correctly. But then, Rodgers is a better QB than Tony is, too.

 

[percyhoward]

Where did Green Bays defense rank the year Rodgers lead them to Super Bowl? Just curious

1st in defensive passer rating, 1st in points allowed per drive, 2nd in points allowed, 5th in total yards, and 6th in takeaways.

 

[The Natural]

1st in defensive passer rating, 1st in points allowed per drive, 2nd in points allowed, 5th in total yards, and 6th in takeaways.

I was looking for the same categories in the OP..points per game, yards per game, turnover rank, redzone rank

 

[NeonDeion21]

Where did Green Bays defense rank the year Rodgers lead them to Super Bowl? Just curious

Ask and you shall receive:

 

[percyhoward]

I was looking for the same categories in the OP..points per game, yards per game, turnover rank, redzone rank

The Packers' defense ranked 1st in the two categories that have the highest correlation to wins in the NFL--passer rating and points per drive. If you check back in the thread, you'll see that this was mentioned before you asked your Packers question.

The stats you mention do not correlate as highly.

 

[Rockport]

Most of Romo's gaffe's have been a direct result of poor defensive play and a non-existent running game. If you watch ALL the games, you would know this. It's a team game. Romo is a great QB and the reason the team has won 8 games for the last 3 years despite the aforementioned weaknesses.

 

[Cebrin]

Well there's that, but I think the offense is significantly flawed and not nearly as superior to the defense as a lot of people think.

Its not like this offense has carried this team to a bunch of 41-35 wins or anything like that, and its guilty of completely sputtering nearly as often as the defense.

Hard to build up a reputable offense when you're never on the field long enough to establish a rhythm. I wonder what all of these QB's we've put in comparison to Romo had running game wise? Last year was only the second time we'd scored over 4 TDS in a season since Romo was around. Hard to be a competitive offense in the red zone without the remote threat of a run game.

 

[Cebrin]

Even in the regular season, Eli got a lot of help from his RB in the red zone, especially in the 2nd SB year (2011).

Red Zone Passer Rating
Romo 105.9
Eli 75.9

Red Zone Rushing TD
Dallas 4
Giants 18

If those rushing numbers were reversed, the Cowboys would have won the division and the Giants would never have made the playoffs.

Just got finished mentioning that before I saw your comment.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Except one's understanding of how different elements of a team performed relative to each other, and to other teams.

2deep doesn't pay attention to stats. He instead listens to Chris Berman and Joe Theismann.

 

[Maxmadden]

The Packers' defense ranked 1st in the two categories that have the highest correlation to wins in the NFL--passer rating and points per drive. If you check back in the thread, you'll see that this was mentioned before you asked your Packers question.

The stats you mention do not correlate as highly.

Sorry Percy, for all your much appreciated hard work and insight, you are just not providing the all the right statistics to accommodate everyone's agenda. Same with the OP.

I appreciate your input keep it up. It's always worth the read.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The Eli stuff is unrelated to the point of the thread.

The stats change nothing because that's not the job of stats. What the stats do is explain what happened--in this case, why we lose games to good teams. That doesn't affect any outcomes, but it sure ought to inform what we do going forward.

At least, let's hope it does, because the picture it paints is beyond obvious, and has been for some time.

As I said, you have your opinion and I have mine.