Recommended Loss Forensics: Romo vs. the League's Top QB

[KJJ]

You mean his team's record...right?

I know you are brighter than that simple logic

It's his record as the starting QB and it's also the teams record. QB's and head coaches have W/L records it's always been that way. It's not something designed just for Romo to make him look bad.

 

[DFWJC]

That D got torched in some games during the regular season including by the Cowboys twice. Romo tossed 8 TD's vs the Giants in those 2 regular season games. Even the Pats put up almost 40 points on them in the season finale but the Giants stepped up in the playoffs. The 13 pro bowler thing is only a joke to Cowboy FANS because the team ended up one and done in the playoffs. Some try to spin that wasn't even a good Cowboys team.

That was not the same D in the playoffs and you know it.
Why are you pretending not to know this?

 

[Picksix]

That was not the same D in the playoffs and you know it.
Why are you pretending not to know this?

People just see what they want to see. If you played a certain way during part of the season, it must hold true for the rest of the season, and the post season. That D the Giants played in the playoffs that year not only got to Romo, they also made Garcia, Favre, and Brady look average. I keep hearing about how Eli led the Giants to the SB win in 2011-12, despite not having a running game. Sure, during the regular season, NY had arguably the worst running game in the league. During the post season, they averaged 140+ yd/game on the ground, which would have been at the top of the league. Things change.

 

[KJJ]

That was not the same D in the playoffs and you know it.
Why are you pretending not to know this?

Are you pretending not to read? I said the Giants stepped up in the playoffs it's obvious it wasn't the same D.

 

[DanteEXT]

I don't include every play because I'm not looking for an assortment of stats/passer ratings that will rank him amongst SB winning QB's.

What you are saying is you're looking only for "an assortment of stats/passer ratings" that fit your narrative you want to push? Got it.

 

[Aurican]

You mean it's not perfect.

Obviously, it is reality because it's what really happened, as opposed to someone's opinion based on what they remember of what they think they saw. Try removing your fuel guage and operating based on how far you think you've driven and when you last remember filling the tank.

Sorry but the reality is your numbers are just as faulty as someone's opinion. I would say your stats are like a faulty fuel gauge that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't and you never know which is the case.

 

[percyhoward]

I don't include every play because I'm not looking for an assortment of stats/passer ratings that will rank him amongst SB winning QB's.

And if that's the result you find, just start throwing out parts until you get results you like. What kind of analysis is that?

 

[percyhoward]

Sorry but the reality is your numbers are just as faulty as someone's opinion.

My numbers specifically, or the entire science?

 

[DallasEast]

Hey I'm not the one that brought up 4th quarter comebacks as this impressive stat to support Romo...

However, you are "the one" attempting to deflate a stat which... isn't even questionable. The stat reflects games in the fourth quarter which Romo was the winning quarterback after the team was trailing the opposing team. That is all it depicts. Someone mentioning the stat is not implying anything but that fact.

...but logic would dictate that the level of competition would be relevant right?

Logic? What logic? It is a stat which counts number of wins. What are you trying to read into it? Tony Romo was the quarterback on the team which came from behind to win the game. It is an impressive stat. It is a stat which is assigned to ONE player but it is also a team stat. Football is not 1 versus 11. Again, Romo was the quarterback on the team which won x-number of games after trailing in the fourth quarter. And yes, there is zero need to inform those mentioning the stat of its obvious meaning. They do not make the stat into something it is not. On the other hand, you are attempting to re-create the meaning of a straight forward statistic. "Level of competition?" That has never been associated with the stat. It is a straight summation of wins for that circumstance. Never as in never.

Regarding the other QB's you listed I have no idea how many were against winning teams I'm guessing it's not listed to make it seem more impressive, if they were all against winning teams you bet it would be listed as well.

No one cares except you. You do know that, yes?

The
people
who
are
responsible
for
tallying
the
statistic
do
not
care
about
number
of
wins
versus
+.500
teams.

Unconsciousness and death are the only states of mind simpler than that straightforward truth.

I know a couple seasons ago Dallas could barely score during the first half of games so it's not surprising Romo's comebacks are high but wouldn't it also make sense he shares part of the blame for not scoring at all during the first half?

Let me get this straight...

It is logical to you that total amount of first half scoring per game definitively determines both fourth quarter scoring and outcome.

Is that correct?

Oy.

 

[KJJ]

And if that's the result you find, just start throwing out parts until you get results you like. What kind of analysis is that?

When you add a bunch of parts that just padded his stats you come up with stats/passer ratings that have Romo listed amongst HOF QB's.

 

[KJJ]

What you are saying is you're looking only for "an assortment of stats/passer ratings" that fit your narrative you want to push? Got it.

Percy looks for an assortment of stats/passer ratings that fits the narrative he wants to push. Every thread he starts on Romo has an assortment of stats/passer ratings that have him ranked with HOF/SB QB's.

 

[DFWJC]

Sorry but the reality is your numbers are just as faulty as someone's opinion. I would say your stats are like a faulty fuel gauge that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't and you never know which is the case.

So real data is not real, but individual perception is.
Got it

So 200 people measure 200 different football fields and the average is 100 yards with a range of, say, 99.89 to 100.03.
But you say the field is 75 yards long because that's your opinion?
And that is equally right?
Alrighty

 

[KJJ]

Yes, it's an elimination game for the Cowboys.

No, it wasn't an elimination game for the Cowboys. Philly had yet to play they played later on Sunday Night so the Cowboys fate would have been in the hands of Philly had the Cowboys lost.

 

[Aurican]

However, you are "the one" attempting to deflate a stat which... isn't even questionable. The stat reflects games in the fourth quarter which Romo was the winning quarterback after the team was trailing the opposing team. That is all it depicts. Someone mentioning the stat is not implying anything but that fact.
Logic? What logic? It is a stat which counts number of wins. What are you trying to read into it? Tony Romo was the quarterback on the team which came from behind to win the game. It is an impressive stat. It is a stat which is assigned to ONE player but it is also a team stat. Football is not 1 versus 11. Again, Romo was the quarterback on the team which won x-number of games after trailing in the fourth quarter. And yes, there is zero need to inform those mentioning the stat of its obvious meaning. They do not make the stat into something it is not. On the other hand, you are attempting to re-create the meaning of a straight forward statistic. "Level of competition?" That has never been associated with the stat. It is a straight summation of wins for that circumstance. Never as in never.
No one cares except you. You do not that, yes?

The
people
who
are
responsible
for
tallying
the
statistic
do
not
care
about
number
of
wins
versus
+.500
teams.

Unconsciousness and death are the only states of mind simpler than that straightforward truth.
Let me get this straight...

It is logical to you that total amount of first half scoring per game definitively determines both fourth quarter scoring and outcome.

Is that correct?

Oy.

Sorry but if you can't figure out the context the stat was used and that the level of competition is relevant to the stat I'm not going to bother playing games with you.

 

[xwalker]

No, it wasn't an elimination game for the Cowboys. Philly had yet to play they played later on Sunday Night so the Cowboys fate would have been in the hands of Philly had the Cowboys lost.

I said that I'm not referring to a specific game.

 

[DanteEXT]

Percy looks for an assortment of stats/passer ratings that fits the narrative he wants to push. Every thread he starts on Romo has an assortment of stats/passer ratings that have him ranked with HOF/SB QB's.

That's probably because when you take everything, good and bad, he does rank passing stats wise up there with HOF/SB QB's. Is he a HOF QB? No, not yet. Can he be after his career is over? Anything is possible I guess, just have to wait and see how it goes.

 

[DallasEast]

Sorry but if you can't figure out the context the stat was used and that the level of competition is relevant to the stat I'm not going to bother playing games with you.

Context. lol.

 

[Aurican]

My numbers specifically, or the entire science?

No not the entire science, stats give an idea but they are not equal some are more accurate than others, sample size and amount of information and background available make it more accurate

 

[adbutcher]

Awesome thread!

 

[KJJ]

I said that I'm not referring to a specific game.

I was discussing the Washington game last season in week 16 when you responded. Sure sounded like you were referring to that game.