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

[BlindFaith]

Again your flawed logic is ignoring all other factors in w/l other then the QB. The reason I give more influence to total stats rather then w/l in a microcosm of game is that the stats are the most logical way to compare individual positions. I really don't know how you don't see this. It's not bias, it is really common sense.

I guess it depends on if the stats fit your agenda. Romo supporters poo poo ESPNs QBR rating as it doesn't shine the sort of light on Romo as does the standard QB rating. But in my opinion, it does reflect more accurately how he should be rated.

 

[KJJ]

Again your flawed logic is ignoring all other factors in w/l other then the QB. The reason I give more influence to total stats rather then w/l in a microcosm of game is that the stats are the most logical way to compare individual positions. I really don't know how you don't see this. It's not bias, it is really common sense.

It's only flawed logic in your mind because you're a biased FAN. Anyone who's played the game, coached the game or has been a GM in the league will tell you it's about winning. Winning is how QB's and HC's are judged especially in the big games. You put more weight on total stats rather than the W/L record that says everything I need to know about you.

 

[DanteEXT]

The stigma is accurate it took a few years to create it and a few more to reinforce it. Only on a Cowboys FAN board does the stigma not exist. One ill-timed turnover isn't going to create a stigma or affect a passer rating stat that much. If a QB completes 6 straight passes and throws a pick on his 7th attempt he still ends with a high passer rating. I doubt Romo's int vs Denver affected his passer rating all that much in the final 5 minutes. Romo's 95.8 career passer rating ranks 5th all-time despite all the regular season turnovers he's committed that's helped cost the Cowboys games. Passer rating stats can hide mistakes they don't tell the whole story.

The only way for failures during the last 5 minutes of close games to not affect his overall career numbers in that scenario would be if those failures are heavily outnumbered by late game successes.

 

[KJJ]

The only way for failures during the last 5 minutes of close games to not affect his overall career numbers in that scenario would be if those failures are heavily outnumbered by late game successes.

All it takes is one play to fail that happened vs Denver last season. Romo made one bad throw all day and it came in the final 5 minutes. Romo ended that game with a 140.0 passer rating…who cares! In Romo's 6 elimination game losses he's thrown picks in the final 5 minutes twice when the Cowboys were only one score down.

 

[peplaw06]

We had this same exact discussion a few weeks ago with you wanting me to post a bunch of games to prove my point which I did. Once I posted a number of games you scoffed and wanted to continue to argue. I'm not about to go through this again with you.

We had this discussion and you dodged the issue. You cited your 10-15 games... the last few Super Bowls and Romo's elimination games. I cited half of the games in the 2013 playoffs that indicated that your "high correlation" theory was BS. You then ran away.

If you're going to continue to try to put forth this assertion based on your limited data as though it's some kind of generally accepted theory, then I'm going to continue to point out that you haven't done the work necessary to prove that your theory is correct.

 

[jnday]

Praise or just as "bullheaded"? You're not " smart"when you make up stats to use against a player, you've got an agenda.

Period.

I don't think I have listed a stat in this thread. My point being is that I shouldn't got involved in debating posters that could never change their mind. So you struck out with your stats accusation.

 

[Denim Chicken]

It's only flawed logic in your mind because you're a biased FAN. Anyone who's played the game, coached the game or has been a GM in the league will tell you it's about winning. Winning is how QB's and HC's are judged especially in the big games. You put more weight on total stats rather than the W/L record that says everything I need to know about you.

OK, I get it.

So I guess Tim Howard is not good b/c the US couldn't win in the knockout round and he let Belgium score the winning goal. Not Clutch. Cant win in high pressure elimination game.

 

[peplaw06]

If Percy's stats carried any weight Romo wouldn't carry the stigma he does. He posts stats that rank Romo amongst HOF QB's. One of the passer rating stats Percy posted a couple of weeks ago had Romo ranked #2 behind Aaron Rodgers as the best QB in the last 5 minutes of games. This was according to the "stat." The stat is a joke because Romo is known for turning ball over in the last 5 minutes of games which shows how misleading that stat is. I've done the correlation on the TD to turnover ratio but you just want to waste my time.

It's not known... it's a common assumption based on a small sample size, and it's incorrect. You've listened to too many media outlets that have said this and have adopted as your own incorrect assumption. You don't have the facts to back you up, and you can't come up with them.

The stigma and what you think you know aren't based in fact.

 

[jnday]

Yes, sometimes I make the mistake of hitting show ignored content.

If you make up a stat to apply to a player that's agenda driven and useless cause you ignore every other universally accepted and applies stat so your made up one "works".

Its bull****.

I have never understood why a poster has to resort to ignoring other opinions. That is the definition if being close minded and I tolerate of opposing views:

 

[jnday]

All it takes is one play to fail that happened vs Denver last season. Romo made one bad throw all day and it came in the final 5 minutes. Romo ended that game with a 140.0 passer rating…who cares! In Romo's 6 elimination game losses he's thrown picks in the final 5 minutes twice when the Cowboys were only one score down.

That tidbit of info is interesting. It says alot for the open minded.

 

[KJJ]

We had this discussion and you dodged the issue. You cited your 10-15 games... the last few Super Bowls and Romo's elimination games. I cited half of the games in the 2013 playoffs that indicated that your "high correlation" theory was BS. You then ran away.

If you're going to continue to try to put forth this assertion based on your limited data as though it's some kind of generally accepted theory, then I'm going to continue to point out that you haven't done the work necessary to prove that your theory is correct.

I never dodged the issue I posted a large number of SB/playoff games that proved my point but that wasn't enough for you. You didn't come close to proving my theory wrong. I've done plenty of work while you sit and do nothing. Like I said there's exceptions to every rule just like with the passer rating stat that Percy claims has the highest correlation to winning. Romo's had a number of games over his career where the Cowboys lost despite Romo having a higher passer rating than the opposing QB.

 

[Moderately_Askew]

That tidbit of info is interesting. It says alot for the open minded.

I don't believe you know what open minded means. Honestly, in this thread you and a couple other posters have shown the exact opposite of open mindedness.

 

[Picksix]

I guess it depends on if the stats fit your agenda. Romo supporters poo poo ESPNs QBR rating as it doesn't shine the sort of light on Romo as does the standard QB rating. But in my opinion, it does reflect more accurately how he should be rated.

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/74796/the-two-faces-of-tony-romo

According to this post (which came following the Denver game last year), he has the 3rd highest 4th quarter QBR in the NFL since 2006. Only Peyton and Rodgers are better. It does drop to 44 in the last 3 minutes of games since 2010. But that's regardless of score, and going from just the 3-minute mark is a really specific parameter. What about other time frames?

 

[KJJ]

It's not known... it's a common assumption based on a small sample size, and it's incorrect. You've listened to too many media outlets that have said this and have adopted as your own incorrect assumption. You don't have the facts to back you up, and you can't come up with them.

The stigma and what you think you know aren't based in fact.

You're just another FAN who thinks they know more than those who played the game, coached the game and were GM's in the league. I give my own opinions it's not my fault if the media agrees with them. They get paid to talk football and give unbiased opinions.

 

[KJJ]

That tidbit of info is interesting. It says alot for the open minded.

It's an interesting tidbit of info that surely won't go over well because there's not a lot of open- mindedness here.

 

[Moderately_Askew]

You're just another FAN who thinks they know more than those who played the game, coached the game and were GM's in the league. I give my own opinions it's not my fault if the media agrees with them. They get paid to talk football and give unbiased opinions.

Why do you keep capitalizing "FAN" like it's a bad thing? I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion in the media anymore. The media says things to get clicks, views, and to drum up controversy. If the truth is a victim then so be it for the all mighty like on Facebook.

 

[percyhoward]

Great post I appreciate the work you put into it and it does help paint a clearer picture. I do still think that looking at it game by game would be a better approach because by pooling a bunch of stats can create noise. A good example would be the game against the loss against the Chiefs which was lost 16-17. Would you say it's fair to blame the defense for the loss even though they only gave up 17 points? Isn't more expected of the offense? Granted that was only one game and I haven't looked into all the specifics but the more context you have for the stats the better.

I'm glad you responded to my question instead of pretending not to take it seriously. The KC loss was as much Romo's as anybody's, but over the last few years, that statement has obviously been the exception--not the rule.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Why do you keep capitalizing "FAN" like it's a bad thing? I hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as an unbiased opinion in the media anymore. The media says things to get clicks, views, and to drum up controversy. If the truth is a victim then so be it for the all mighty tweet.

The funny thing...he is a FAN as well or he would not be spending countless hours of his life arguing with people he will never meet on some random sports forum...unless he is not a FAN at all and is just some troll from another team.

Odd.

 

[DanteEXT]

Interesting take on Romo and the 2012 season. Points out what you are alluding to here. Stats don't tell the whole story. That's why there is debate on how good Romo is. Some just go by the numbers, which he's capable of putting up fine numbers. Some look at each game and see that something is amiss.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/10/09/romo-has-great-4th-qtr-stats-doesnt-make-him-clutch/

I think Romo is a good QB, not elite. Certainly not HOF bound.

Romo has made mistakes, never say he hasn't. And at this time, not HOF bound. But tell me this article you linked was a joke?

 

[BlindFaith]

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/74796/the-two-faces-of-tony-romo

According to this post (which came following the Denver game last year), he has the 3rd highest 4th quarter QBR in the NFL since 2006. Only Peyton and Rodgers are better. It does drop to 44 in the last 3 minutes of games since 2010. But that's regardless of score, and going from just the 3-minute mark is a really specific parameter. What about other time frames?

I was not referring to strictly the first 12 minutes of the 4th quarter. I was talking about the whole season and all the minutes.