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

[DFWJC]

This is the system that had Manning ranked 5th after a 462-yard, 7 TD game in week 1.

No doubt, ESPNs QBR can be really silly at times.

 

[KJJ]

First, you didn't post a large number of games. It was less than 20 games and focused on Super Bowls and Cowboys games. That's not a large number. Certainly not enough to develop your theory. I looked at the most recent 11 playoff games, and your theory didn't hold water there. I did more work than you have done on this and it's your theory.

And the whole point of correlating a stat to winning percentage is so that you can see how often there are "exceptions." No one's asking you to prove that TD to turnover ratio is going to win 100% of games without exception. You clearly stated though that TD to turnover ratio has a higher correlation to winning percentage than any other stat. You have done NOTHING to prove that statement. Literally nothing.

In order to prove that you would have to not only show TD to turnover's correlation to winning percentage (which you haven't done), but you'd also have to compare it to other stats correlation to winning percentage. You haven't even gotten within sight of the ballpark you would need to get to prove that statement.

I posted a NUMBER of playoff/SB games that proved my point. You want me to waste my time posting a hundred examples so you can just reply back and scoff. I went through this same exact crap with you a few weeks ago. You're a waste of time.

 

[DFWJC]

Percy - what about a potential metric that ranks a QB based on their team's defensive efficiency.

Essentially showing what QBs have it easier than others.

If a QB knows he has a defense giving up 13 points a game (like Seattle), he can take more risks, take chances deep, and operate knowing that he will be bailed out.

Romo knows that he almost has to play a perfect game, no turnovers, no short-fields for the opposing offense - because I don't think our defense could've stopped Florida State the way they were playing last year.

Wait till he shows you that stuff.

He favors Romo even more. In fact, when defense handicapping is factored it's pretty mind-boggling how much of a disadvantage he has had, while still producing at a high level.

 

[Apollo Creed]

I posted a NUMBER of playoff/SB games that should have been enough to prove my point. You want me to waste my time posting a hundred examples so you can just reply back and scoff. I went through this same exact crap with you a few weeks ago. You're a waste of time.

You lean on elimination games, even though Dallas' defense averaged giving up 30 points in each of those games.

 

[Moderately_Askew]

I posted a NUMBER of playoff/SB games that proved my point. You want me to waste my time posting a hundred examples so you can just reply back and scoff. I went through this same exact crap with you a few weeks ago. You're a waste of time.

When collecting data you need a large sample size to gain a clear and accurate understanding. 15 games is such a miniscule sample size it is completely useless to gain anything of note out of it unless you picked specific games to promote an agenda.

 

[jnday]

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.

I was open minded enough to change my opinion of Romo when I say the meltdowns. You see the meltdowns and it doesn't change yours at all. Now, who is close minded without the ability to change their opinion? Romo-lovers are not ever going to admit that they were wrong. If you are old enough to have watched Roger and Troy play, you would know the difference between clutch QBs and Romo.

 

[peplaw06]

Then start naming them and let's see what opinions I have they disagree with. Let's see some proof. Everyone has some biases even those who get paid to talk football and sometimes their bias gets the better of them but they usually admit it. Most give honest, unbiased opinions so they end up being right. They all have egos and know that millions of fans hear what they have to say each day. None of them want to come off looking like idiots.

I'll prove my assertion as soon as you prove yours. That's how this works right?

I mean you haven't even cited the GMs who agree with you.

 

[Apollo Creed]

I was open minded enough to change my opinion of Romo when I say the meltdowns. You see the meltdowns and it doesn't change yours at all. Now, who is close minded without the ability to change their opinion? Romo-lovers are not ever going to admit that they were wrong. If you are old enough to have watched Roger and Troy play, you would know the difference between clutch QBs and Romo.

Roger and Troy had countless hall of famers on both sides of the ball. Tony didn't have/doesn't have that luxury.

It's easy to be clutch handing the ball to the greatest RB of all time, throwing to a future HOF, protected by hall of fame linemen and a defense littered with hall of fame guys.

Romo had Ware and Witten. And maybe Owens. Outside of that, he's had a below average supporting cast the majority of his career.

 

[KJJ]

You lean on elimination games, even though Dallas' defense averaged giving up 30 points in each of those games.

The defense played awful in some of those games but Romo's 12 elimination game turnovers didn't help the defense. Those turnovers put the D back on the field when they could have been resting and some of those turnovers forced our D to have to defend a short field. Romo's turnovers "contributed" to the D's poor play.

 

[jnday]

Because some are a broken record and all they do is ***** n whine about the same thing over and over and over.

It takes a weak mind not to want to hear opposing opinions, and the Romo lovers call me closed minded lol. Romo is great or they can't stand to hear why he's not. That is very telling. No poster has the ability to make me use the ignore feature at any time or on any subject.

 

[jnday]

Roger and Troy had countless hall of famers on both sides of the ball. Tony didn't have/doesn't have that luxury.

It's easy to be clutch handing the ball to the greatest RB of all time, throwing to a future HOF, protected by hall of fame linemen and a defense littered with hall of fame guys.

Romo had Ware and Witten. And maybe Owens. Outside of that, he's had a below average supporting cast the majority of his career.

There is more excuses.

 

[peplaw06]

I posted a NUMBER of playoff/SB games that proved my point.

Ha. You posted a number of games did you... what number? 10? 15? 20? You think 10-20 games are enough to prove a theory when there are thousands of games to look at? That's what less than .001 % of the sample you're looking at. You can't glean anything from that small a sample size.

You want me to waste my time posting a hundred examples so you can just reply back and scoff. I went through this same exact crap with you a few weeks ago. You're a waste of time.

I don't want you to post the examples. I want you to prove your theory that TD to turnover ratio has a higher correlation to winning percentage than any other stat.

I happen to think it's a waste of your time, because I think you're wrong. But if you want people to find you credible, you better get to wasting it.

 

[KJJ]

I'll prove my assertion as soon as you prove yours. That's how this works right?

I mean you haven't even cited the GMs who agree with you.

My assertion was proven a few weeks ago when we had this same exact discussion. You never proved anything other than you like to argue for the sake of arguing. What GM's who agree with me? What are you talking about Eli and Roethlisberger being better than Romo? Most everyone has both QB's ranked ahead of Romo. Go do some work and look up some rankings.

 

[5Stars]

Most GM's would put Roethlisberger and Eli ahead of Romo based off their playoff success and SB wins. Practically every QB ranking out there has Eli and Roethlisberger ranked ahead of Romo who's starting to fall out of the top 10 in most rankings. Eli has beaten Romo in the most pivotal games a playoff game and a season finale elimination game. Even Roethlisberger outplayed Romo in a big head to head matchup in Dec of 08. While Roethlisberger was bringing the Steelers from behind vs the Cowboys Romo was imploding turning the ball over 3 times including a pick-six in the final minutes. Roethlisberger went on to lead the Steelers to a SB win that year while Romo continued to meltdown helping to keep the Cowboys home for the playoffs. On NFLN a few weeks ago they discussed which current QB's other than Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees and Rodgers had a shot at the HOF. The QB's they listed were Eli, Roethlisberger and Rivers. No mention of Romo. They all thought Eli and Roethlisberger had a shot but not so much with Rivers.

I pick and choose the games that are labeled do or die to judge QB's. Those are the games most knowledgeable fans judge QB's by and if some of you can't accept that due to Romo's failures in those games that's your problem. This is a FAN board and any objective fan is going to be outnumbered by a large group of biased FANS that flood these forums. I can assure you if you check the posting histories of all the FANS who disagree with me and a few others you'll find they're dead wrong about the Cowboys and Romo every year. If some of you could stop being a FAN for a minute you might start seeing things the way they really are. Most of you put more weight into regular season stats/passer ratings than you do playoff wins and championships because that's all you have with Romo.

"I pick and choose...."

Yeah, it's always like that I, I, I...me, me, me...lmao

 

[KJJ]

Ha. You posted a number of games did you... what number? 10? 15? 20? You think 10-20 games are enough to prove a theory when there are thousands of games to look at?

I don't want you to post the examples. I want you to prove your theory that TD to turnover ratio has a higher correlation to winning percentage than any other stat.

I happen to think it's a waste of your time, because I think you're wrong. But if you want people to find you credible, you better get to wasting it.

Same crap you started a few weeks ago. Move on!

 

[percyhoward]

The stats you posted on this thread were done to make Romo look good which is typical of you. It'a no big deal, it's good info and appreciated, but let's not pretend they aren't posted to make Romo look good
.

I could have easily left out turnover percentage if that were the case. And there's no way counting fumbles as INT could make Romo look good. I don't believe you read the OP, or you would've seen those things.

 

[KJJ]

You lean on elimination games.

Those are the games that have mattered most.

 

[gimmesix]

Roger and Troy had countless hall of famers on both sides of the ball. Tony didn't have/doesn't have that luxury.

It's easy to be clutch handing the ball to the greatest RB of all time, throwing to a future HOF, protected by hall of fame linemen and a defense littered with hall of fame guys.

Romo had Ware and Witten. And maybe Owens. Outside of that, he's had a below average supporting cast the majority of his career.

In other words, Staubach had Doomsday and Dorsett. Aikman had one of the NFL's top defenses and Emmitt. Romo has had one of the league's worst defenses (almost every year) and an ineffective running game.

Why people can't see what a difference that makes I'll never know.

 

[iceberg]

It takes a weak mind not to want to hear opposing opinions, and the Romo lovers call me closed minded lol. Romo is great or they can't stand to hear why he's not. That is very telling. No poster has the ability to make me use the ignore feature at any time or on any subject.

That's fine. You and I disagree quite a bit and I do welcome that more than you may realize. Its not opposing views I ignore, its people who invade every thread to say "Jones sucks!!!" All the time.

Its the ones who pass themselves as realists just so they can hate xyz player and rant that in every thread.

I just got tired of wading through it so I used available options to help restore my own sanity in here. If you want to think I'm closed minded feel free. I certainly don't see it that way but hey, we disagree again and I'm OK with that.

 

[peplaw06]

My assertion was proven a few weeks ago when we had this same exact discussion.

No it wasn't.

You never proved anything other than you like to argue for the sake of arguing.

I proved that by an admittedly small sample size that your theory meant about as much to winning as a coin flip. Right here. You said the same old, "exceptions to every rule." That's the whole point... Is there a rule, or not, and how often does it correlate to winning. But first, you have to prove the rule.

What GM's who agree with me? What are you talking about Eli and Roethlisberger being better than Romo? Most everyone has both QB's ranked ahead of Romo. Go do some work and look up some rankings.

No no no... you have to prove your assertions, not me. You show the GMs who rank them higher.