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

[percyhoward]

I know what can be googled but if you're going to quote me include my entire comment so as not to make it appear I'm agreeing with you.

When you say someone "claims" something, you're distancing yourself from what they said, which would never leave the impression that you agreed with it.

 

[peplaw06]

I know exactly what I've said but like the other poster you're just looking to stir things up. If you don't like me or my opinions move on. I see where this is going with some of you and I'm not having any of it.

HAHAHA...

I see where this is going guys... It's going down the road to where I'm either proven to be completely and miserably wrong, or completely full of ****. I'm not having any of that guys!

You going to continue to ignore the facts I posted KJJ? Keep hanging on to those 5 Super Bowls by that very thin thread bro.

 

[KJJ]

When you say someone "claims" something, you're distancing yourself from what they said, which would never leave the impression that you agreed with it.

If you're going to quote me try using my entire comment.

 

[WhizKid]

I know exactly what I've said but like the other poster you're just looking to stir things up. If you don't like me or my opinions move on. I see where this is going with some of you and I'm not having any of it.

I hold nothing ill towards you. I'm not stirring anything up either. Stop being so defensive. At this point you either have the information that forms your opinion or you don't. You could provide it or you can't. I would say at this point you do not have what you say you have and are trolling hard(successfully).

When you say you know what "we're doing" what do you mean?
Also, when you are not having any of it, would you say you are fed up? Generally, how do you respond to this? I personally think your the smartest guy in the forum. Mad intelligent.

 

[KJJ]

I hold nothing ill towards you. I'm not stirring anything up either. Stop being so defensive. At this point you either have the information that forms your opinion or you don't. You could provide it or you can't. I would say at this point you do not have what you say you have and are trolling hard(successfully).

When you say you know what "we're doing" what do you mean?
Also, when you are not having any of it, would you say you are fed up? Generally, how do you respond to this? I personally think your the smartest guy in the forum. Mad intelligent.

Dude a warning by one of the mods was posted in this thread I'm done with you. I'm not about to continue arguing something from 2 weeks ago with a couple of posters who clearly have an agenda.

 

[percyhoward]

If you're going to quote me try using my entire comment.

I'm probably not the first person to leave out whatever is completely unrelated to what they're responding to.

 

[birdwells1]

2:58 left in the game and Romo throws a INT.

In about two minutes, Green Bay marches down and scores...is that Romo or the defense?

1:30 left, Romo is trying to win the game and throws a INT. Did Romo or did the Dallas Cowboys lose that game?

Who threw the int?

 

[birdwells1]

You know after looking at the numbers and listening to both sides I have determined that I was maybe wrong about Romo. Initially I thought that he was a top 8 qb but struggled when it mattered most but after 50+ pages you guys have convinced me that Tony really didn't struggle in those games.

 

[Denim Chicken]

50+ pages!

 

[CCBoy]

One could have picked up on the transient them of poor set of players that are nothing but indicating failure. Lead by the plodding Head Coach...I could have just joined both the Monday Morning Quarterback's Club and Burn Barrel Buddy Group, over three years ago. Go figure.

 

[Hostile]

Dude a warning by one of the mods was posted in this thread I'm done with you. I'm not about to continue arguing something from 2 weeks ago with a couple of posters who clearly have an agenda.

KJJ, I know you and I do not get along. But I am telling you this in the hope that you will stop, weigh it, and think before you do what you usually do. Which is get defensive and avoid anything that anyone asks you.

The guy who told you to prove it and really don't get along. I'd at least shake your hand if we met and try to be friendly. I won't even pretend that I would shake his. So, between you and he, I like you better.

You with me so far?

He absolutely made you look foolish in this thread. Now, do NOT get defensive. Listen. Neither he, nor anyone else, is saying that Turnovers vs. TDs isn't an indicator of better odds of winning. You described that stat as the single, biggest, without flaw, no doubt about it stat to determine when a team is more likely to win than not.

You can't just say something like that and not back it up. I could turn right around and say the team that controls the clock wins more games than that stat, or the team that gets more first downs does. If we take a small sample, which is apparently what you did, it isn't enough evidence to support the theory. Not just your theory. Any theory.

If I take the same games you show, and I prove that the team with more first downs wins one more game than the team that turns it over less, I have disproven your theory. For that small sample.

No one is telling you that turnovers do not lead to losses. They are telling you that your comment it is the MOST significant stat will not hold water. Important, yes. No one disputes that. I hope you can at least grasp that. No one is disputing the importance of turnovers.

Your problem is that you think anything that supports your opinions is a fact, and that isn't the truth when you are using other people's opinions. If you quote the Pittsburgh GM as saying he wouldn't take Romo under any condition, and I quote the Baltimore GM who calls him a top 5 QB in this league, guess what? Neither of us have a fact backing us up, we have the opinions of others backing us up. There is a huge difference and BP tried to get you to see that.

Stop, weigh this, think about it, and try not to take this personal, because it isn't. You simply took a bad stance and avoided the actual discussion, which would have been interesting if you'd put some effort into it.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

You know after looking at the numbers and listening to both sides I have determined that I was maybe wrong about Romo. Initially I thought that he was a top 8 qb but struggled when it mattered most but after 50+ pages you guys have convinced me that Tony really didn't struggle in those games.

Me too. I must have imagined it.I also must have dreamed that I called some of those interceptions before they even happened like in that Green Bay game. lol

I'm sure a year from now this debate will still be going on because it never ends.

 

[CCBoy]

KJJ, I know you and I do not get along. But I am telling you this in the hope that you will stop, weigh it, and think before you do what you usually do. Which is get defensive and avoid anything that anyone asks you.

The guy who told you to prove it and really don't get along. I'd at least shake your hand if we met and try to be friendly. I won't even pretend that I would shake his. So, between you and he, I like you better.

You with me so far?

He absolutely made you look foolish in this thread. Now, do NOT get defensive. Listen. Neither he, nor anyone else, is saying that Turnovers vs. TDs isn't an indicator of better odds of winning. You described that stat as the single, biggest, without flaw, no doubt about it stat to determine when a team is more likely to win than not.

You can't just say something like that and not back it up. I could turn right around and say the team that controls the clock wins more games than that stat, or the team that gets more first downs does. If we take a small sample, which is apparently what you did, it isn't enough evidence to support the theory. Not just your theory. Any theory.

If I take the same games you show, and I prove that the team with more first downs wins one more game than the team that turns it over less, I have disproven your theory. For that small sample.

No one is telling you that turnovers do not lead to losses. They are telling you that your comment it is the MOST significant stat will not hold water. Important, yes. No one disputes that. I hope you can at least grasp that. No one is disputing the importance of turnovers.

Your problem is that you think anything that supports your opinions is a fact, and that isn't the truth when you are using other people's opinions. If you quote the Pittsburgh GM as saying he wouldn't take Romo under any condition, and I quote the Baltimore GM who calls him a top 5 QB in this league, guess what? Neither of us have a fact backing us up, we have the opinions of others backing us up. There is a huge difference and BP tried to get you to see that.

Stop, weigh this, think about it, and try not to take this personal, because it isn't. You simply took a bad stance and avoided the actual discussion, which would have been interesting if you'd put some effort into it.

Well put editorial...rather enjoyed direction.

 

[jnday]

In your dreams. LOL There's exceptions to every rule just like with the passer rating stat that percy claims correlates to winning more than any other stat. There's many games from last season including games with the Cowboys where the losing QB had a higher passer rating than the winning QB.

Don't worry about it KJJ. There is not the tirst one of them that believes their crap enough to back with their money. Talk us cheap.

 

[birdwells1]

KJJ, I know you and I do not get along. But I am telling you this in the hope that you will stop, weigh it, and think before you do what you usually do. Which is get defensive and avoid anything that anyone asks you.

The guy who told you to prove it and really don't get along. I'd at least shake your hand if we met and try to be friendly. I won't even pretend that I would shake his. So, between you and he, I like you better.

You with me so far?

He absolutely made you look foolish in this thread. Now, do NOT get defensive. Listen. Neither he, nor anyone else, is saying that Turnovers vs. TDs isn't an indicator of better odds of winning. You described that stat as the single, biggest, without flaw, no doubt about it stat to determine when a team is more likely to win than not.

You can't just say something like that and not back it up. I could turn right around and say the team that controls the clock wins more games than that stat, or the team that gets more first downs does. If we take a small sample, which is apparently what you did, it isn't enough evidence to support the theory. Not just your theory. Any theory.

If I take the same games you show, and I prove that the team with more first downs wins one more game than the team that turns it over less, I have disproven your theory. For that small sample.

No one is telling you that turnovers do not lead to losses. They are telling you that your comment it is the MOST significant stat will not hold water. Important, yes. No one disputes that. I hope you can at least grasp that. No one is disputing the importance of turnovers.

Your problem is that you think anything that supports your opinions is a fact, and that isn't the truth when you are using other people's opinions. If you quote the Pittsburgh GM as saying he wouldn't take Romo under any condition, and I quote the Baltimore GM who calls him a top 5 QB in this league, guess what? Neither of us have a fact backing us up, we have the opinions of others backing us up. There is a huge difference and BP tried to get you to see that.

Stop, weigh this, think about it, and try not to take this personal, because it isn't. You simply took a bad stance and avoided the actual discussion, which would have been interesting if you'd put some effort into it.

Man someone has hacked Hostile's account, where's the vitriol? Lol

 

[ufcrules1]

Me too. I must have imagined it.I also must have dreamed that I called some of those interceptions before they even happened like in that Green Bay game. lol

I'm sure a year from now this debate will still be going on because it never ends.

I hate to tell you this but I saw the INT's coming in the GB,Den,Was, and many other games. But maybe they didn't really happen? After the 50 pages of reading I too am coming to my senses and wondering if was seeing things?

 

[DallasEast]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

Fallacies

A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning... Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people. The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve explanations, or definitions, or other products of reasoning. Sometimes the term “fallacy” is used even more broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief...

An informal fallacy is fallacious because of both its form and its content. The formal fallacies are fallacious only because of their logical form. For example, the slippery slope fallacy has this form: Step 1 “leads to” step 2. Step 2 leads to step 3. Step 3 leads to … until we reach an obviously unacceptable step, so step 1 is not acceptable. That form occurs in both good arguments and fallacious arguments. The quality of an argument of this form depends crucially on the probabilities that each step does lead to the next, but the probabilities involve the argument’s content, not merely its form.

International Encyclopedia of Philosophy
A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource

 

[CCBoy]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
Fallacies

A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning... Fallacies should not be persuasive, but they often are. Fallacies may be created unintentionally, or they may be created intentionally in order to deceive other people. The vast majority of the commonly identified fallacies involve arguments, although some involve explanations, or definitions, or other products of reasoning. Sometimes the term “fallacy” is used even more broadly to indicate any false belief or cause of a false belief...

An informal fallacy is fallacious because of both its form and its content. The formal fallacies are fallacious only because of their logical form. For example, the slippery slope fallacy has this form: Step 1 “leads to” step 2. Step 2 leads to step 3. Step 3 leads to … until we reach an obviously unacceptable step, so step 1 is not acceptable. That form occurs in both good arguments and fallacious arguments. The quality of an argument of this form depends crucially on the probabilities that each step does lead to the next, but the probabilities involve the argument’s content, not merely its form.

International Encyclopedia of Philosophy
A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource

A short foreign area Russian secret agency was close to being down graded both in function and in prestige. Then using insurgency, murder, and a large amount of arms, set the new Russian foreign policy in Ukraine.

Now the US must deal with that, on top of an surgent presence with money of it's own, and weapons for it's own use. Isis creates more venue for that same Soviet arm of it's Secret Service. They can now deny any all involvement in a new arena for their own wars...and with an International protection as well.

This returns to a Foreign policy that can now be seen in a role of fallacy due to the intensity of current conflicts.

But the Cowboys are entering into camp, with realistic remedies for a variety of changed outlooks. There isn't a fallacy in that...but a degree of success that will start to reveal itself in about two weeks. And what we all await.

 

[Tawney88]

Well this is all very interesting. So what's going on here?

 

[Idgit]

I hate to tell you this but I saw the INT's coming in the GB,Den,Was, and many other games. But maybe they didn't really happen? After the 50 pages of reading I too am coming to my senses and wondering if was seeing things?

I think the thing probably is that most of us suspect you saw interceptions coming no matter what the actual outcome of any particular game. That's the downside for you for being so publicly wrong about Tony Romo in so many threads.