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

[Jstopper]

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?

If we were to breakdown exactly how ever single game that Romo played in, and take how often you called an interception in a scenario compared with how many times he actually did throw the interception I bet money that you would be wrong more than right. Seeing as how he has 20 game winning drives I am beyond certain you probably were wrong all 20 of those times and assumed he would throw a pick. Obviously in those scenarios he did not. However when you go back in hindsight to a game he did throw a pick and say that you called it, you make yourself look foolish. I.e. if i call an interception in 25 diferent scenarios and Im incorrect 20 times but correct 5 times wouldn't it be foolish of me to proclaim that I saw those 5 picks coming, while ignoring the 20 times that i was incorrect about the pick?

 

[Hostile]

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

How about the line where I say I wouldn't shake the other guy's hand if it was offered?

~grin~

 

[Aurican]

I don't think his data conflicts with the fact that it's a team game and a lot goes into winning and losing. I think his data reflects that by showing that the team should be winning, like other teams are, with the stats that Romo is putting up. The fact that the team isn't means that we should pay closer attention to why it's happening instead of just blaming Romo.

That's not saying he isn't sometimes part of the problem, but most of the time there have been so many other variables that obscured Romo's play that would have been good enough to win with a better defense, better running game and certainly better play-calling at times. Things that teams that usually go far in the playoffs and win Super Bowls get on a regular basis in games where their quarterbacks perform well and sometimes in games where they don't.

Fair enough I will not argue with your perspective on it but I still will not place much value on pooled stats with a high amount of unknowns which place equal value on a variety of situations.

 

[percyhoward]

You guys have convinced me that Tony really didn't struggle in those games.

I must have imagined it.

I saw the INT's coming in the GB,Den,Was, and many other games. But maybe they didn't really happen?

You're all overstating the other side's argument. "Romo is one of the best late in close losses" morphs into "Romo never makes mistakes late in close losses," and then you all converge for the easy attack. You're doing it out of frustration. So many straw men have been torn apart in this thread it's becoming a fire hazard.

 

[jnday]

If anything, this has been a intervention by the Romo lovers where they are trying to convince KJJ that his eyes didn't see the choke jobs, and if he did see it, it was the fault of the defense.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

If anything, this has been a intervention by the Romo lovers where they are trying to convince KJJ that his eyes didn't see the choke jobs, and if he did see it, it was the fault of the defense.

Are you bored and trolling to try to keep this thread going now?

About the only rational explanation for what you posted.

 

[jnday]

Are you bored and trolling to try to keep this thread going now?

About the only rational explanation for what you posted.

No, 30 pages was my goal. The other 30 pages have consisted of KJJ getting blasted by everybody that disagreed with him. You must have a different definition of trolling than I do.

 

[DallasEast]

It's kind of funny.

Early in his career, Tony Romo's critics labeled his miscues as the primary reason for Dallas losses. At one point, some of his critics evaluated the overall per game performance of all players involved. Commentary, especially that presented by sports media, converted the premise that Romo was the problem in most or all Dallas losses to the premise that Romo may be a problem in certain Dallas losses. In my opinion, that era was spearheaded by the evaluation and insight of media commentators such as Trent Dilfer.

Of course, that era was short-lived. Shortly thereafter, the era ended by implication. "Romo is the problem" and "Romo is a problem" premises morphed into an all-encompassing "Romo is not the problem for Dallas losses, but he is a problem so significant that he is the only necessary talking point of contention." The implication is clear and unquestionably a logical fallacy.

The humor lies in the continued dismissal of both Romo being a quality quarterback and the premise of football being a team sport--where the latter's miscues made by his teammates are summarily dismissed from conversation. It is not unlike witnessing a football game, where 11 players take the field for the opposing defense and Romo stands alone on the other side of the line of scrimmage. Even his receiver is subtracted from the field since delayed route running, incorrect route running, dropped receptions, misdirection of the ball during receiving attempts, etc., are not the receiver's fault. No. Blame is contributed by implication to Romo alone. Wide receiver does not maintain his position (e.g. outmuscle the defensive back) on a quick slant? The interception is Romo's fault. Coach continues a gameplan emphasizing the pass after amassing a huge lead? The increased opportunities for the defense to pick off a pass is Romo's fault.

The absense of logic is hilarious and frightening at the same time.

 

[birdwells1]

You're all overstating the other side's argument. "Romo is one of the best late in close losses" morphs into "Romo never makes mistakes late in close losses," and then you all converge for the easy attack. You're doing it out of frustration. So many straw men have been torn apart in this thread it's becoming a fire hazard.

I think the difference In our opinion is that I think that there's a difference in the game in week 6 against Carolina and the week 17 game against the Commanders.

If in 3 or 4 of those win or go home losses Romo would have played like the Romo I seen throughout the season, I would be on your side of this debate.

I feel the the story's not over yet, he still has time especially with the oline investment.

I will say this, this team can win with Romo but the other parts have to be better and that's the defense. I dont know if the defense will be rebuilt in time for Romo but we'll see.

 

[DFWJC]

You're all overstating the other side's argument. "Romo is one of the best late in close losses" morphs into "Romo never makes mistakes late in close losses," and then you all converge for the easy attack. You're doing it out of frustration. So many straw men have been torn apart in this thread it's becoming a fire hazard.

I agree.

Just a little rational perspective and this really should not be much of a debate at all:

• Romo is not perfect...nor is anyone else, ever
• Romo is very good...even in key moments
• Football is the ultimate team game and QBs do not play defense or block
• Romo has contributed to Dallas losses..and in a handful of games, in a big way
• Romo has contributed to even more Dallas wins, and has played amazingly ball in many losses.

The data clearly backs it up, but so does the eye test if anyone looks at it without emotion.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

No, 30 pages was my goal. The other 30 pages have consisted of KJJ getting blasted by everybody that disagreed with him. You must have a different definition of trolling than I do.

I am sure I do. Difference is that my opinion is supported by fact and yours are not even if you say they are.

/sarcasm off

 

[jnday]

I am sure I do. Difference is that my opinion is supported by fact and yours are not even if you say they are.

/sarcasm off

We disagree then. No biggie , it happens all the time.

 

[DallasEast]

The data clearly backs it up, but so does the eye test if anyone looks at it without emotion.

I think it is safe to say the eye test is different from person to person. I watch high school, college, and professional football. It is common for anyone sitting beside me, in the stands or my living room, to hear me make two comments about a negative pass play throughout a game:

1) "That interception/incompletion is all on the quarterback" and
2) "What else could the quarterback do?"

Sometimes I add a the and expletive to the second comment. Seriously though, allow me to single out Romo's play alone, as a few have carried to the usual extreme within this thread already. There have been passes where Romo has gotten adequate line protection, the receiver ran a great route with separation, and Romo overthrew the receiver by five or more yards.

See number one above for my verbal reaction. My remote or cap sometimes ends up laying across the room also. Situations vary. On the other hand, I have seen Romo's pocket maligned within moments of the snap and somehow the pass is thrown to a spot where the receiver can only make the catch--except the receiver does not haul the ball in, a tip drill ensues, and a defensive back says thank you kindly.

See number two above for the obvious. Yet, I listen or read the reaction of Romo critics in the media and fellow fans, and it is like the latter was all Romo's fault.

It's befuddling. A while back, I created a thread on this site with an embedded video. In the video, I included a tutorial of a quick slant. The tutorial was followed by a slow motion replay of Romo's receiver being outmuscled by the defensive back, gained dominate position, and intercepted the pass.

Quick slants are bam-bam plays. The ball is being delivered before the receiver makes his break. The play is almost impossible to defend unless the defensive back guesses right and jumps the route before the receiver makes his cut.

Even though all of this was understood or even acknowledged by his critics, Romo still received full blame. I just do not get it. Maybe the eye test is written in hyroglific form for some, I do not know...

 

[gimmesix]

I will say this, this team can win with Romo but the other parts have to be better and that's the defense. I dont know if the defense will be rebuilt in time for Romo but we'll see.

This we can agree on ... and it's such a shame. We had no chance with the dishonor role of quarterbacks who trudged through Dallas after Aikman, and we're blowing our best chance since Aikman.

We've already seen one of our best defensive players of all time leave here with little to show for it as far as playoff success goes. If we can't get this defense turned around, we're going to see several other players leave whose careers deserved much more.

A thread about Romo goes back and forth for more than 50 pages because we're all tired of seeing Dallas come up short and waste its best chances at having success. Who knows when we'll see another Witten? Who knows when we'll see another QB as good as Romo? Even if we draft a QB in the first round, we could just as easily end up with a JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf or even Brandon Weeden (and possibly stand a better chance of it) than a Peyton Manning or even one on Romo's level.

 

[KJJ]

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.

The reason we don't get along is because you don't like negativity and consider me a negative poster. Like many of the FANS here you don't agree with my less than glowing opinions of the team and it's caused friction between us. It's no surprise you think this guy is making me look foolish because you think everyone who opposes my views makes me look foolish. You're obviously here to have a civil discussion with me and that's refreshing for a change. First off let's clear some things up I never said the stat is without flaw. All stat's are flawed which is why the guy I was arguing with was able to list several postseason games in which the winning QB's had a worse TD to turnover ratio than the losing QB's. Percy has stated that a QB's passer rating correlates to winning more than any other stat and I'm sure he can list a number of games to back that up. That stat is also flawed because I've listed a number of games in which the losing QB had the higher passer rating over the winning QB. The Cowboys lost 3 games last season in which Romo had a higher passer rating than the winning QB.

The second thing I want to make clear is this guy who told me to prove my opinion I did a couple of weeks ago in another thread Percy started on Romo. I had this same exact discussion with him and his tag team partner who once again joined him in this thread. I listed a number of postseason and SB games supporting my position. I listed the SB's the Cowboys had in the 90's along with those in the 70's but that wasn't good enough for him or his partner because they have an agenda and aren't looking for a civil discussion. Both are following the same theme they did in the other thread a couple of weeks ago. They've made up their minds they're not going to agree with anything I have to say and are bent on stirring things up. Immediately after I posted yesterday a mod came in and passed out a warning. I've learned that if you keep exchanging with FANS who are becoming very argumentative and insulting the hammer will eventually come down and I'm the one who will likely take the fall because I'm the one who's been labeled a hater/troll.

Anyway a QB's TD to turnover ratio is the stat I put the most weight on. Ask any HC and player and they'll tell you that turnovers can cost you more games than anything especially in the playoffs. A QB committing multiple turnovers is a recipe for getting beat. Romo's TD to turnover ratio in his 7 elimination games is 8-12. Naturally a QB's passer rating is affected by their TD to turnover ratio but a QB can still maintain a high passer rating despite multiple turnovers even one that helps cost their team the game if they keep their completion percentage high and throw some TD's. With all the rule changes through the years and the NFL being a pass happy league it's inflated the passer ratings of QB's which is why 7 of the top 10 career passing rating leaders are current QB's.

The completion percentages of QB's are increasing and with more on their plate than ever before their TD to turnover ratio is having an even bigger impact in big games. This is why the last 5 SB winning QB's had the better TD to turnover ratio over the opposing QB. Everything we're discussing in this thread is based on ones personal opinion. I'm not saying I'm right and someone else is wrong I'm giving my opinion. No one ever ends up agreeing in these arguments regardless of how many facts you post. I can list 100+ games to back my position and someone who opposes it can list 100+ games to disprove my position. I can do the same thing to them with their position because there's plenty of exceptions to every rule with stats being flawed.

 

[DallasEast]

I am sure I do. Difference is that my opinion is supported by fact and yours are not even if you say they are.

/sarcasm off

lol.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Immediately after I posted yesterday a mod came in and passed out a warning. I've learned that if you keep exchanging with FANS who are becoming very argumentative and insulting the hammer will eventually come down and I'm the one who will likely take the fall because I'm the one who's been labeled a hater/troll.

Aside from not being true, isn't that selling the mods a little short?

 

[KJJ]

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.

Of course they wouldn't put their money to back any of their crap because they're crap is all influenced by the FAN in them.

 

[KJJ]

Aside from not being true, isn't that selling the mods a little short?

Check your PM's.

 

[jnday]

Of course they wouldn't put their money to back any of their crap because they're crap is all influenced by the FAN in them.

Yes, they believe , but they know that there is a realty and that realty would leave them broke if they were betting men. It makes it hard to have a realistic conversation about the state of the team when they let their emotions fuel their argument. There are expectations of an average defense by some posters and the talent level will be lucky for them to be ranked 30th in the league during the coming season . How can you have a honest conversation with fans that think like that? You can't.