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

[KJJ]

I'm talking specifically about this thread.

Look, if you want to focus on a small sample of Romo games that's your thing. That's fine. Percy doesn't ignore those games, he just factors them in with all his other games to give an overall statistical analysis of his play. So what? Personally, I enjoy his work. Not because I'm some Romo homer who thinks he's the greatest QB ever. Not even close. I just appreciate the obvious tremendous amount of work that goes into compiling the information he presents. To me, every game is important. If my calculations of tie breakers is correct, the Cowboys don't win week 2 in 2011 then they are eliminated before week 17 no matter the result in the last game.So the fact he doesn't ignore Romo's play in that game is a good thing.

What I don't understand is why you feel the need to, EVERY SINGLE TIME, jump in and whine about "elimination games" or "significant spotlight games" instead of actually discussing the data presented. You do everything in your power to hijack the discussion. And the meanest thing in this particular thread I've seen was you being called out for your behavior. If you really want to talk about "elimination games" or "significant spotlight games" then start your own thread about it.

I'm only focusing a small sample of games (elimination/playoff games) because those are the games QB's are judged off of. I'm looking at the games that help define a QB's career. I'm pointing out the games that have given him the stigma he carries. Everyone knows he's had many great regular season performances but it's led nowhere because he doesn't play well in the games that matter most. I can't understand why some of you can't see the point I'm trying to make.

Every NFL expert points out the same games I do and point to the same issues Romo has and some of you rip them to shreds. This a FAN board and there's no FAN base that has more delusional FANS than the Cowboys. It's a waste of time arguing it's time to let this thread die a peaceful death.

 

[KJJ]

How many voices are in your head anyway?

The voices in your head are becoming annoying.

 

[percyhoward]

Depends on who's replacing him.

Let's say Joe Average, for the sake of argument.

 

[DanteEXT]

It's a waste of time arguing....

Then why do you bother?

 

[KJJ]

Let's say Joe Average, for the sake of argument.

You would still be looking at a 5-11 to 6-10 season. The Cowboys have enough talent on offense that even an average QB could have a least some success. With lack of talent on defense and Romo coming off back surgery the Cowboys may end up with one of those records even with Romo.

 

[KJJ]

Then why do you bother?

I enjoy talking/debating football but this thread has gotten out of hand. It's become more about me and less about football. When you start receiving hate mail it's time to move on.

 

[gimmesix]

I know you weren't being serious about Staubach being a choker but it's ridiculous to take his 5 worst playoff games and one bad season finale game and compare it to Romo's 6 elimination game losses. That's virtually his entire elimination game record. You could do the same thing to Joe Montana. LOL Dude they all had some stinkers in the playoffs but they were far outweighed by the great playoff and SB games they had. You still don't get it? All Romo has on his resume is a couple of division titles and a playoff win. Get real!

No, you still don't get it. Even the greatest QBs have "stinkers" in losses, by boiling Romo's "clutch" play down to several losses you deem more important than the victories leading up to those losses, you are concentrating on his "stinkers" to make a biased point.

Your data doesn't hold up to scrutiny because it's built on heavy bias of deeming his losses in "elimination" games more important than his victories that kept Dallas from being eliminated before those games. You discredit victories like in 2009 where Dallas beat Washington to claim a playoff spot, then beat Philadelphia to win the division, then beat Philadelphia again to advance in the playoffs. It's a skewed perspective.

 

[KJJ]

No, you still don't get it. Even the greatest QBs have "stinkers" in losses, by boiling Romo's "clutch" play down to several losses you deem more important than the victories leading up to those losses, you are concentrating on his "stinkers" to make a biased point.

Your data doesn't hold up to scrutiny because it's built on heavy bias of deeming his losses in "elimination" games more important than his victories that kept Dallas from being eliminated before those games. You discredit victories like in 2009 where Dallas beat Washington to claim a playoff spot, then beat Philadelphia to win the division, then beat Philadelphia again to advance in the playoffs. It's a skewed perspective.

No, you still don't get it and you never will regardless of how many times we go over it. We don't agree and we never will. I made my point and this discussion is over.

 

[12+88=7]

You would still be looking at a 5-11 to 6-10 season. The Cowboys have enough talent on offense that even an average QB could have a least some success. With lack of talent on defense and Romo coming off back surgery the Cowboys may end up with one of those records even with Romo.

Past history says that if Romo plays, Dallas will compete for division.

If you include 2006, Romo has been the starting QB for 8 years. Dallas has competed for the division in 7 of those 8 years. The only year Dallas didn't compete for the division was 2010 when Romo got hurt and the team went 6-10.

If Romo plays there is NO way Dallas will only win 5 or 6 games. Dallas will compete for division, the only question is what team Dallas will be competing against. The schedule says it will be Washington, we'll see.

 

[percyhoward]

You would still be looking at a 5-11 to 6-10 season. The Cowboys have enough talent on offense that even an average QB could have a least some success.

Wouldn' t go winless, I agree.

Or have a record in elimination games either.

 

[KJJ]

Past history says that if Romo plays, Dallas will compete for division.

If you include 2006, Romo has been the starting QB for 8 years. Dallas has competed for the division in 7 of those 8 years. The only year Dallas didn't compete for the division was 2010 when Romo got hurt and the team went 6-10.

If Romo plays there is NO way Dallas will only win 5 or 6 games. Dallas will compete for division, the only question is what team Dallas will be competing against. The schedule says it will be Washington, we'll see.

Past history says the Cowboys will compete for the division if all it takes is 8 wins to compete. With the arrow pointing up on Philly and the arrow pointing down on the Cowboys don't think you can depend on past history. What concerns me most about the Cowboys is the defense. I can't remember an offseason where the team lost their 3 best players on one side of the ball. I don't feel a 5-11 season coming but 6-10 wouldn't surprise me.

 

[gimmesix]

What concerns me most about the Cowboys is the defense. I can't remember an offseason where the team lost their 3 best players on one side of the ball. I don't feel a 5-11 season coming but 6-10 wouldn't surprise me.

One thing we can agree on, so I'll leave it at this. I do think, though, with this offensive line, running backs, Dez, Witten and Romo that 8-8 is a reasonable expectation at this point.

 

[KJJ]

One thing we can agree on, so I'll leave it at this. I do think, though, with this offensive line, running backs, Dez, Witten and Romo that 8-8 is a reasonable expectation at this point.

We do agree on that.

 

[12+88=7]

Past history says the Cowboys will compete for the division if all it takes is 8 wins to compete. With the arrow pointing up on Philly and the arrow pointing down on the Cowboys don't think you can depend on past history. What concerns me most about the Cowboys is the defense. I can't remember an offseason where the team lost their 3 best players on one side of the ball. I don't feel a 5-11 season coming but 6-10 wouldn't surprise me.

Philadelphia won the division last year, but everything fell right for them. Foles threw 27 TDs vs 2 INTs, that's not happening again. The only significant player they lost was Maclain, they were very lucky on the injury front. The final blessing was Romo got hurt. Had Romo played in the final game, Dallas would have won by a couple of scores, just like they did in the first meeting.

We'll have to wait for training camp, but the majority of opinion is that Dallas will be worse on defense. I believe the sum will be greater then the parts. Last years defense had 20 different DL men taking snaps. Most were sitting on their couches(sub NFL caliber) when the season began. Dallas had Ware, Hatcher, and the surprise Selvie, with players that would have been 4th or 5th string(camp fodder) playing significant snaps. That won't be the case this year. Dallas will be able to substitute and come in waves because there will be more options this year, just like the DL of the early 90's. Dallas won't have stars, but they will have role players that will mesh better together. The other point is this will be the second year for the 4-3 defense. There was an article on BTB which showed that under Marinelli his defenses improved most in year 2 and 3.

Like I said earlier, Dallas will compete for the division(if Romo doesn't get hurt), it's just a question as to which team they will compete against.

 

[Frosty]

No, you still don't get it. Even the greatest QBs have "stinkers" in losses, by boiling Romo's "clutch" play down to several losses you deem more important than the victories leading up to those losses, you are concentrating on his "stinkers" to make a biased point.

Your data doesn't hold up to scrutiny because it's built on heavy bias of deeming his losses in "elimination" games more important than his victories that kept Dallas from being eliminated before those games. You discredit victories like in 2009 where Dallas beat Washington to claim a playoff spot, then beat Philadelphia to win the division, then beat Philadelphia again to advance in the playoffs. It's a skewed perspective.

what is skewed by that...you have stated the obvious...in 3 lines you summed up Tony Romo entire resume,,,claim to fame is elimination games not Superbowls or Playoff games .....and the Philly playoff game you mentioned is the only playoff game Tony Romo has ever won....or should I say this team has won with Tony Romo under center.......eliminations games come on man.....that is a term teams use who can't get to the playoffs.....at leas Danny White made it to the NFC Championship games.....Romo made to elimination games...

I like Romo but the truth hurts sometimes.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

what is skewed by that...you have stated the obvious...in 3 lines you summed up Tony Romo entire resume,,,claim to fame is elimination games not Superbowls or Playoff games .....and the Philly playoff game you mentioned is the only playoff game Tony Romo has ever won....or should I say this team has won with Tony Romo under center.......eliminations games come on man.....that is a term teams use who can't get to the playoffs.....at leas Danny White made it to the NFC Championship games.....Romo made to elimination games...

I like Romo but the truth hurts sometimes.

When there is even a sliver of truth (or punctuation) in what you have said, be sure to let us know.

 

[WhizKid]

what is skewed by that...you have stated the obvious...in 3 lines you summed up Tony Romo entire resume,,,claim to fame is elimination games not Superbowls or Playoff games .....and the Philly playoff game you mentioned is the only playoff game Tony Romo has ever won....or should I say this team has won with Tony Romo under center.......eliminations games come on man.....that is a term teams use who can't get to the playoffs.....at leas Danny White made it to the NFC Championship games.....Romo made to elimination games...

I like Romo but the truth hurts sometimes.

You're the first person to have knowledge of where the record is for the elimination games as it relates to QBs. That's a good thing because we've been looking for a base to compare the elimination game records with other quarterbacks in this year and in years past. Would you mind linking me?

 

[Frosty]

When there is even a sliver of truth (or punctuation) in what you have said, be sure to let us know.

sliver of truth....lets see Romo has won 1 playoff game, ZERO Superbowls, but Romo has played in numerous so called elimination games......

 

[peplaw06]

You're the first person to have knowledge of where the record is for the elimination games as it relates to QBs. That's a good thing because we've been looking for a base to compare the elimination game records with other quarterbacks in this year and in years past. Would you mind linking me?

The basis of comparison for a QB is always going to be a moving target for those who want to bash a guy. Until a QB's team gets to the playoffs, he will be judges on regular season, most frequently the end of the regular season when it's supposed to be "crunch time." Then when they make the playoff games, it will be playoff game performance. If they're successful in playoff games, then it will be Super Bowl performance. If they win one Super Bowl, the bar will be set higher... "why don't you win as many as this guy who won two." If they win two, "match Montana or Brady." etc.

 

[CCBoy]

The basis of comparison for a QB is always going to be a moving target for those who want to bash a guy. Until a QB's team gets to the playoffs, he will be judges on regular season, most frequently the end of the regular season when it's supposed to be "crunch time." Then when they make the playoff games, it will be playoff game performance. If they're successful in playoff games, then it will be Super Bowl performance. If they win one Super Bowl, the bar will be set higher... "why don't you win as many as this guy who won two." If they win two, "match Montana or Brady." etc.

There also was a reason for the Boston Tea Party...and more deaths than in battles with off shore British prisoner of war ships.