Mythbusting Tony Romo....Yeah another stupid Romo thread

[percyhoward]

I think Romo is plenty good. I am glad we have him. No one should misconstrue my comments. In all honesty I am mostly "talking out loud" as I think about it myself. It is an honest opinion. I think he lacks some calm. I might be wrong. But it is what I believe.

I don't think it's about Romo. I just hope you don't mind my adding some perspective.

 

[rcaldw]

I don't think it's about Romo. I just hope you don't mind my adding some perspective.

I don't mind at all Percy. I appreciate your posts a lot. I have a question for you, because you are great with numbers. I would like to work out my theory on QB's at some point. Is there a way to figure QB win and loss pct in playoff games based upon whether or not their teams were favored in those games? I think that would be an interesting thing to look at. For example, Fran Tarkenton gets bashed by some because of the Super Bowl losses etc. But how many of those Super Bowl games were they favored in? I just think it would be interesting to see.

 

[percyhoward]

I don't mind at all Percy. I appreciate your posts a lot. I have a question for you, because you are great with numbers. I would like to work out my theory on QB's at some point. Is there a way to figure QB win and loss pct in playoff games based upon whether or not their teams were favored in those games? I think that would be an interesting thing to look at. For example, Fran Tarkenton gets bashed by some because of the Super Bowl losses etc. But how many of those Super Bowl games were they favored in? I just think it would be interesting to see.

Thanks. I think the flaw there would be that point spreads are bettor-driven, so team popularity factors in as much as logical expectation of who should win. Seems like you could isolate the logical expectation element by using things that those expectations would normally be based on. I guess W-L would be the most obvious, but the QB plays a role in that stat.

Of course in that era, the AFC was superior to the NFC, and the Vikings only got the opportunity to lose those three SB because they were representing the weaker conference. Everybody knew that, so I guess the point spreads should reflect that.

Maybe there's a way to put numbers to the problem, but I think anybody who bashes Tarkenton doesn't have a clue anyway. 11 seasons among the NFL's top 10 rated passers (and that's adjusted for league size). Only Manning and Montana have more.

 

[rcaldw]

Thanks. I think the flaw there would be that point spreads are bettor-driven, so team popularity factors in as much as logical expectation of who should win. Seems like you could isolate the logical expectation element by using things that those expectations would normally be based on. I guess W-L would be the most obvious, but the QB plays a role in that stat.

Of course in that era, the AFC was superior to the NFC, and the Vikings only got the opportunity to lose those three SB because they were representing the weaker conference. Everybody knew that, so I guess the point spreads should reflect that.

Maybe there's a way to put numbers to the problem, but I think anybody who bashes Tarkenton doesn't have a clue anyway. 11 seasons among the NFL's top 10 rated passers (and that's adjusted for league size). Only Manning and Montana have more.

Regardless of the potential flaw (due to the bettor driven expectation - though you could argue that money is a stronger motivator than fandom) I would still find it an interesting thing to study. To me, it is still a superior gauge than simply assuming that a QB has an equal team around him (or across from him) at all times.

 

[rcaldw]

Regardless of the potential flaw (due to the bettor driven expectation - though you could argue that money is a stronger motivator than fandom) I would still find it an interesting thing to study. To me, it is still a superior gauge than simply assuming that a QB has an equal team around him (or across from him) at all times.

As a follow up, what I think would be interesting is this, specifically regarding Romo.

Games where we could have won and gone in: How many of those games were we actually the favored team?
Playoff games Romo was the losing QB in: Were we favored in those games?

I have NOT looked at it, so it is just a hunch at this point, but I'm guessing we were NOT favored in most of those games. My point being that fans get their hopes and expectations up and then blame someone for not being able to do what most didn't think they SHOULD be able to do in the first place.

 

[percyhoward]

As a follow up, what I think would be interesting is this, specifically regarding Romo.

Games where we could have won and gone in: How many of those games were we actually the favored team?
Playoff games Romo was the losing QB in: Were we favored in those games?

I get your point, but I don't follow point spreads too much. I'm sure you could find them somewhere. I'm more interested in how the team actually performed, as opposed to how people thought they would perform. And you can look at things like defensive passer rating that filter out your QB's role.

The best way I can come up with to show that Tarkenton is HOF worthy:

Seasons Among Top 10 Passers
(adjusted for league size)
Peyton Manning (13) 1999-2010, 2012
Joe Montana (12) 1980-85, 87-90, 93-94
Fran Tarkenton (11) 1964, 67-70, 72-77
Dan Marino (11) 1983-87, 90-92, 94-96
Tom Brady (11) 2001-07, 09-12
Johnny Unitas (10) 1956-60, 63-67
Brett Favre (10) 1992, 94-97, 2001, 03, 04, 07, 09
Sammy Baugh (9) 1937, 40-45, 47, 49
Y.A. Tittle (8) 1948, 52-54, 57, 61-63
Len Dawson (8) 1962-68, 71
Ken Anderson (8) 1973-75, 77, 79, 81-83
Dan Fouts (8) 1978-85
Steve Young (8) 1991-98

 

[CoCo]

As a follow up, what I think would be interesting is this, specifically regarding Romo.

Games where we could have won and gone in: How many of those games were we actually the favored team?
Playoff games Romo was the losing QB in: Were we favored in those games?

I have NOT looked at it, so it is just a hunch at this point, but I'm guessing we were NOT favored in most of those games. My point being that fans get their hopes and expectations up and then blame someone for not being able to do what most didn't think they SHOULD be able to do in the first place.

Fair point. My hunch is that we were underdogs in all three "win and you're in" games (at Philly in 08, at NYG in 11, at Wash in 12)

In the playoffs I suspect we were the underdogs at Seattle in 06, and at Minnesota in 09.

I suspect we were favored at home in 2007 vs NYG, and again versus Philly at home in 2009.

If true, we lost when we should, won when we should everytime except that 2007 close loss to NYG (you know the if Patrick Crayton game...)

Incidently, I assuming the home team was favored in all cases and I do suspect it was true but certainly don't know for a fact.

 

[ufcrules1]

UFC you guys go over the top and that is what causes people to react. Tony Romo is an elite QB in this league. Is he the best? No. Can he become the best? Can he become the absolute best QB in the NFL? I believe he can. I have seen him make plays that are undeniably top level QB plays. So when you guys talk about him like he his holding the team back that is just crazy. If we win in Washington last year, yes we would have been playing at home for the playoffs and that would have been fun. But last year's team was dead in the water due to injuries. If you look at Brady's early success in the playoffs that team absolutely CARRIED him in my opinion. Now we see the uber-confident Brady who knows he has respect win or lose, but without the tuck rule who knows what his career would be? Without his kicker who knows where his career would be?

I have already stated what I muse over. I just wish to see him be more calm, play within himself. But heck that is coming from a FAN who has never played a down of NFL football. I think the better the team around him, the more confident he will become. I think if he wins ONE win and go into the playoffs game, and then a playoff game you will see his confidence GROW.

Danny White went the opposite way. Early in his career he won a ton of big games. Some in very dramatic fashion. Losing the NFC Championship games caused people to begin to pile on. At the end of his career his confidence was shot and his play lived up to what people expected, which was implosion.

CONFIDENCE IS HUGE IN SPORTS. Now I do know that, since I did play, and have sons who play, and you don't have to be in the NFL to recognize it.

Yeah, you and I differ on him being elite.. that is for sure. I think he is a top 15 QB but nowhere remotely close to elite. Has he made elite plays at times? Sure he has.. a lot of QB's have made elite plays from time to time though. Also we differ on Brady's team carrying him. Brady is a sure fire elite QB that is going to the hall of fame and a big part of his success comes directly from how he plays the game.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Yeah, you and I differ on him being elite.. that is for sure. I thing he is a top 15 QB but nowhere remotely close to elite. Has he made elite plays at times? Sure he has.. a lot of QB's have made elite plays from time to time though. Also we differ on Brady's team carrying him. Brady is a sure fire elite QB that is going to the hall of fame and a big part of his success comes directly from how he plays the game.

Can you name 14 QBs better than him right now? Seriously though, you're about to join a lot of people's ignore list if you can't objectively discuss our quarterback. I have him 8th on my damn near perfect list.

1. Brady
2. Rodgers
3. Manning
4. Brees
5. Manning
6. Flacco
7. Ryan
8. Romo
9. Griffin
10. Luck
11. Wilson
12. Big Ben
13. Stafford
14. Dalton
15. Newton

The three young guys Griffin, Luck, and Wilson will probably surpass him in the future. Big Ben has always had a great supporting cast, Stafford is alright, Dalton has proven he can win but is he really elite? Newton is a talent but can he put it together.

I personally feel he's better than Flacco and Ryan and it's debatable with Eli - again, those guys all have had solid supporting casts for much of their careers.

So can we please hear your 14 QBs that are better than Tony Romo?

 

[ufcrules1]

Can you name 14 QBs better than him right now? Seriously though, you're about to join a lot of people's ignore list if you can't objectively discuss our quarterback. I have him 8th on my damn near perfect list.

1. Brady
2. Rodgers
3. Manning
4. Brees
5. Manning
6. Flacco
7. Ryan
8. Romo
9. Griffin
10. Luck
11. Wilson
12. Big Ben
13. Stafford
14. Dalton
15. Newton

The three young guys Griffin, Luck, and Wilson will probably surpass him in the future. Big Ben has always had a great supporting cast, Stafford is alright, Dalton has proven he can win but is he really elite? Newton is a talent but can he put it together.

I personally feel he's better than Flacco and Ryan and it's debatable with Eli - again, those guys all have had solid supporting casts for much of their careers.

So can we please hear your 14 QBs that are better than Tony Romo?

Here is my list as of right now. I feel that Romo is pretty much interchangeable with Stafford, Dalton, and Newton. None of which are elite. Sorry that you don't agree with me and if you really think my opinion is that crazy then you can always put me on ignore. I don't agree with your opinion either but you haven't gone far enough for me to put you on ignore yet.

1. Rodgers-Elite future hall of famer
2. Brady- Elite future hall of famer
3. Brees-Elite future hall of famer
4. Peyton-Elite future hall of famer
5. E. Manning-Post season elite 2 time super bowl MVP future hall of famer
6. Big Ben- Almost elite- Super bowl MVP future hall of famer
7. Flacco
8. Ryan
9. Luck
10. Griffin
11. Wilson
12. Kaepernick
13. Newton
14. Romo
15. Dalton
16. Stafford

 

[CoCo]

There is no agreed upon definition of elite. You'll have greater success ranking QB's and then trying to draw a line somewhere between very good and elite. That said...

Brady, Rodgers, Peyton & Brees are no doubt considered elite by almost everyone even though you really could pick at three of those 4 as having won only a single SB and their supporting cast blah, blah, blah. Still most agree on those four.

Some will claim Eli's 2 SB wins make him elite but he has plenty of detractors and I suspect the final chapter on him is not yet written.

After that I think its all conjecture unless you want to claim that SB wins is a clear line of demarcation. If so, then promote Ben & Flacco to elite.

So even if you assume Brady, Rodgers, Peyton & Brees, and Eli, Ben & Flacco, are all superior to Romo because of their total body of work (they've won a SB). Fine. That puts Romo no worse than 8th because its ridiculous IMO to claim that any of the rest have clearly proven they are superior.

This is why I call Romo indisputably top 10. There are some youngsters that MIGHT pass him. We'll see. But Griffin, Luck, Wilson, Stafford, Kaepernick, Dalton, Ryan and Rivers have not proven they're better. Half don't have near the body of work to make that claim. Some might claim Ryan is his equal.

 

[jobberone]

I don't mind at all Percy. I appreciate your posts a lot. I have a question for you, because you are great with numbers. I would like to work out my theory on QB's at some point. Is there a way to figure QB win and loss pct in playoff games based upon whether or not their teams were favored in those games? I think that would be an interesting thing to look at. For example, Fran Tarkenton gets bashed by some because of the Super Bowl losses etc. But how many of those Super Bowl games were they favored in? I just think it would be interesting to see.

Not sure what they would mean. Was the upset of the Colts in III an upset? How about IV? Were the 68 and 69 Dallas teams beaten by a better Browns team? How about the Ice Bowl? SB V? You get the drift.

 

[DFWJC]

As a follow up, what I think would be interesting is this, specifically regarding Romo.

Games where we could have won and gone in: How many of those games were we actually the favored team?
Playoff games Romo was the losing QB in: Were we favored in those games?

I have NOT looked at it, so it is just a hunch at this point, but I'm guessing we were NOT favored in most of those games. My point being that fans get their hopes and expectations up and then blame someone for not being able to do what most didn't think they SHOULD be able to do in the first place.

Interesting question
I think regular season win and in games are a crock. No one can tell me the players and QB were not more pumped with nerves when the NFL opened early and the Prime Time game of Dallas at the defending SB Champ Giants any more than they were for the season ending Commanders game.

But I'll play along.
I don't know for sure but I would think the favored teams in the follwing games were:

at Seattle (W) over Dallas (Jan 2007)
at Dallas over New York (W) (Jan 2008)
at Dallas (W) over Philly (Jan 2009)
at Minnesota (W) over Dallas (Jan 2009)
at New York (W) over Dallas (Jan 2012)
at Washington (W) over Dallas (Dec 2012)

The only one where Dallas was favored ( I assume we were favored...maybe by 3 points or so, but the team was fading some and got drilled the week before vs Washington..so maybe not by 3) and lost was that brutal playoff loss to New York at home in the 2007 season. That one came down to really one busted Crayton route from being a win. perfecxtly throw ball for the win.
Of course, the Giants went on to do the same to everyone else too--inluding Brady and crew. But that one hurt for sure.

 

[rcaldw]

Not sure what they would mean. Was the upset of the Colts in III an upset? How about IV? Were the 68 and 69 Dallas teams beaten by a better Browns team? How about the Ice Bowl? SB V? You get the drift.

I do and I think it is meaningful. Craig Morton had the better team when we were beaten by the Colts in the Super Bowl. I don't think anyone would argue he was as good as Roger. Morton went on to prove that he was a very good QB leading the Broncos to the Super Bowl in 1977, but I still think that loss to the Colts was telling. The Colts losing to the Jets and Namath was also telling. Earl Morrall was a very good backup QB and in that particular season a very good starting QB, but again, his weaknesses showed up in a game where his team was heavily favored and they lost. His mistakes directly contributed to that loss. I love Dandy Don. He was my late father's favorite player. He took a lot of criticism that was unjustified. Defeats against the Browns may have been telling, but to be honest I don't have any recollection of those. I don't think Dallas was favored in the Ice Bowl.

Show me a QB who wins his fair share of big games when his team was the underdog, and a good majority of the games his team is known to be the better team, and I'll bet you have yourself a pretty darn good QB. Show me a QB who loses the majority of big games he is favored to win, and does not pull off many upsets either, and I'll show you a QB who may be good, but probably is missing something that has to do with the "it" factor.

 

[rcaldw]

Interesting question
I think regular season win and in games are a crock. No one can tell be the players and QB were not more pumped with nerves when the the NFL opened early and the prime Time game of dallas at the defending Champ Giants any more than they were for the season ending Commander game.

But I'll play along.
I don't know for sure but I would think the facvored teams in the follwing games were:

at Seattle over Dallas (Jan 2007)
at Dallas over New York (Jan 2008)
at Dallas over Philly (Jan 2009)
at Minnesota over Dallas (Jan 2009)
at New York over Dallas (Jan 2012)
at Washington over Dallas (Dec 2012)

The only one where Dallas was favored ( I assume we were favored...maybe by 3 points or so, but the team was fading some and got drilled the week before vs Washington..so maybe not by 3) and lost was that brutal playoff loss to New York at home in the 2007 season. That one came down to really one stopped route from being a win.
Of course, the Giants went on to do the same to everyone else too--inluding Brady and crew. But that one hurt for sure.

Good analysis, and again, I think my theory has some merit.

 

[5Stars]

Here is my list as of right now. I feel that Romo is pretty much interchangeable with Stafford, Dalton, and Newton. None of which are elite. Sorry that you don't agree with me and if you really think my opinion is that crazy then you can always put me on ignore. I don't agree with your opinion either but you haven't gone far enough for me to put you on ignore yet.

LOL...lmao

See Apollo...you are on the bubble dude! You DON'T WANT to be on his ignore list. You better either shape up or agree with him, or you are GONE!

 

[jobberone]

I do and I think it is meaningful. Craig Morton had the better team when we were beaten by the Colts in the Super Bowl. I don't think anyone would argue he was as good as Roger. Morton went on to prove that he was a very good QB leading the Broncos to the Super Bowl in 1977, but I still think that loss to the Colts was telling. The Colts losing to the Jets and Namath was also telling. Earl Morrall was a very good backup QB and in that particular season a very good starting QB, but again, his weaknesses showed up in a game where his team was heavily favored and they lost. His mistakes directly contributed to that loss. I love Dandy Don. He was my late father's favorite player. He took a lot of criticism that was unjustified. Defeats against the Browns may have been telling, but to be honest I don't have any recollection of those. I don't think Dallas was favored in the Ice Bowl.

Show me a QB who wins his fair share of big games when his team was the underdog, and a good majority of the games his team is known to be the better team, and I'll bet you have yourself a pretty darn good QB. Show me a QB who loses the majority of big games he is favored to win, and does not pull off many upsets either, and I'll show you a QB who may be good, but probably is missing something that has to do with the "it" factor.

I think your general premise is a good one but often a team that is favored turns out not to be as good as people think. Another way to look at it is the matchups of the entire team. Some teams are just built better to play certain teams better than others. As another pointed out a good deal of the betting odds comes from the money on the teams. And the odds often help drive the media perception although some analysts are more tuned to the talents of teams. That Jets team was probably as good or better than the Colts in III. The KC team was a great one in IV but the Vikes were favored because the NFC was just supposedly way better than the AFC. The Cowboys were a better team than the Colts in SB V IMO but that game was really decided by some bad calls and that is going to skew your analysis way off. Sometimes it's the D or STs that win games.

Dallas was not favored to win the Ice Bowl but in retrospect I'd say they were the better team which is part of the point I was trying to make.

 

[rcaldw]

I think your general premise is a good one but often a team that is favored turns out not to be as good as people think. Another way to look at it is the matchups of the entire team. Some teams are just built better to play certain teams better than others. As another pointed out a good deal of the betting odds comes from the money on the teams. And the odds often help drive the media perception although some analysts are more tuned to the talents of teams. That Jets team was probably as good or better than the Colts in III. The KC team was a great one in IV but the Vikes were favored because the NFC was just supposedly way better than the AFC. The Cowboys were a better team than the Colts in SB V IMO but that game was really decided by some bad calls and that is going to skew your analysis way off. Sometimes it's the D or STs that win games.

Dallas was not favored to win the Ice Bowl but in retrospect I'd say they were the better team which is part of the point I was trying to make.

Jobber I agree that there is no perfect way to analyze what I am trying to get at, but I still think it is ONE WAY to look at the issue. I don't disagree that there is debate about each of the games you mention, but (as I know you are aware) there are many who would dispute some of what you say. For example I have heard it said that the Colts team that lost to the Jets would beat that team over and over on a normal day. In fact, the very next season that same Colts team defeated the Jets handily (if my memory serves me well). The Cowboys loss to the Colts was one where Morton was horrible. (12-26, 127, 1 TD, 3 interceptions) It was close IN LARGE MEASURE because he was awful.

As I say, I think you make good points, but if someone did a broad study of the question I bet it would yield some interesting results.

 

[percyhoward]

Show me a QB who wins his fair share of big games when his team was the underdog, and a good majority of the games his team is known to be the better team, and I'll bet you have yourself a pretty darn good QB. Show me a QB who loses the majority of big games he is favored to win, and does not pull off many upsets either, and I'll show you a QB who may be good, but probably is missing something that has to do with the "it" factor.

Just out of curiosity, and I may be wrong, but wouldn't something like this give you a good picture of what you're looking for? A comparison of the help different QB have received from their defense and running games in the playoffs during the QB's prime only (during their consecutive seasons in the top 10 in passer rating).

It's the team's postseason record in games started by that quarterback in which team did vs. did not rush for 100 yards, and opponent did vs. did not score 20 points or more.

For example, during Tarkenton's prime, the Vikings were 4-1 in the playoffs when they rushed for 100 yards and the opponent scored less than 20. They were 0-4 when those two things did not happen, and 2-0 when only one of the two things happened.

Fran Tarkenton (1972-77)
100/<20: 4-1
<100/20: 0-4
other: 2-0

Tom Brady (2001-07, 09-12)
100/<20: 7-0
<100/20: 2-4
other: 8-3

Tony Romo (2006-09, 2011-12)
100/<20: 1-0
<100/20: 0-2
other: 0-1

 

[jobberone]

Jobber I agree that there is no perfect way to analyze what I am trying to get at, but I still think it is ONE WAY to look at the issue. I don't disagree that there is debate about each of the games you mention, but (as I know you are aware) there are many who would dispute some of what you say. For example I have heard it said that the Colts team that lost to the Jets would beat that team over and over on a normal day. In fact, the very next season that same Colts team defeated the Jets handily (if my memory serves me well). The Cowboys loss to the Colts was one where Morton was horrible. (12-26, 127, 1 TD, 3 interceptions) It was close IN LARGE MEASURE because he was awful.

As I say, I think you make good points, but if someone did a broad study of the question I bet it would yield some interesting results.

Oh, I don't have a problem with anything you said and I agree the general premise is good. I'd like to see that data for all playoff games since at least the merger. And I read PH's post below yours and I agree with that. Basically the more 'good' data you look at in the proper way the better your conclusions. But in the end you're going to be pretty subjective about who's favored then and later and the fact we or others could disagree with either of us just proves the point I was making. It's still a good idea to look at though.