Removing The Outlier - QBs

[BlindFaith]

I speculated that Rodgers loves his stats a bit too much. It's been mentioned before. I am wondering if that is the "cause" to him playing so conservatively...to an apparent detrimental effect.

Nobody can argue he doesn't become ultra conservative when down big.

Yes you can. And I did. Just because he didn't throw a ton of interceptions doesn't mean he is ultra conservative. If he is, then Romo is the second most ultra conservative QB. Will you concede then that Romo is the second most ultra conservative QB and is only interested in his stats?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Yes you can. And I did. Just because he didn't throw a ton of interceptions doesn't mean he is ultra conservative. If he is, then Romo is the second most ultra conservative QB. Will you concede then that Romo is the second most ultra conservative QB and is only interested in his stats?

I mean you can argue it and continue to look silly. That's your call. The statistics are there for you to see. I cannot give you more information.

 

[BlindFaith]

I mean you can argue it and continue to look silly. That's your call. The statistics are there for you to see. I cannot give you more information.

So you agree then that Romo is also ultra conservative and is only worried about his stats. Great.

 

[Kevinicus]

So you agree then that Romo is also ultra conservative and is only worried about his stats. Great.

It's the combination of the fact that he has never won, AND his interception rate drops. That is an indication he is not going out and throwing caution to the wind like other QB's do. Other qb's throw interceptions more often in those situations because they are being aggressive. On the flip side they do on occassion WIN in those situations. Exactly the opposite of Rodgers.

It doesn't mean he sucks, it just means in a certain situation, he continues to play as if it is a one score game and doesn't take the risks needed to win.

 

[Jstopper]

So you agree then that Romo is also ultra conservative and is only worried about his stats. Great.

You wouldn't be able to say romo is the same because he has wins in that scenario as well. He is pushing and trying to get the game won stats be damned

 

[BlindFaith]

You wouldn't be able to say romo is the same because he has wins in that scenario as well. He is pushing and trying to get the game won stats be damned

So winning is just on the QB? What is Romo winning percentage again?

The point I'm making is that winning in the obscure situation isn't just on the QB.

Anyway. I'm done with this one.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

So you agree then that Romo is also ultra conservative and is only worried about his stats. Great.

Why do you say this?

Are you reading the stats presented?

Do you understand?

 

[burmafrd]

So winning is just on the QB? What is Romo winning percentage again?

The point I'm making is that winning in the obscure situation isn't just on the QB.

Anyway. I'm done with this one.

I guess getting continually owned will make you want to leave.

 

[ufcrules1]

Toruk:

I've fully agreed that 0-25 is statistically significant.

I've fully agreed that Rodger's 4th quarter performance is much worse than his performance in any other quarter.

I have no problems discussing his shortcomings.

Having said that, I am still looking for some sort of metrics, trend, or otherwise that indicates "Rodgers avoids risk because he love his stats too much".

You won't find them. People saying that about Rodgers are haters of Rodgers because they love Romo so much. The whole argument for Romo is his regular season stats are good but as good as those are, Rodgers are even better, so they have to find some obscure stats to make Rodgers look bad. It's sad really.

 

[AmericanCowboy]

Not that this has much to do with the thread- but Big Ben is by far my second favorite QB to watch after Romo- that guy is awesome.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

I've noticed rodgers only has 8 4th comebacks in his whole career not impressive . I've also noticed when things are going good he really puts on the stats. But if it's a tight game in the 4th against a good defense 9/10 he fails in those situations.

 

[burmafrd]

You won't find them. People saying that about Rodgers are haters of Rodgers because they love Romo so much. The whole argument for Romo is his regular season stats are good but as good as those are, Rodgers are even better, so they have to find some obscure stats to make Rodgers look bad. It's sad really.

there is a difference between sad and pathetic like you are about Romo. Rodgers stinks coming from behind and Romo is much better and your pathological hatred of Romo just makes you claim otherwise.

 

[AdamJT13]

But these analyses show that Romo had two really bad games last year. Two real stinkers that dramatically change his PR. The others did not experience the same sort of lows which is why taking their two worst out didn't change PR much

No, that's not correct. It's that Romo had ONLY two "real stinkers," so taking out those two dramatically changes his passer rating. Most other quarterbacks had MORE really bad games, so removing only two of them STILL left them with other "stinkers," so there is less of an effect on their rating.

 

[AbeBeta]

No, that's not correct. It's that Romo had ONLY two "real stinkers," so taking out those two dramatically changes his passer rating. Most other quarterbacks had MORE really bad games, so removing only two of them STILL left them with other "stinkers," so there is less of an effect on their rating.

That's entirely consistent with my "more consistent" interpretation. In fact, it defines it.

You are good with #s Adam, but it is a shame you never got any legit statistical training. I'm guessing you have an accounting background?

 

[AdamJT13]

That's entirely consistent with my "more consistent" interpretation. In fact, it defines it.

Whatever semantic game you're trying to play with some twisted definition of "consistent," claiming that "others did not experience the same sort of lows" -- as if Romo had more subpar games than the other -- is completely false and undoubtedly misleading.

GAMES BELOW 90.0 PASSER RATING
2 = Romo
3 = Rodgers
5 = Roethlisberger, Brady
6 = Luck, Brees, Wilson
7 = P.Manning

GAMES BELOW 80.0 PASSER RATING
1 = Rodgers
2 = Romo
3 = Roethlisberger, P.Manning, Brady
4 = Luck, Brees
5 = Wilson

GAMES BELOW 70.0 PASSER RATING
1 = Rodgers
2 = Romo, Roethlisberger, P.Manning, Luck, Brees
3 = Brady
4 = Wilson

GAMES BELOW 60.0 PASSER RATING
0 = Roethlisberger, Brees
1 = Romo, Rodgers, P.Manning, Brady
2 = Luck, Wilson

 

[AbeBeta]

Whatever semantic game you're trying to play with some twisted definition of "consistent," claiming that "others did not experience the same sort of lows" -- as if Romo had more subpar games than the other -- is completely false and undoubtedly misleading.

GAMES BELOW 60.0 PASSER RATING
0 = Roethlisberger, Brees
1 = Romo, Rodgers, P.Manning, Brady
2 = Luck, Wilson

Please go to the dictionary and look up consistency. The reason that Romo's #s change so much more than others taking out the outliers is that his extremes are more extreme. Now go and look up extreme. (Here's a hint - if you have four bad games, those aren't extreme cases anymore).

 

[AdamJT13]

Please go to the dictionary and look up consistency. The reason that Romo's #s change so much more than others taking out the outliers is that his extremes are more extreme. Now go and look up extreme. (Here's a hint - if you have four bad games, those aren't extreme cases anymore).

I know the definition of words. You're just twisting their meaning and misrepresenting the facts. Stating "others did not experience the same sort of lows" is a blatant falsehood that destroys whatever credibility you had.

 

[percyhoward]

http://i1079.***BLOCKED***/albums/w506/blindfaith69/trailing.png
There are a handful of QBs that do have quite a bit higher Int% when trailing with less than 4 min. But Romo is second lowest there, so anything you say about Rodgers you would need to apply to Romo.

If you want to equate Rodgers with Romo in these situations, then you're disagreeing with your own graphic.

Trailing < 4 min. to go vs. Career Numbers
pass rating
Rodgers -21.9
Romo -2.4

Comp %
Rodgers -11.8
Romo -2.4

TD/INT ratio
Rodgers -1.63
Romo + 0.23

YPA
Rodgers -1.2
Romo -0.3

Sack % (not included in your graphic, negative is better)
Rodgers -0.3%
Romo -3.3%

When trailing with less than 4:00 left, Romo is still Romo. Rodgers is most definitely not Rodgers.

 

[5Stars]

Please go to the dictionary and look up consistency. The reason that Romo's #s change so much more than others taking out the outliers is that his extremes are more extreme. Now go and look up extreme. (Here's a hint - if you have four bad games, those aren't extreme cases anymore).

lol...sure they are, especially if the first two bad games are within the division...that could be extreme.