Revisiting Romo's Late Game Stats

[jnday]

What would you know about what judges and lawyers do?

I think you've gotten this backwards. You and KJJ have chosen Romo's performance in "elimination games" as the most important, or "useful," stat for comparing him to other QBs. That's the epitome of cherry-picking.

Yet, when I ask both of you for more information to further develop your argument, I get accused of cherry-picking. LMAO.

I have probably been in a courtroom more than you have, from your lack of arguing skills, I am just about sure of it.You had all the information that you needed from my post, yet you picked one sentence that you questioned. You were hoping to catch me changing the standards that I use to judge Romo, or as the saying goes "moving the goalpost during an argument". I have been consistent with my expectations for Romo and consistent with pointing out his failures. You were trying to use bits and pieces of KJJ's post instead if debating the entire point of his post as well.

 

[jobberone]

I've already discussed that. Russell Wilson had several multiple turnover games last season but overcame them due to being bailed out by his outstanding defense. Romo can't afford to turn the ball over having a historically bad defense that never bails him out but that doesn't excuse the turnovers he's had late in tight games. Although the defense was terrible vs Denver the Cowboys were still in position to win the game in the end until Romo's int in the closing minutes. Turnovers are going to happen when a team is way behind and a QB has to press but they're being paid the big bucks to come through when the opportunity is there.

Well, you got a fair amount right but you can't get out of the way of your agenda.

First, I'll say a TO to end a ballgame is a bit more costly than an earlier one because you are out of chances. However, it's not worth that much more.

We scored at almost a 40% clip and were 5th in the league in points scored just using last year as an example. However, we were middle of the road in yds and Dr# with only 183. Our RZ% was good which is how we scored well. We were bad on 3rd down which is why we didn't score more and gain more yards as well as keep the other offense off the field more. Not sure it would have helped that pathetic defense but it might have enough to matter some.

So what's the point of all that? Well, the point is we could not afford to turn the ball over at all. We had a TO% of almost 10 but the QBs only gave up 12 INTs in almost 600 attempts which ain't bad. So other people are more responsible for the TOs. Additionally, the QBs thru 33 TD passes which ain't bad either.

Of course Tony had no INTs against Philly in the last game of 2013 but Orton had two and they fumbled twice and lost one.

In 2012 in the last game, Romo threw 3 picks and the last was a stinker although we were in desperation mode. You can pin a lot of that loss on him although only the last INT was clearly on Tony.

In 2011 in the last game, Tony had one pick and we came from ahead to lose. NY had no turnovers. Negative one TO diff is not great but not that predictive. Where we lost that game was getting 300 yds to there 437 and allowing them to score at critical moments. We also had too many penalties. IOWs we didn't loose that game because of Tony but because we couldn't stop them and had too many penalties.

You were right in that if you have limited Dr# and a TO% of around ten AND you can't sustain drives because you can't drive well due to penalties and poor third down efficiency then you will have big problems. You can't have limited drive opportunities, not have a stellar Sc% and turn the ball over at all ESPECIALLY if you give up more points than you score no matter how many points you score.

All the above are just simplified reasons. There are a myriad of reasons you win and lose games in the NFL and I don't have time or the inclination to dissect every loss. But the least of the reasons why you lose is having a top five or ten offense with limited DR# and a crappy defense. You do that and you are going to have way too many situations where your QB is going to have to play extremely well every game. You're going to go into the last few minutes of the game asking your QB to make one of those 40% drives which just so happens to be one of the best percentages ever. If you put any QB into a situation where all season long he can't mess up then don't get too disappointed cause they all throw INTs and every INT is the wrong time when you can't throw any. You win a game or two before the end of the season and you aren't talking about Romo choking. At least not in the regular season.

This is where you completely miss the game. For you it's a cherry picked stat which supports your agenda but ignores almost all the other stats. It also fails to see that you can't depend on a QB to pull your butt out of the fire all the time. You just have unreasonable expectations for a team with such a lousy defense. Last year was epically bad but the defense has failed this team for awhile. Again TOs and TDs are important but they don't tell the whole tale.

Now having said all this I expect you will only hear yada yada, I'm a Romo homer and I defend him no matter what. These are just the facts and I'd say the same for any QB on a team like this one. And I'm also not saying that Romo doesn't throw picks that end games cause he's done that.

 

[peplaw06]

Dude I just told you there's exceptions to every rule. Not every QB who has a better TD to turnover ratio is going to win there's exceptions just like with the passer rating stat. There's plenty of games in which QB's have lost games where they had a higher passer rating than the winning QB. Turnovers are the deciding factor in a lot of big games anyone who knows football will tell you that.

Of course there will be exceptions. That's why correlating your particular stat to win percentage is important. Why don't you do that?

No one's denying turnovers are a factor. But if you want us to believe they are the end all be all as to QB statistical comparisons, then you're gonna have to do more than just feel really strongly about it.

 

[5Stars]

I have probably been in a courtroom more than you have, from your lack of arguing skills, I am just about sure of it.You had all the information that you needed from my post, yet you picked one sentence that you questioned. You were hoping to catch me changing the standards that I use to judge Romo, or as the saying goes "moving the goalpost during an argument". I have been consistent with my expectations for Romo and consistent with pointing out his failures. You were trying to use bits and pieces of KJJ's post instead if debating the entire point of his post as well.

Are you a family member of his? Never seen a FAN defend another FAN with so much passion. Hopefully he doesn't tell you to jump. LOL - taken from KJJ's post pertaining to you! lmao

 

[iceberg]

I have probably been in a courtroom more than you have, from your lack of arguing skills, I am just about sure of it.You had all the information that you needed from my post, yet you picked one sentence that you questioned. You were hoping to catch me changing the standards that I use to judge Romo, or as the saying goes "moving the goalpost during an argument". I have been consistent with my expectations for Romo and consistent with pointing out his failures. You were trying to use bits and pieces of KJJ's post instead if debating the entire point of his post as well.

So he can't cherry pick from your non educated " I don't care about other qb's" but you can cherry pick a handful of games to make your *evaluation* and people are supposed to take you seriously.

Got it.

 

[peplaw06]

Are you a family member of his? Never seen a FAN defend another FAN with so much passion. Hopefully he doesn't tell you to jump. LOL

I'm not defending him. He doesn't need defending cause his work is in a different universe from your "research."

 

[peplaw06]

I have probably been in a courtroom more than you have, from your lack of arguing skills, I am just about sure of it.

LOL. Prove it.

You had all the information that you needed from my post, yet you picked one sentence that you questioned. You were hoping to catch me changing the standards that I use to judge Romo, or as the saying goes "moving the goalpost during an argument". I have been consistent with my expectations for Romo and consistent with pointing out his failures. You were trying to use bits and pieces of KJJ's post instead if debating the entire point of his post as well.

That's called deconstructing an argument. If you can't support one point I picked out, then the entire foundation crumbles. You haven't made it past that one point, so there's been no need to address the others. It's like a house of cards.

 

[KJJ]

Well, you got a fair amount right but you can't get out of the way of your agenda.

First, I'll say a TO to end a ballgame is a bit more costly than an earlier one because you are out of chances. However, it's not worth that much more.

I don't have an agenda I'm just giving an opinion just like everyone else. Everything we're discussing is based on opinion. A late turnover is much more costly than early turnover because there's usually not enough time to overcome it which was the case vs Denver on Romo's late int. It certainly wasn't all Romo's fault the Cowboys lost that game he gave the team the opportunity to win but he can't be excluded from taking some of the blame.

 

[Cebrin]

LOL. Prove it.

That's called deconstructing an argument. If you can't support one point I picked out, then the entire foundation crumbles. You haven't made it past that one point, so there's been no need to address the others. It's like a house of cards.

I think I've made some new friends on here. Lol.

 

[5Stars]

I don't have an agenda I'm just giving an opinion just like everyone else. Everything we're discussing is based on opinion. A late turnover is much more costly than early turnover because there's usually not enough time to overcome it which was the case vs Denver on Romo's late int. It certainly wasn't all Romo's fault the Cowboys lost that game he gave the team the opportunity to win but he can't be excluded from taking some of the blame.

Oh, now "it's some of the blame", huh? All you have been doing in this thread is dogging Romo, but since you got schooled, now you come to the conclusion that "it's some of the blame". Well, in that regards, you are right...Romo is one man on a team of 53!

You are getting sleepy....you are getting sleepy...you are getting sleepy....

 

[iceberg]

ZzzzzzzzzZz

 

[KJJ]

I'm not defending him. He doesn't need defending cause his work is in a different universe from your "research."

You've defended him in a number of posts you can't even see that. LOL Percy wastes a lot of time on passer ratings. According to the "stat" Romo is the second best QB in the final 5 minutes of games even though the stigma he carries was due to the many ill-timed mistakes he's made in the final 5 minutes. According to the "stat" he's the 5th best QB all-time. How relevant can a stat be that has Romo ranked ahead of Tom Brady Joe Montana, Roger Staubach and Troy Aikman?

 

[KJJ]

Of course there will be exceptions. That's why correlating your particular stat to win percentage is important. Why don't you do that?

No one's denying turnovers are a factor. But if you want us to believe they are the end all be all as to QB statistical comparisons, then you're gonna have to do more than just feel really strongly about it.

I don't need to tabulate a win percentage because I know it's a high percentage. I've seen enough SB's to know that. Sure they'll be a few exceptions but more times than not the QB who has the better TD to turnover ratio their team usually wins the make or break games. Those are the games I research. It was like that in 4 of the Cowboys 5 SB wins. It was like that in 6 of Romo's 7 elimination games.

 

[5Stars]

You've defended him in a number of posts you can't even see that. LOL Percy wastes a lot of time on passer ratings. According to the "stat" Romo is the second best QB in the final 5 minutes of games even though the stigma he carries was due to the many ill-timed mistakes he's made in the final 5 minutes. According to the "stat" he's the 5th best QB all-time. How relevant can a stat be that has Romo ranked ahead of Tom Brady Joe Montana, Roger Staubach and Troy Aikman?

Is that a trick question? smh How about those QB's had a better TEAM around them? Romo having a stat that proves he can be ranked ahead of those you listed shows that he is a damn good QB while having to play with inferior teams! Learn the game....

 

[peplaw06]

You've defended him in a number of posts you can't even see that. LOL Percy wastes a lot of time on passer ratings. According to the "stat" Romo is the second best QB in the final 5 minutes of games even though the stigma he carries was due to the many ill-timed mistakes he's made in the final 5 minutes. According to the "stat" he's the 5th best QB all-time. How relevant can a stat be that has Romo ranked ahead of Tom Brady Joe Montana, Roger Staubach and Troy Aikman?

You're caught up in stigmas and subjective ********. Objectively most stats list him up in the top echelon of QBs throughout history. You may not like it, but that's how it is. If you want to objectively prove he doesn't belong up there, then you should get after it. This is a statistical debate. It doesn't lend itself well to whatever subjective stigma you feel like Romo has.

Plus, you're a Cowboys fan right? You live by the wins and die by the losses right? Do you think that you're really to look at it objectively when you watch him play week in and week out? If Tom Brady throws a last minute INT to lose a game, you probably think about it for 5 minutes before it's forgotten. But you see him constantly in the playoffs, and you see him play in and win super bowls. But objective statistical debates aren't based on one game or a handful of games that you may remember. They're based on entire seasons and entire careers. That's why they have more weight.

I'm going to link you to an article that was written about Romo and the "choker" label in 2011. http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/tony-romo-choke-artist-or-not/8831/

It contains objective analysis. It also shows you the "choker" label is a product of fans' perception and subjective factors. It's not reality.

Here's some of the conclusion...

If you think Tony Romo is a choke artist that can’t get out of his own way in close games, then you’re going to have to expand that gallery to include some other quarterbacks, such as Rodgers and Rivers.

Romo has had his share of mistakes. He has underperformed in the postseason. But it is all overglamorized because everything, including the criticism, is bigger in Texas. Romo does not have the Super Bowl win to help people forget his mistakes like some other players, nor does anyone seem interested in giving him credit when he does win big games.

The 2006 Colts (9-0) and 2009 Saints (13-0) were undefeated teams that went on to win the Super Bowl that year, and Romo handed each of them their first loss of the season in games where he played well. He threw four touchdowns and put the game away late against a Green Bay team that was 10-1 in a much hyped 2007 matchup. He won all three meetings against the 2009 Eagles, a playoff team. He threw a 50+ yard touchdown pass late in the fourth quarter in both meetings against the 2007 Giants, another championship team, to put those games out of reach.

 

[peplaw06]

I don't need to tabulate a win percentage because I know it's a high percentage. I've seen enough SB's to know that. Sure they'll be a few exceptions but more times than not the QB who has the better TD to turnover ratio their team usually wins the make or break games. Those are the games I research. It was like that in 4 of the Cowboys 5 SB wins. It was like that in 6 of Romo's 7 elimination games.

I've just shown you that in the 2013 postseason the win correlation is about the same as a coin flip. That's not a high percentage. It's much larger than a few exceptions to some kind of rule. So tell us how you "know" it's a high percentage... If you want to be taken seriously, then yeah, you do "need to."

 

[KJJ]

LOL. Prove it.

That seems to be your theme with everyone. LOL Make everyone else do the legwork while you sit back using other posters research to try and make your argument.

 

[peplaw06]

That seems to be your theme with everyone. LOL Make everyone else do the legwork while you sit back using other posters research to try and make your argument.

I did 5 minutes of research on the most recent 13 games and obliterated your argument.

 

[jnday]

You do understand that if Romo was some type of bumbling turnover machine in the 4th quarter of close games that his rating wouldn't be as high as it is right? This is just confirmation bias on your part. You came to a conclusion based on your cherry-picking of certain games. Now when evidence is presented to say you're wrong, you dismiss it and just focus on the certain games you used to get to your opinion in the first place.

I will repeat my opinion one more time so that you understand. Romo has a history of turnovers in games against the better teams in the league (above .500 winning percentage). Some of these games have been the last games of the season in a win or go home situation. There is another thread where a poster lists ten games off the top of his head , but that is not all of them. Romo's winning percentage is horrible against teams that has winning records and he has made turnovers in many of those games . The turnovers have caused the team to lose these games. The two examples that I have used in previous post is the Lions game ( even Bobby Carpenter got an interception) and the Jets game that was played on a Sunday night. Romo turned the ball over twice late in the game and the interception by Revis sealed the win for the Jets. This is just a couple of examples. Are you wanting to deny they happened? If these two are not good enough, there is many more. I can't understand why the truth offends the Romo-lovers. The only group that wants to deny the problem exists is a small portion of the Cowboys' fanbase. When the media , other football fans, players,and even a good percentage of Cowboy fans point out that Romo has a history of late game screw-ups, they are labeled as haters , trolls, fans with no knowledge of the game, ignorant and even being biased. That name calling is coming from a small group of Cowboy fans that refuses to see what the rest of the world sees. I guess the entire world is wrong and this small group is the only knowledgeable football fans on the planet. I can at least respect the Romo lovers that admits Tony has this history of turnovers. It is dumb to deny that it has happened when the turnovers gets replayed on ESPN for an entire week after they happen. The defense is causing some loses, but the turnovers are caused by Romo. The defense doesn't throw interceptions. I have said that Romo is a good QB, but he has a couple big flaws in his game. I don't consider that statement as bashing, but I am a hater for saying it in many poster's eyes. I kinda like the label.

 

[KJJ]

You're caught up in stigmas and subjective bull****.

That's it I'm done with you. If there weren't mods on this board I would continue but I've been down this road before with other combative FANS and have learned my lesson to move on when it's clear they're not interested in having a civil discussion.