Revisiting Romo's Late Game Stats

[KJJ]

Haven't read through everything yet but I did feel the need to comment on this.

In my opinion of course, I feel that those QB's, especially Rapist 2.0, have had the benefit of being carried into the playoffs by the defense, which then in turn, allows him an OPPORTUNITY to play great in said playoffs. In 2008, his defense was averaging 14.2 ppg. They beat Washington by two possessions that year and he was 5/17. Not too sure if we can find many games where Romo is 5/17 and the Cowboys win by two possessions but the point of my reply was that, Romo hasn't had the benefit of having a defense at least GET HIM to the playoffs where he can possibly play great whereas Flacco and Rapist 2.0 (and Eli) have. You could possibly make a case for 2009, but I'm not sure which QB may have been able to win with the way that line was playing against Minnesota.

Roethlisberger clearly got carried to the SB in 05 by his defense and a solid running game but in 08 he was a big part of why the Steelers won the SB. Although the Steelers had the #1 defense that season they had a horrible OL that got Roethlisberger sacked 48 times and carted off the field late that season. Now some of his sacks were due to him holding the ball too long but his OL was dreadful. The Cowboys OL was used as an excuse by many FANS for some of Romo's issues early in his career before the defense got bad in 2010.

Roethlisberger's #1 defense in 08 got shredded by Kurt Warner in the SB and it took a last ditch drive by Roethlisberger to pull that game out. Roethlisberger turned the ball over twice vs the Packers in the 2010 SB and he was outplayed by Aaron Rodgers who played mistake free football. The final month of the 09 season Romo had a good defense. The defense held the 13-0 Saints in check and finished the season with back to back shutouts. The D was solid in the playoff win over Philly then everything fell apart in Minn the following week. The Cowboys have never been the same since.

 

[DFWJC]

Roethlisberger clearly got carried to the SB in 05 by his defense and a solid running game but in 08 he was a big part of why the Steelers won the SB. Although the Steelers had the #1 defense that season they had a horrible OL that got Roethlisberger sacked 48 times and carted off the field late that season. Now some of his sacks were due to him holding the ball too long but his OL was dreadful. The Cowboys OL was used as an excuse by many FANS for some of Romo's issues early in his career before the defense got bad in 2010.

Roethlisberger's #1 defense in 08 got shredded by Kurt Warner in the SB and it took a last ditch drive by Roethlisberger to pull that game out. Roethlisberger turned the ball over twice vs the Packers in the 2010 SB and he was outplayed by Aaron Rodgers who played mistake free football. The final month of the 09 season Romo had a good defense. The defense held the 13-0 Saints in check and finished the season with back to back shutouts. The D was solid in the playoff win over Philly then everything fell apart in Minn the following week. The Cowboys have never been the same since.

I think if you give a good QB enough playoff chances, at some point they will get on a roll. Flacco and Eli were back to their inconsistent selves last year, but it's hard to argue that they didn't play very big rolls in their teams' most recent SB runs.

 

[percyhoward]

Look at Andrew Luck his rookie season.

Stinks it up in several games, but keeps orchestrating game-winning drives in the waning minutes..."This kid is really good!"

Romo shines for most of the game, then throws an INT in the waning minutes, sealing a defeat..."He's the only reason the Cowboys were in the game to begin with."

I'm guessing that fans of most teams would prefer having the former over the latter.

No, explain how sometimes what happens doesn't matter. That's one I'd be really interested to hear.

 

[KJJ]

I think if you give a good QB enough playoff chances, at some point they will get on a roll. Flacco and Eli were back to their inconsistent selves last year, but it's hard to argue that they didn't play very big rolls in their teams' most recent SB runs.

For a QB to get enough playoff chances they have to do their part. Roethlisberger made a lot of plays in 08 and 2010 during the season and postseason. He kept plays alive and came up with some big throws in some very critical situations that enabled the Steelers to reach those SB's. It wasn't just his defense he had to play efficiently for those teams to get as far as they did.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Maybe so, but is he a part of the problem for that too? Does he play well early in games to avoid having to make an amazing comeback? Or does he not play well early and is part of why they have to make a comeback? Maybe Percy can answer that question?



Going into the game against Denver I think Romo and the rest of the world felt the Cowboys had little chance to win, so it actually took some pressure off of him since everyone was expecting a loss anyway. Then as the game goes on and he is playing very well against a horrible defense who were missing key starters, it really builds up his confidence. So much so that his brain stopped working at the end and he throws into coverage to a rookie vs taking an easy dump pass to wide open Murray who had nobody around him and could have picked up the first.

That's honesty a pretty good answer, considering your stance is entrenched. however dont you think if you need to explain so much away that it means you're reaching a bit? Just like if romo screws Up us homers have to over analyze eventually it sounds like excuses.

He's got a large sampling. Some good teams, some Bad teams. some good coach, some bad coaches. I think he's a really good qb who had a weird thing happen In Seattle that DOES sometimes make him tight, however it has not precluded him from absolutely killing it in the clutch at times. I just don't like this mentality that when he does come through that it's quickly forgotten. And we just "keep watching hell screw up eventually ". That's lame. Sometimes credit is due.

 

[percyhoward]

Yeah, this is a pretty good illustration of what I was talking about.

Yeah, and it makes no sense. "Sometimes what happens doesn't matter" allows you to leave out any play that doesn't support your opinion, which is of course a fool's exercise that takes the discussion into fantasyland. You can leave stuff out completely at your whim--any or all the 5 TD passes, for example--but any conclusion you reach will be meaningless.

For that matter, you might as well leave out the INT. What's the difference?

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Yeah, and it makes no sense. "Sometimes what happens doesn't matter" allows you to leave out any play that doesn't support your opinion, which is of course a fool's exercise that takes the discussion into fantasyland. You can leave stuff out completely at your whim--any or all the 5 TD passes, for example--but any conclusion you reach will be meaningless.

For that matter, you might as well leave out the INT. What's the difference?

Ah, I can answer that. Remember, these people with their ESPN-infused brains are obsessed with the end of the game... even though there's no difference between an interception at the beginning of the game than at the end, despite what ESPN would have you believe (hint: this is a question of logic, not football).

 

[DFWJC]

For a QB to get enough playoff chances they have to do their part. Roethlisberger made a lot of plays in 08 and 2010 during the season and postseason. He kept plays alive and came up with some big throws in some very critical situations that enabled the Steelers to reach those SB's. It wasn't just his defense he had to play efficiently for those teams to get as far as they did.

Ben made plenty of plays.

My point was more the glaringly obvious one; that given the #1 or #2 defense in the league (like Pittsburgh had in 2008 and 2010) Romo would obviously be in the playoffs every year. Every time Dallas has been close to that top 10 range, they have done well. it just hasn't been very often that the defense has been near top 10.
But if you get there often enough due to having a good all around team, then at some point a good QB (like Romo) would get hot in the playoffs are go on a big run.

I wasn't taking anything away from Ben..at least not for what he did in the playoffs in 2010.

 

[rpntex]

Nobody has said that he blew the game by himself but when he has the ball in his hand at the end of the game and he turns the ball over then he choked. It's in Romo's head. He can make comebacks against bad teams. I want to see him do it against good teams in pressure games.

Au contraire---there have been LOTS of posters (or at least it's a few who have said it a lot) who have blamed Romo---and solely Romo---for that game, because of theta one pass. They also blame him for the Commanders loss to close 2012 (once again ignoring a defense that allowed a 200-yard rushing performance by Alfred Morse), the Detroit loss in 2011, and the 44-6 Eagles blowout a few years ago. If they could fine a way, they'd blame him for last December's season-ending loss to Philly, too.

 

[rpntex]

That is just not true. For proof look no further than the Minnesota and Washington games last year. Romo lead game winning drives at the end and although it was against 3-13 and 5-11 teams, he still get the vast majority of the praise and that is because he should. It's not like he threw a 3 yard slant pass and the WR made some awesome moves and took the pass 70 yards for a TD. Romo made several good plays and then capped it off with a TD pass at the end. Those are game winning drives led by Romo and he deserves the praise for them.

Big difference between what you're saying, and what I'm saying. He damn sure deserves praise for LEADING THE GAME-WINNING DRIVE, but you have to distinguish between that and "winning the game". That's a team stat.

Conversely, he deserves blame for throwing a pick in crunch time, but not for "losing the game". That, too is a team stat.

 

[ufcrules1]

Conversely, he deserves blame for throwing a pick in crunch time, but not for "losing the game". That, too is a team stat.

He was part of the reason the "team" lost. He was not the only reason the team lost but he was part of it. Even though he had a huge stat game up until that point doesn't dissolve him from the role he played in them losing. Can we agree on that?

 

[dstovall5]

I blame Tyron Smith just as much as I do Tony on that interception, it was just a flukey play that happened. If Smith doesn't get backed into Romo, chances are the pass is not intercepted, and we win that game, Romo was on fire all game.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I blame Tyron Smith just as much as I do Tony on that interception, it was just a flukey play that happened. If Smith doesn't get backed into Romo, chances are the pass is not intercepted, and we win that game, Romo was on fire all game.

Every time I see the play I think the same thing: fabulous play by Trevathan, one of the best of the year.

 

[ufcrules1]

That's honesty a pretty good answer, considering your stance is entrenched. however dont you think if you need to explain so much away that it means you're reaching a bit? Just like if romo screws Up us homers have to over analyze eventually it sounds like excuses.

He's got a large sampling. Some good teams, some Bad teams. some good coach, some bad coaches. I think he's a really good qb who had a weird thing happen In Seattle that DOES sometimes make him tight, however it has not precluded him from absolutely killing it in the clutch at times. I just don't like this mentality that when he does come through that it's quickly forgotten. And we just "keep watching hell screw up eventually ". That's lame. Sometimes credit is due.

I can agree with some of what you're saying. He has been clutch at times during the regular season, no doubt about it. I have given him plenty of credit, I have said a millions times here he is a good QB. He just doesn't play as good in the regular season as he does in "win and you're in"/ playoff games and he has a propensity to choke when you need him most ie. 2012 game vs Washington. We can call it bad luck, we can call it him not using his brain, we can blame other players/coaches, etc. But it happens and it can't be denied. The whole world sees it and that is why Romo is known as a choker.

As far as reaching with my response? No, I didn't feel I did that. I was just logically trying to give a good answer to what I think happened in the Denver game. I literally think Romo just doesn't think in those situations. Same thing happened in the 2012 game against Washington. He had made up his mind that next time he got pressure he was going to quickly throw it to Murray, so he gets pressure and just throws it.. never even thinks to look to see if he was covered or not and bam.. season over. If we are going to pay him elite money, he needs to step up and come through in those situations. I have given up on him already personally and I see more and more fans do the same every year once they see what I have seen.

 

[Califan007]

Yeah, and it makes no sense. "Sometimes what happens doesn't matter" allows you to leave out any play that doesn't support your opinion, which is of course a fool's exercise that takes the discussion into fantasyland. You can leave stuff out completely at your whim--any or all the 5 TD passes, for example--but any conclusion you reach will be meaningless.

For that matter, you might as well leave out the INT. What's the difference?

A win vs. a loss, I think lol...

In the Luck example, he overcame his mistakes to bring the team to a victory. In the Romo example, he did not. That would probably be the difference.

 

[Califan007]

I can agree with some of what you're saying. He has been clutch at times during the regular season, no doubt about it. I have given him plenty of credit, I have said a millions times here he is a good QB. He just doesn't play as good in the regular season as he does in "win and you're in"/ playoff games and he has a propensity to choke when you need him most ie. 2012 game vs Washington. We can call it bad luck, we can call it him not using his brain, we can blame other players/coaches, etc. But it happens and it can't be denied. The whole world sees it and that is why Romo is known as a choker.

I doubt anyone would say Romo tends to elevate his game when the season/playoffs are on the line. By contrast, Aikman most definitely raised his game noticeably. That tends to trump stats from October and November.

 

[Idgit]

I blame Tyron Smith just as much as I do Tony on that interception, it was just a flukey play that happened. If Smith doesn't get backed into Romo, chances are the pass is not intercepted, and we win that game, Romo was on fire all game.

Thanks for the clip. Murray had to be the target with that coverage, though.

 

[ufcrules1]

Big difference between what you're saying, and what I'm saying. He damn sure deserves praise for LEADING THE GAME-WINNING DRIVE, but you have to distinguish between that and "winning the game". That's a team stat.

He played a big role in his team winning the game and the QB gets the most glory when the team wins, especially on a drive like that. Conversely, the QB is going to get the most heat when he throws a game ending interception when he could have led the team down the field for the win. It's just the way it is. He was a part of the reason his team won in one of the games and he is a part of the reason his team lost in the other game.

With all of that said, a QB can be the main reason a team loses (Washington 2012) and the main reason a team wins (Washington 2013).

I think you can agree with everything I have said here right?

 

[ufcrules1]

I doubt anyone would say Romo tends to elevate his game when the season/playoffs are on the line. By contrast, Aikman most definitely raised his game noticeably. That tends to trump stats from October and November.

Agreed!

 

[ufcrules1]

Thanks for the clip. Murray had to be the target with that coverage, though.

Is this the first time we have agreed on something ever?? You're 100% right. Murray for an easy check down and chances are he picks up the first or comes very close to it. Disaster averted.