Revisiting Romo's Late Game Stats

[Maxmadden]

Staubach, Aikman and Romo. Two of them had something the other does not.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Staubach, Aikmen and Romo. Two of them had something the other does not.

Names that you can spell?

 

[dstovall5]

Staubach, Aikmen and Romo. Two of them had something the other does not.

Staubach and Aikman both have an "a" in their names, did I get it right?

On a side note, apparently Troy has an "e" in his name as well.

 

[TrailBlazer]

Maybe they'll matter when Football is played one on one, but for right now it's 46 on 46. If you're going to assess an individual, then you look at his individual performance, not what the team has done as a whole.

Answer this. If you're trying to evaluate an individual performance, why would you do so by looking at a team statistic? That's not a very logical thing to do ...

Bc I think winning percentage has a lot to do with who's under center. As the top 5 winning percentages for qb's are probably the best five to ever play. Manning and Brady are 4th and 5th and they haven't ever had an all-world supporting cast. It's all been on their shoulders.

 

[Disturbed]

Winning should be the only thing that matters for any player or fan.

 

[Nation]

Mark Sanchez has a better playoff winning percentage than Roger Staubach. Brad Johnson has a better winning percentage than Troy Aikman. All of my heroes are being exposed as frauds by this W-L stuff.

 

[Maxmadden]

wiseguys

 

[Picksix]

Bc I think winning percentage has a lot to do with who's under center. As the top 5 winning percentages for qb's are probably the best five to ever play. Manning and Brady are 4th and 5th and they haven't ever had an all-world supporting cast. It's all been on their shoulders.

There's no question that the QB has as much of an effect as, if not more than, any player. However, there are so many times where games are won or lost that are beyond the QB's control. Romo throws for 400 yds and 4 TD's against NYG, but the D gives up 2 TD's in the last 5:30 of the game. Romo leads a drive into FG position to tie it, but it gets blocked. Romo on the hook for that L? That's just one example, but it's one of many. Go back to the 2007 playoff game. Romo didn't exactly light it up, but there were 3 huge drops in the 4th quarter of that game, along with lousy ST's, and what should have been Crayton wide open in the end zone for a game winner. Has Romo had his hand in losing some games? Sure. But FB is still first and foremost a team game. Guys like Staubach, Aikman, Elway, etc., all had great teams - and great coaching - around them. Something I don't think Romo ever really has.

 

[zack]

Staubach, Aikman and Romo. Two of them had something the other does not.

A complete team....

 

[Picksix]

Winning should be the only thing that matters for any player or fan.

Well sure. But in this age where we're always trying to place blame for losing, putting it on Romo is many times incorrect. People talk about "legacy", and the one that has been associated with Romo to this point is false.

 

[Maxmadden]

1. Two different vowels for the grammar police
2. Superbowl rings
3. Had a no.1 ranked Defense

 

[WhizKid]

Give me the W's and L's that's the only stat that matters.

W's and L's are crucial to figure out if you're have a winning, average, or losing record. To find out why you have a certain record in the off-season, you must be able to evaluate each player individually so that you may make the necessary changes in the off-season to improve.

If the team trots out the worst defense in football and refuses to run the ball, despite it's effectiveness, replacing your QB because they threw that last game away and that ninth win, will probably result in another last place defense and lack of running game the very next year. Guys like Manning and Brady have consistently gotten help through either defense, the run game, or proper scheming and game planning to mask the flaws in their offense or defense(coaching). They weren't all all-stars, but there was support. Our QB has like 1 yr of that and another where it almost worked out.

Your quickest way to recovery is to probably improve the defense and run the ball more and not require your QB to do something no other successful QB in the league is doing and then bashing him for not living up to your impossible standards, especially when the QB is not the best QB in the league and is not paid like the best QB in the league. When your defense can't keep the lead, and your coach decides to give up some wins for the lolz (this has to be some kind of trolling) that 8 win season is probably an 11 win season on those improvements alone.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Mark Sanchez has a better playoff winning percentage than Roger Staubach. Brad Johnson has a better winning percentage than Troy Aikman. All of my heroes are being exposed as frauds by this W-L stuff.

Best response

 

[Jarv]

They're all great bc they won 70%-75% of their games. The best qb's of their time, regardless of the help they got from their teams.This top five will stay intact for quite awhile. It's that impressive. We're talking double digit superbowl rings in that top five. Winning percentage is relevant.

Lol, by your logic if we had traded Russel Wilson for Romo last year we would have won the Superbowl and the Seahawks would have been 8-8, regardless of their teams!...Genius!

 

[zack]

Best response

Yes exactly.

But really, someone wanted stats for the last 5 minutes and now that they support Romo, then we switch the argument to wins and losses. It's all convenient, isn't it.

 

[TrailBlazer]

Lol, by your logic if we had traded Russel Wilson for Romo last year we would have won the Superbowl and the Seahawks would have been 8-8, regardless of their teams!...Genius!

No. Good job trying to spin what I said though. Winning percentage is relevant(of course you factor in things like # of games played). A top five of Montana staubach Elway Brady manning, makes it credible.

 

[TrailBlazer]

Not for quarterbacks.

Here is a link to the official stat records for Troll Blazer and his cronies. There is no mention of QB winning percentage. It is not a stat. It's not real. There is no definition of it.

http://static.nfl.com/static/conten.../pdfs/Records/2013/Individual_Performance.pdf

If Romo starts a game, is injured after his first handoff, and Orton comes in and the Cowboys win the game... who gets the (phony) QB win? Cite the source while you're at it. I'd like to read the rule.

It doesn't have to be some official stat in your NFL StatsTrump All handbook. Anyone with a brain knows Dallas wouldn't have a .572 winning percentage without romo. Injuries can easily be factored out. Find a stat with a better top five and I'll poke holes all through it.

 

[TINGS21]

Winning should be the only thing that matters for any player or fan.

So Barry Sanders "sucks" because he only had 1 playoff win as well?

 

[TwoDeep3]

The irony is so many claim this is a team sport as they defend Romo with Romo's stats, blaming the defense, and a cadre of other things, but still use stats to exemplify Romo and justify results.

 

[Idgit]

The irony is so many claim this is a team sport as they defend Romo with Romo's stats, blaming the defense, and a cadre of other things, but still use stats to exemplify Romo and justify results.

It's not irony, it's coincidence. There are stats that measure team performance, and stats that measure individual performance, and people use stats to support arguments because arguments that aren't supported by measurements don't tend to be all that convincing.