News: Ride Him, Cowboys - Peter King SI.Com

[tyke1doe]

Tyke, you consistently come out in defense of media types. I assume you're in the business, given your obvious sensitivity to any criticism of virtually any writer. Trouble is, you're being far too charitable in your interpretation of the piece:

First, you are slightly on target. I WAS in the business. I'm no longer in the daily newspaper business.
Second, I don't defend every or any writer. In fact, I'm one of the ones who points out when reporters write something that is meant to stir emotions.
Third, yes, because I've been in the business, I have a perspective that few don't.

"Dallas has gotten nowhere but the middle of the pack by handing the ball to Tony Romo for the last three seasons...So the Cowboys have gotten smart on offense, making sure Romo doesn’t ruin their chances by turning it over too much. And with the exception of Murray fumbling it four times in the first five games, it’s been a smart strategy."

There's no plausible interpretation of those words that doesn't read them as blaming Romo for the team's mediocrity the past few seasons and crediting the team's fortunes this year to taking the ball out of his (turnover prone) hands. King blithely skates over one of the fatal flaws in his reasoning: namely, that (whatever else he's done) Murray hasn't exactly improved our takeaway/giveaway differential.

Isn't it interesting to you that when we became more of a run-oriented team, not only are the Cowboys winning, not only is Romo not being put in situations where he can cause a fatal turnover, but that the defense has improved also?

What would you say is the cause Dallas' current success? The defense? Romo? The running game?

It's not just the turnovers. It's WHEN the turnovers occur. No one is saying Romo isn't a good quarterback. But the team put him in a position to make mistakes. You all want to get caught up into stats. Romo has had the stats. Yet, the team finished 8-8 for three consecutive years. Yes, that had something to do with the the defense. Yes, that had something to do with the lack of a running game. It also had to do with putting too much on Romo's shoulders and putting him in position to make a mistake at a critical time in the game.

As for the other fatal flaw in his reasoning -- specifically, that it hasn't been any tendency by Romo to turn the ball over that has led to the team's recent mediocrity -- you can try to defend King by pointing to the untimeliness of Romo's turnovers, but how do you propose to handle telecote's reminder that Romo had a 17-3 TD/INT ratio in the team's losses? That stat is a lethal dagger in the notion that Romo's inability to protect the ball has been the problem. Without addressing this, your defense of King fails and you risk joining King as a purveyor of misinformation.

With all due respect, stats are (in this context) for losers. Cowboys fans have hung their hats on stats for the past three years. And where have they gotten us? 8-8, 8-8, 8-8. We get ad nausem how Romo has one of the highest efficiency ratings in the league. We get ad nausem how Romo is one of the top quarterbacks in the league, statistically speaking. We get ad nausem how he has a low TD to INT ratio. And yet with all that ... HE STILL WAS PUT IN A POSITION TO MAKE A MISTAKE AT A CRITICAL TIME!!!

We've ALL seen it.

So don't tell me that my quarterback threw only one interception in 17 attempts when that one interception was in the fourth quarter with the game on the line, and then compare that with a quarterback that threw 3 interceptions early in a game but on the final drive completed every pass and threw the game winning touchdown. All turnovers are not the same.

Which scenario would you prefer? The former stats pleaser or the less impressive stats but winner?

 

[Super_Kazuya]

All turnovers aren't the same any more than an interception in the fourth quarter is the same as Hail Mary before halftime.
It's not that Romo made turnovers. It's WHEN he made those turnovers, which is the reason he receives/received criticism by the general football population, which also includes NFL players and former coaches.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read and i get tired of reading low IQ stuff like this. There is never a good time to commit a turnover. The idea that a turnover on the last play of the game is worse than a turnover on the first is laughable. Understanding that has nothing to do with football, it's logic (probably why it's so hard for you to see). Buzz off, troll.

 

[tyke1doe]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read and i get tired of reading low IQ stuff like this. There is never a good time to commit a turnover. The idea that a turnover on the last play of the game is worse than a turnover on the first is laughable. Understanding that has nothing to do with football, it's logic (probably why it's so hard for you to see). Buzz off, troll.

First, no one tells you to read my post. That's a self-control problem you need to deal with.
Second, since you have such a high IQ I shouldn't have to explain to you context. You know, that concept that allows you to understand similar situations and determine why they aren't the same? So if my team is up 40-0 with two minutes left and we turnover over the football, that's the same as being behind 7-3 and turning the ball over?

Second, turnovers IN THIS CONTEXT (see, there's that word again ) has EVERYTHING to do with football. Unless you're talking about turnover in the real world. And turnover in the real world can be positive. Example, a company whose turnover rate allows fresh new blood that sparks ingenuity and creativity.

I love when people attack other's logic and then forthwith violate the principles of logic themselves.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

It's not just the turnovers. It's WHEN the turnovers occur.

Sure. The evidence, however, is that they did not occur when we were losing last year. Again, Romo had a 17-3 TD/INT ratio in the team's losses.

With all due respect, stats are (in this context) for losers.

This is an unfortunate (and frankly anti-intellectual) position to be taking. In essence, it outright rejects the preponderance of evidence, choosing instead to focus on isolated incidents (for example, the season ending interception against Washington in 2012) that stick in the memory (for various psychological reasons) but fail to represent the norm.

In any event, the increasing reliance by professional sports franchises on analytics suggests that your voice is becoming increasingly lonely. More and more, the people who get paid to make football decisions are recognizing that ignoring statistics is for losers.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

First, no one tells you to read my post. That's a self-control problem you need to deal with.
Second, since you have such a high IQ I shouldn't have to explain to you context. You know, that concept that allows you to understand similar situations and determine why they aren't the same? So if my team is up 40-0 with two minutes left and we turnover over the football, that's the same as being behind 7-3 and turning the ball over?

Are you seriously this dim? It's two different games. I said there is no difference in the timing and there isn't. If you throw a TD early on in the 40-0 game then it is just as irrelevant. You don't even know what you are talking about, you can't even prove that Romo's interceptions are in worse "context" than anyone else's. I would love to see you attempt to prove that Romo's 10 interceptions last year were worse than any other QBs in the league. You're an embarrassment to this board.

 

[tyke1doe]

Are you seriously this dim? It's two different games. I said there is no difference in the timing and there isn't. If you throw a TD early on in the 40-0 game then it is just as irrelevant. You don't even know what you are talking about, you can't even prove that Romo's interceptions are in worse "context" than anyone else's. I would love to see you attempt to prove that Romo's 10 interceptions last year were worse than any other QBs in the league. You're an embarrassment to this board.

You're not making sense.
You said there's no good time to turnover the ball.
Now you're saying that throwing a pick in a 40-0 game is irrelevant. Well, if turning over the ball in a blowout is irrelevant, then the issue of "no good time to turn the ball over" is irrelevant.
Before you try to school me on logic, you may need to study the topic yourself. Just saying.

Second, it's interesting that as soon as people talk about Romo's critical interceptions, the comparison immediately shifts to what other quarterbacks do. I thought we were talking about Tony Romo not Aaron Rodgers? Uh, Rodgers doesn't quarterback the Cowboys. Romo does. I don't care what Rodgers does (unless I have him on my fantasy football team. ). I do care about what Romo does.

Third, if I'm an embarrassment to this board, then why are you arguing with me? Wouldn't that make you an embarrassment to be arguing with one who is obviously devoid of logic, as you seem to think? Sorry, junior. Those shame tactics don't work on me.
You have a free-will of your own. You can decide whom you respond to and whom you don't.
If you feel I'm trolling (which I'm not), then you can simply ignore me. Or is that too hard for you to do?

I'm sorry I don't have the same perspective you do on every issue. And for that I'm glad. This place would be pretty boring if we all approached life, much less our opinion of the Cowboys and the team's players, the same way.

If you can't deal with the different perspectives, well, then, there's an ignore function you should oblige yourself in using.

 

[tyke1doe]

Sure. The evidence, however, is that they did not occur when we were losing last year. Again, Romo had a 17-3 TD/INT ratio in the team's losses.

Tony built his reputation on games like the Detroit game where he serves up multiple interceptions when we had a huge lead.
And the Washington game when he served up an interception one poster called basically a "punt," except the "punt" came on second down.
And the NY Jets game where we were leading and he fumbles while we're driving for another score then throwing to an inexperienced Dez allowing Revis to get a pick six.

Again, you quote stats. And I'm fine with the stats. But stats don't always tell the whole story.

This is an unfortunate (and frankly anti-intellectual) position to be taking. In essence, it outright rejects the preponderance of evidence, choosing instead to focus on isolated incidents (for example, the season ending interception against Washington in 2012) that stick in the memory (for various psychological reasons) but fail to represent the norm.

It's not anti-intellectual, not in a game measured by wins and losses. Stats are fine. I'm not ignoring stats. But stats alone can't be the measure of success in a game that is determined by wins and losses. This isn't a math class where people are competing among themselves, and their personal stats matter. We're talking about a game that is measured by wins and losses. And in a game measured by wins and losses, what does it matter if the losing quarterback throws for 398 yards and 3 TDs if he throws a critical pick compared to the quarterback who throws for 175 yards, no picks and makes a critical third down play that moves the chains and results in a win?

Frankly, in a game that is judged by wins and losses, my approach is quite intellectual. If that element of wins and losses weren't in play (pardon the pun), then you would be correct.

In any event, the increasing reliance by professional sports franchises on analytics suggests that your voice is becoming increasingly lonely. More and more, the people who get paid to make football decisions are recognizing that ignoring statistics is for losers.

Any yet, the Cowboys are relying more on the run this year. If what you're saying is true, wouldn't the Cowboys be passing more? If Tony Romo's 17-3 TD to INT ratio were a thing to brag on, wouldn't we continue with the same offense as we did last year? Or could it be that we understand that to be an effective, efficient and WINNING team and to limit Romo from situations where he's pressured to make a play, we need to run the ball? Could it be that a more dangerous Tony Romo is one who now has a complimentary run game, opening the offense up for him to make plays as we know he can?

Seems to me the very approach we're taking, and having success with, kind of supports my point.

 

[burmafrd]

actually tyke still bleeds for any writer - love for him to show posts where he actually works over one of those losers. And how small a percentage of his posts probably do so.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

All turnovers aren't the same any more than an interception in the fourth quarter is the same as Hail Mary before halftime.
It's not that Romo made turnovers. It's WHEN he made those turnovers, which is the reason he receives/received criticism by the general football population, which also includes NFL players and former coaches.
And many - even Cowboys fans - have said we need to surround Romo with a running game, which is the topic of the article.
But leave it to Cowboys fans to find something to be offended about in an article that is otherwise praising the Cowboys for FINALLY figuring it out.

Interception that takes points off the board in the first quarter count the same as interceptions that take points off the board in the 4th. I promise you. It's true. All points are created equal.

But if we want to get contextual.... Nobody has more 4th quarter comeback wins than Romo in all of the National Football League since he became a starting qb.

 

[tyke1doe]

actually tyke still bleeds for any writer - love for him to show posts where he actually works over one of those losers. And how small a percentage of his posts probably do so.

Why are you worried about whom I defend? Why are you worried about the percentage makeup of my posts on the media?
What concern is that of yours?

Some of you need to grow up and understand that stereotypes don't dictate reality.Some of you can't handle criticism and are so narrow-minded and limited in your experiences that you must classify opposition into stereotypes, i.e., "Well, he's just a hater." "He's a fan of the Giants that's why he's criticizing." "Well, he's a member of the media, so of course, he's going to criticize the Cowboys." "He's not a TRUE Cowboys fan." "He's just trolling." etc. Those comments suggest, in many cases, the people making them are parochial in their thinking, restricted by their limited experiences in life.

Life is not always as simple and as stereotypical as you'd like to make it. There are perspectives beyond yours based on people's observations and their experiences. There are Cowboys fans who love the team but may disagree with aspects of the team. They are still fans regardless what your pollyannic perspective may whisper to your brain. There are Cowboys fans who think Tony Romo is a good quarterback who also believe he makes critical mistakes at crucial times.

If you can't handle criticism, maybe you (I'm not speaking specifically to you bumafrd, but in general) should use the IGNORE function or simply not respond.

 

[tyke1doe]

Interception that takes points off the board in the first quarter count the same as interceptions that take points off the board in the 4th. I promise you. It's true. All points are created equal.

Not necessarily. The only points that matter are the points where my team is ahead of your team at the end of the game. It doesn't matter whether it's 1 point, 3 points or 24 points.

Again, the name of the game is WINNING!!!

If I'm ahead 40-0 and I throw a Hail Mary interception, yes, that takes points off the board. But if the final score is 40-7 or 40-38, it didn't matter because the end result is not points or turnovers but WINNING!!!

Now, points and turnovers factor into whether you win or lose, true. But so does WHEN those turnovers occur. If you make a turnover in the first quarter, you have time to recover. If you make a turnover in the fourth quarter under two minutes, you don't have as much time to recover, and that can be critical.

Nothing I'm saying is hard to understand.

But if we want to get contextual.... Nobody has more 4th quarter comeback wins than Romo in all of the National Football League since he became a starting qb.

Great. Brett Favre did the same. But he also had games where he handed a win to the other team.

Again, no one is saying Tony Romo isn't good or even among the top QBs in the league. He is. He does have a penchant to make mistakes also and critical ones. I think that's a product of the team not protecting him like it should have. I'm convinced had we had a young Parcells, we would have won the Super Bowl already with Tony Romo. I think we squandered much of his career. He has had a great career. But he could have been more. Saying that doesn't negate the fact that he's Brett Favre-lite. It's not an either/or situation with him. It's both. He can be spectacular, and he can be disappointing.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Under no circumstances.

He sure got a lot of love previous weeks lol.

 

[DandyDon1722]

Will you all PLEASE never forget that Peter King was a NY Giants season ticket holder before he had to give them up when he become a national writer. I have been dogging him for ten years on his articles. Do not let him surprise you an longer.

Geesh.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Now, points and turnovers factor into whether you win or lose, true. But so does WHEN those turnovers occur. If you make a turnover in the first quarter, you have time to recover. If you make a turnover in the fourth quarter under two minutes, you don't have as much time to recover, and that can be critical.

Nothing I'm saying is hard to understand.

Nothing you are saying is making any sense. You keep being told over and over, it does not matter when it occurs, and everyone is laughing at you. If you make a turnover in the first quarter, the other team has just as much time remaining in the game as you do, only they have the benefit of a turnover to take advantage of. Saying that "you have time to recover" is the biggest laugh I have had on this board in a long time. This is not a football concept. It's a simple concept of logic. Which you have an embarrassingly short supply of. How many times to you have to be told something?