Romo (and Others) Vs. Playoff Teams

[burmafrd]

wow this thread has gone right into NERD COUNTRY.

 

[Idgit]

wow this thread has gone right into NERD COUNTRY.

Which we distinguish from grown men arguing over a game, during the worst of the offseason, for literally thousands of hours, on the internet, how?

 

[percyhoward]

Ah, I get the "-93.4" now lol...

Well, for starters, since the "-8.6" doesn't include any of the stats that make up the "-93.4", saying that the "-93.4" stats explain away the -8.6 point drop in Romo's QBR wouldn't be accurate. Well, unless you're wanting to say that the top 2 WRs can't be as productive or as good without a good quality #3 WR on the field with them--which would seem to fly in the face of all the improvement made by Dez Bryant last year with the lesser trio of WRs acting as the #3 receiver, not to mention Witten's NFL-record season.

It would be naive to look at Romo's -8.6 point drop (which I say is actually -6.4) as if it had occurred in a vacuum, just because the stats that make up the -93.4 drop are a separate set of numbers.

The -93.4 drop changes 3rd WR from a position of strength to a position of weakness. It means you're playing with worse field position because you're not getting the yardage you used to. It means you're punting more because you're not getting the 1st downs that you used to. It means you're playing from behind more because you're not getting the touchdowns that you used to. It means the QB is making more of the kinds of throws he doesn't want to make -- either to receivers he can rely on, but who are now less likely to be open; or to the guys who are part of the -93.4 drop. (Romo's INT % to the other receivers in these games went down, btw)

It basically means you've got only 3 legitimate targets instead of 4, and it's also why we drafted the way we did.

I don't know if any of this will make sense to someone who believes Dez's season couldn't have been any better than it was, or who hadn't thought that there might just be a connection between all those catches that gave Witten a record (with a sizable drop in yards per catch) and the fact that there were only 3 dependable targets instead of 4.

And again, we are talking about a sample size of 6 games. When you expand that to the full 16-game season, the difference is 1 point.

 

[percyhoward]

wow this thread has gone right into NERD COUNTRY.

I speak nerd and English, so I'll translate.

Over his career, Romo has been a top 4 QB against the league, and against good teams.

Matt Ryan sucked against good teams until last year, when he was lights out.

Romo sucks in WOGH games, is not a popular guy, and won't get any credit until he wins the big one.

Romo's career numbers obscure the fact that he really sucks at WOGH games.

The majority isn't always right, but perception is reality.

It does matter who is on the receiving end of the pass.

W-L is a team stat, not an individual one.

I'm plagarizing from someone called Cowboy Roy.

The Ogletree experiment had no effect on the production of the other receivers, because one receiver's stats do not impact another's.

btw, I see you're in Las Cruces. I was at White Sands for the super moon last night.

 

[Califan007]

It would be naive to look at Romo's -8.6 point drop (which I say is actually -6.4) as if it had occurred in a vacuum, just because the stats that make up the -93.4 drop are a separate set of numbers.

The -93.4 drop changes 3rd WR from a position of strength to a position of weakness. It means you're playing with worse field position because you're not getting the yardage you used to. It means you're punting more because you're not getting the 1st downs that you used to. It means you're playing from behind more because you're not getting the touchdowns that you used to. It means the QB is making more of the kinds of throws he doesn't want to make -- either to receivers he can rely on, but who are now less likely to be open; or to the guys who are part of the -93.4 drop. (Romo's INT % to the other receivers in these games went down, btw)

It basically means you've got only 3 legitimate targets instead of 4, and it's also why we drafted the way we did.

I don't know if any of this will make sense to someone who believes Dez's season couldn't have been any better than it was, or who hadn't thought that there might just be a connection between all those catches that gave Witten a record (with a sizable drop in yards per catch) and the fact that there were only 3 dependable targets instead of 4.

And again, we are talking about a sample size of 6 games. When you expand that to the full 16-game season, the difference is 1 point.

But again...the topic of this thread was how Romo fared against playoff teams. So including how he did against the dregs of the NFL doesn't add clarity to the topic, it only muddies up the data.

That's why it's not the full 16-game season. I thought the point was to show how Romo does against the best teams each season (individual seasons and concurrent seasons). If so, who cares how he did against the Browns. Completely irrelevant.

As for looking at the -8.6 in a vacuum, you're also doing that with the whole premise of this thread lol...you can't look at stats against playoff teams in a vacuum like you've done. You'd be naive to think the Cowboys' record at the time they played each of these playoff teams didn't play a role in his stats. Just one example, Romo doesn't even finish the game in 2007 against the Commanders (a playoff team that season), and some of the starters don't even play the whole game (if they play at all)...but this thread doesn't take things like that into consideration. It treats every game against a playoff team as 100% equal. Maybe other QBs on the list had similar situations with their individual games against playoff teams. Maybe wrapping up the division in week 14 plays a role in how well a QB plays or doesn't play those last two weeks. Maybe it dictates how much the team relies on the running game...maybe it determines which team mates are on the field with the QB...maybe it plays a role in how much the team tries to come back from behind...etc, etc.

 

[Califan007]

I speak nerd and English, so I'll translate.

Over his career, Romo has been a top 4 QB against the league, and against good teams.

Matt Ryan sucked against good teams until last year, when he was lights out.

Romo sucks in WOGH games, is not a popular guy, and won't get any credit until he wins the big one.

Romo's career numbers obscure the fact that he really sucks at WOGH games.

The majority isn't always right, but perception is reality.

It does matter who is on the receiving end of the pass.

W-L is a team stat, not an individual one.

I'm plagarizing from someone called Cowboy Roy.

The Ogletree experiment had no effect on the production of the other receivers, because one receiver's stats do not impact another's.

btw, I see you're in Las Cruces. I was at White Sands for the super moon last night.

I can summarize it more efficiently lol...

Romo is overlooked for how good a QB he is...his stats against playoff teams over his career proves that.

Romo's stats took a drastic downturn from 2011 to 2012.

The #3 WR is the cause of that. Here are the stats to prove it.

Take the #3 WR out of the equation, then...Romo still took a significant downturn between 2011 and 2012.

The #3 WR effects how well the top 2 WRs and QB play, though...which explains why Romo's numbers took a downturn.

Then why didn't the top 3 pass catchers' numbers also take a downturn? They actually improved.

Doesn't matter--Ogletree, Beasley and Harris caused Romo's stats to get worse by just being on the roster. None of the other QBs had to overcome bad #3 WRs. And his O-Line sucked.

 

[jobberone]

I can summarize it more efficiently lol...

Romo is overlooked for how good a QB he is...his stats against playoff teams over his career proves that.

Romo's stats took a drastic downturn from 2011 to 2012.

The #3 WR is the cause of that. Here are the stats to prove it.

Take the #3 WR out of the equation, then...Romo still took a significant downturn between 2011 and 2012.

The #3 WR effects how well the top 2 WRs and QB play, though...which explains why Romo's numbers took a downturn.

Then why didn't the top 3 pass catchers' numbers also take a downturn? They actually improved.

Doesn't matter--Ogletree, Beasley and Harris caused Romo's stats to get worse by just being on the roster. None of the other QBs had to overcome bad #3 WRs. And his O-Line sucked.

Your mocking is distracting from your arguments and position.

My arguments would continue to be that statistical anomalies bear CAREFUL scrutiny. My experience makes me very suspicious when inexperienced receivers account for an inordinate amount of disparity from the norm. It would be incumbent upon those taking up the argument the anomaly lies at the feet of Romo to substantially outweigh the arguments of those taking the other position. And you haven't come close to even balancing the scales much less tip them in your favor.

I suggest we get back to the previous civil debate rather than this thread devolving into gotcha and I win posts.

 

[Califan007]

Your mocking is distracting from your arguments and position.

My arguments would continue to be that statistical anomalies bear CAREFUL scrutiny. My experience makes me very suspicious when inexperienced receivers account for an inordinate amount of disparity from the norm. It would be incumbent upon those taking up the argument the anomaly lies at the feet of Romo to substantially outweigh the arguments of those taking the other position. And you haven't come close to even balancing the scales much less tip them in your favor.

I suggest we get back to the previous civil debate rather than this thread devolving into gotcha and I win posts.

That is what debate is lol...it's "gotcha" and "I win". You find faults/holes/weaknesses in the other person's points and exploit them, bring them to light, get the other guy to either better explain the holes away or to acknowledge that they are indeed holes.

And nobody here has claimed the anomoly with the inexperienced receivers lies with Romo...one of us says it doesn't, and the other one says the inexperienced receivers' production can be one million percent ignored and his point still stands.

 

[jobberone]

That is what debate is lol...it's "gotcha" and "I win". You find faults/holes/weaknesses in the other person's points and exploit them, bring them to light, get the other guy to either better explain the holes away or to acknowledge that they are indeed holes.

And nobody here has claimed the anomoly with the inexperienced receivers lies with Romo...one of us says it doesn't, and the other one says the inexperienced receivers' production can be one million percent ignored and his point still stands.

I agree that a lot of exchange on the internet is in the form of 'I win' and 'gotcha' but that is not generally how people interact with each other face to face for obvious reasons. The fact that this is the internet doesn't have to mean we have to throw up our hands and say oh well c'est la vie. Personally, I don't like to see a thread that revolves around facts and civil debate devolve especially when it begins to become condescending, mocking and personal. However, there is only so much I can, will, or should do as a member and especially as a moderator.

It's up to the members of this forum to ultimately decide what kind of forum they want. There is no form of moderation and/or guidelines that can willfully and perfectly mold a site successfully. So this is my last comment on that issue.

 

[Califan007]

Romo
856 of 1383 for 10387 69 td 46 int 87.7 (95.0) 15-24

By the way, I once again ended up with different stats than you did lol...I had 830 of 1320 for 9897 yds, 67 TDs and 43 INTs, for a QBR of 89.0...

Anyway, I got curious about Romo's year-by-year stats against playoff teams...wanted to see if there was a trend of any kind. Here's what I came up with:

2006: 61.9
2007: 106.3
2008: 83.9
2009: 93.5
2010: 78.4 (1 game)
2011: 105.3
2012: 82.1

Doesn't look like there's a trend, at least not without doing this same thing with all the other QBs...which I ain't doing lol.

 

[Califan007]

I agree that a lot of exchange on the internet is in the form of 'I win' and 'gotcha' but that is not generally how people interact with each other face to face for obvious reasons. The fact that this is the internet doesn't have to mean we have to throw up our hands and say oh well c'est la vie. Personally, I don't like to see a thread that revolves around facts and civil debate devolve especially when it begins to become condescending, mocking and personal. However, there is only so much I can, will, or should do as a member and especially as a moderator.

It's up to the members of this forum to ultimately decide what kind of forum they want. There is no form of moderation and/or guidelines that can willfully and perfectly mold a site successfully. So this is my last comment on that issue.

In no post of mine was I condescending or personal...the comment about Ogletree and the other two WRs bringing down Romo's stats just by being on the roster miiiiiiight start to encroach on mocking lol...but that was in response to seeing my stance presented this way:

"The Ogletree experiment had no effect on the production of the other receivers, because one receiver's stats do not impact another's."

At any rate, I'll make sure to double-check the tone of my posts before hitting the "Post Reply" button (I really hate your new emoticons lol)

 

[jobberone]

In no post of mine was I condescending or personal...the comment about Ogletree and the other two WRs bringing down Romo's stats just by being on the roster miiiiiiight start to encroach on mocking lol...but that was in response to seeing my stance presented this way:

"The Ogletree experiment had no effect on the production of the other receivers, because one receiver's stats do not impact another's."

At any rate, I'll make sure to double-check the tone of my posts before hitting the "Post Reply" button (I really hate your new emoticons lol)

Then all is good in Smallville.

 

[percyhoward]

But again...the topic of this thread was how Romo fared against playoff teams. So including how he did against the dregs of the NFL doesn't add clarity to the topic, it only muddies up the data.

And again, the thread is based on career numbers, not a sample of 6 games. This argument has come down to sample size now.

When you look at all 16 games (or more of Romo's 39 career games vs. playoff teams), you don't notice a regression toward the mean?

That's why it's not the full 16-game season. I thought the point was to show how Romo does against the best teams each season (individual seasons and concurrent seasons). If so, who cares how he did against the Browns. Completely irrelevant.

Irrelevant to how he did against playoff teams in 2012? Yes. Completely irrelevant? Hardly. Because if you're going to point out that Romo's rating to receivers other than 3rd WR was lower in the one set of games, you have to accept that it was higher in the other set. Your hanging onto the thread topic as if it were a greater point, as opposed to being just another way to look at the numbers. I said this before we even began to address the 2012 set of games, "It's the number in parentheses (the passer rating for all games) that's important."

As for looking at the -8.6 in a vacuum, you're also doing that with the whole premise of this thread lol...you can't look at stats against playoff teams in a vacuum like you've done. You'd be naive to think the Cowboys' record at the time they played each of these playoff teams didn't play a role in his stats. Just one example, Romo doesn't even finish the game in 2007 against the Commanders (a playoff team that season), and some of the starters don't even play the whole game (if they play at all)...but this thread doesn't take things like that into consideration. It treats every game against a playoff team as 100% equal. Maybe other QBs on the list had similar situations with their individual games against playoff teams. Maybe wrapping up the division in week 14 plays a role in how well a QB plays or doesn't play those last two weeks. Maybe it dictates how much the team relies on the running game...maybe it determines which team mates are on the field with the QB...maybe it plays a role in how much the team tries to come back from behind...etc, etc.

Of course there are a lot of factors to consider. Which is why a 6-game sample will never be as reliable as a 16-game sample, or a 39-game sample. The larger the sample size, the more those factors even out.

Imagine if you were to do what I did for the 6-game sample, to explain how all of those factors that you mentioned affected the career ratings of these QB.

For Romo, that's 39 games. For Manning, that's 102 games. Your footnotes would fill an entire page.

 

[percyhoward]

...that was in response to seeing my stance presented this way:

"The Ogletree experiment had no effect on the production of the other receivers, because one receiver's stats do not impact another's."

If what I said was an exaggeration of your stance, then you're walking a very fine line.

You understand that one receiver's stats impact another's, but you think the 6-8 point drop indicates a significant decline in the performance of the QB?