Romo by the numbers: Big games

[wick]

Since Tony Romo took over the starting quarterback job in 2006, Dallas has played 17 "big" games with him at quarterback. For the purposes of this thread, a big game will be defined as any game against a team that finished the season with a winning record plus any playoff games, even if the opponent has a non-winning record. Here are those 17 games:

Wins
08 Eagles
08 Giants
07 Giants
07 @Giants
07 Commanders
07 Packers
06 Colts

Losses
08 @Eagles
08 @Cardinals
08 @Steelers
08 Ravens
07 Patriots
07 @Commanders
07 Giants (playoffs)
06 Saints
06 Eagles
06 @Seahawks (playoffs)

As you can see, Dallas is 7-10 in these games, including 0-2 in the playoffs. Without digging further, we can see that the Cowboys struggle to win big games with Romo at quarterback. What's more interesting to me, though, is why. In these big games, there is a stark contrast in Romo's performance.

In wins: 136-197 (69 percent) passing; 1,976 yards; 10.0 ypa; 21 TD; 6 INT
In losses: 178-330 (54 percent) passing; 2,032 yards; 6.2 ypa; 12 TD; 13 INT

As I looked at Romo's performance in each game, I quickly identified a magic number: 8.0 yards per attempt passing.

When Romo is >= 8.0 ypa, Dallas is 7-1 in big games.
When Romo is < 8.0 ypa, Dallas is 0-9 in big games.

The one loss where Romo was over 8.0 ypa was also the one game Dallas came closest to winning: the overtime loss at Arizona. This is not a statistical oddity, as Romo generally doesn't come close to 8.0 ypa in the losses and usually far eclipses that number in the wins. Here are the raw totals for each, not identified by game.

Wins
10.4
8.1
14.4
8.8
9.2
10.3
9.8

Losses
4.7
8.4
5.8
5.6
6.9
5.4
5.6
7.5
4.9
6.5

The book on beating Dallas in big games should be clear. Stop the down-field passing attack at all costs. Teams that do this successfully will beat the Romo-led Cowboys.

Romo went for 4.4 ypa against the Giants on Sunday night.

 

[Hostile]

Thank you for taking he time to put this together. I find it informative and relevant to the general atmosphere here this week.

 

[Biggems]

so basically with Romo, we have become the Raiders......all or nothing vertical attack.

 

[yimyammer]

I still can't understand why the offense won't look for more short passes and see if the RAC can't make up for the short throws, keep moving the chains and eating up the closk. Low risk passes should mean less interceptions, longer TOP, less time for the defense on the field.

Sounds simple, but it must be a lot harder than it appears

 

[Primetime42]

Take what the D gives you.

It sounds so cliche and simple, but that's really all there is to it.

 

[Hostile]

I still can't understand why the offense won't look for more short passes and see if the RAC can't make up for the short throws, keep moving the chains and eating up the closk. Low risk passes should mean less interceptions, longer TOP, less time for the defense on the field.

Sounds simple, but it must be a lot harder than it appears

I hope you won't mind an intrusion/excuse.

It is a little harder to do some short passes if you have a top notch TE like Witten because the Defense draws in tighter to try and account for him in space. Short passes are sometimes a bit dangerous. So to combat that OCs have the philosophy of going deeper to keep them honest.

I really think the answer is more screens. They can't play in tight and out wide at the same time without leaving too much open on the deep wings.

Sorry to butt in. Hope that made sense.

 

[yimyammer]

I hope you won't mind an intrusion/excuse.

It is a little harder to do some short passes if you have a top notch TE like Witten because the Defense draws in tighter to try and account for him in space. Short passes are sometimes a bit dangerous. So to combat that OCs have the philosophy of going deeper to keep them honest.

I really think the answer is more screens. They can't play in tight and out wide at the same time without leaving too much open on the deep wings.

Sorry to butt in. Hope that made sense.

No problem at all, I was looking for a good answer from anyone. I don't know x's and o's so it's good to hear logical responses.

I like the screen idea and hope we see more as well as any opportunity to take shorter passes. Mix in the long ball strategically, but my god, why did we have to do it when we had the lead and the ball at mid field when our running game was doing so well? Seems like we blew a great opportunity to take that game by the throat.

I'm beginning to accept the reality that this team just isn't as good as we all wish they were.

 

[Kevinicus]

Why is the Arizona game in 08 a big game outside of the fact that they lost and Romo got hurt? I doubt very many people looked at it as a big game, certainly not bigger than others. Most people probably thought of it as a relatively easy game actually.

And why is the @Washington in 07 a big game? That's ridiculous, homefield was wrapped up and the starters left the game early...those that played.

That's 2 "big games" that need to come off the lost column.

I'd add 08 @ Washington (first start back from injury and after team had lost 3 of 4) as a big game as well. @Chicago in 07 was considered a big game at the time. How about @Carolina(his first start) or @Atlanta (clinch playoff spot) in 06?

I'd say Romo wins more "big games" than he loses.

 

[Hoofbite]

I hope you won't mind an intrusion/excuse.

It is a little harder to do some short passes if you have a top notch TE like Witten because the Defense draws in tighter to try and account for him in space. Short passes are sometimes a bit dangerous. So to combat that OCs have the philosophy of going deeper to keep them honest.

I really think the answer is more screens. They can't play in tight and out wide at the same time without leaving too much open on the deep wings.

Sorry to butt in. Hope that made sense.

I'm not sure Dallas knows what a screen is anymore. It's been years since they have had an actual presence in the offense.

I cannot believe how poor this team has been at them. I think there should be numerous per game.

 

[dadymat]

Why is the Arizona game in 08 a big game outside of the fact that they lost and Romo got hurt? I doubt very many people looked at it as a big game, certainly not bigger than others. Most people probably thought of it as a relatively easy game actually.

And why is the @Washington in 07 a big game? That's ridiculous, homefield was wrapped up and the starters left the game early...those that played.

That's 2 "big games" that need to come off the lost column.

I'd add 08 @ Washington (first start back from injury and after team had lost 3 of 4) as a big game as well. @Chicago in 07 was considered a big game at the time. How about @Carolina(his first start) or @Atlanta (clinch playoff spot) in 06?

I'd say Romo wins more "big games" than he loses.

..and what made the 06 Saints game a Big game? wasnt any more important than any other game that season

 

[Disturbed]

Wow, everyone is picking on the list of "big" games when the guy said from the start it was "winning records". Sounds like good criteria to me.

A little surprised to hear 7-10, but if that is the facts so be it. I think everyone can agree that Romo needs to get better under pressure and at the end of the season when it counts the most.

 

[texbumthelife]

So, better teams are better and therefor more difficult to beat? Holy ****, you cracked the case Sherlock!

 

[TwentyOne]

Since Tony Romo took over the starting quarterback job in 2006, Dallas has played 17 "big" games with him at quarterback. For the purposes of this thread, a big game will be defined as any game against a team that finished the season with a winning record plus any playoff games, even if the opponent has a non-winning record. Here are those 17 games:

A big game has nothing to do with that.

 

[kramskoi]

Since Tony Romo took over the starting quarterback job in 2006, Dallas has played 17 "big" games with him at quarterback. For the purposes of this thread, a big game will be defined as any game against a team that finished the season with a winning record plus any playoff games, even if the opponent has a non-winning record. Here are those 17 games:

Wins
08 Eagles
08 Giants
07 Giants
07 @Giants
07 Commanders
07 Packers
06 Colts

Losses
08 @Eagles
08 @Cardinals
08 @Steelers
08 Ravens
07 Patriots
07 @Commanders
07 Giants (playoffs)
06 Saints
06 Eagles
06 @Seahawks (playoffs)

As you can see, Dallas is 7-10 in these games, including 0-2 in the playoffs. Without digging further, we can see that the Cowboys struggle to win big games with Romo at quarterback. What's more interesting to me, though, is why. In these big games, there is a stark contrast in Romo's performance.

In wins: 136-197 (69 percent) passing; 1,976 yards; 10.0 ypa; 21 TD; 6 INT
In losses: 178-330 (54 percent) passing; 2,032 yards; 6.2 ypa; 12 TD; 13 INT

As I looked at Romo's performance in each game, I quickly identified a magic number: 8.0 yards per attempt passing.

When Romo is >= 8.0 ypa, Dallas is 7-1 in big games.
When Romo is < 8.0 ypa, Dallas is 0-9 in big games.

The one loss where Romo was over 8.0 ypa was also the one game Dallas came closest to winning: the overtime loss at Arizona. This is not a statistical oddity, as Romo generally doesn't come close to 8.0 ypa in the losses and usually far eclipses that number in the wins. Here are the raw totals for each, not identified by game.

Wins
10.4
8.1
14.4
8.8
9.2
10.3
9.8

Losses
4.7
8.4
5.8
5.6
6.9
5.4
5.6
7.5
4.9
6.5

The book on beating Dallas in big games should be clear. Stop the down-field passing attack at all costs. Teams that do this successfully will beat the Romo-led Cowboys.

Romo went for 4.4 ypa against the Giants on Sunday night.

...checkmate!...

...and games where he is sub 8 yds/att he has to limit his turnovers...that's the tendency i've posted about earlier that the Giants seemed to have figured out with Romo...it seemed they were content sunday night to let the Cowboys gash them on the ground as long as they kept Romo under lock and key...it's as if they knew he would make the critical mistake of forcing the ball...New York has really learned how to play him...what Dallas has to do now is make sure that teams who use the Giants tactics in the future get punished on the ground until they stop it...i hope that Garrett and Romo come to understand this...Roethlisberger and Manning have learned this lesson while Romo has not...

...when Romo finally realizes that "less is sometimes more" he'll take the next step...

...football is a game of momentum...it's like lift to an airplane...the team that keeps it soars...the team that squanders it crashes...in a big game it is the holy grail...

...thanks wick...some good data-mining here...

 

[kramskoi]

I'm not sure Dallas knows what a screen is anymore. It's been years since they have had an actual presence in the offense.

I cannot believe how poor this team has been at them. I think there should be numerous per game.

...they did use the screen to good effect last year when they beat the Giants 20-8...

 

[AdamJT13]

Wow, everyone is picking on the list of "big" games when the guy said from the start it was "winning records".

It's a bit of a self-fulfilling statistic. If you beat a team, they have less of a chance of ending the season with a winning record. If you lose, they have more of a chance of ending the season with a winning record. So by default, games against teams that are 8-7 in the rest of the season become "big games" ONLY if you lose them. If you win them, well, it wasn't a "big game."

Take the Arizona game last season. If we had won, Arizona would have finished 8-8, and it wouldn't qualify for the list of "big games." But we lost, and they finished 9-7, so it becomes a "big game."

We split against the 9-7 Commanders in 2007, so they both are classified as "big games." If we had swept them, neither game would be classified as a "big game." We split with the Eagles in 2007, too. They finished 8-8, so neither game is on the list. But if we had lost instead of beating them 38-17, both games would have been on the list. We beat the 8-8 Vikings that year, and it doesn't qualify for the list. But it would if we had lost.

In 2006, our victory over the 8-8 Giants doesn't count, but it would if we had lost. Our victory over 8-8 Carolina doesn't count, but it would if we had lost.

Plus, a meaningless Week 17 game in 2007 is included as a "big game." Not to mention that games can retroactively change to being a "big game" or not being a "big game." (If the Giants go in the tank, Sunday's loss will not have come in a big game. Just like last year's win over the Packers, who were 2-0 at the time, doesn't qualify for the list even though it was a big game at the time.)

If we take away the meaningless Week 17 game in 2007 and include any game against a team that finished with a winning record against everyone else (at least 8-7 if we played them once or 8-6 if we played them twice), Romo is actually 9-9 against winning teams, not 7-10. And against teams that won at least 10 games against the rest of the league, Romo is 5-4.


WINS (with opponent and their regular-season record against the rest of the NFL)
06 Panthers (8-7)
06 Colts (12-3)
07 Giants (10-4)
07 Giants (10-4)
07 Vikings (8-7)
07 Commanders (8-6)
07 Packers (13-2)
08 Eagles (8-5-1)
08 Giants (12-3)


LOSSES
06 Saints (9-6)
06 Eagles (8-6)
06 Seahawks (9-7)
07 Patriots (15-0)
07 Giants (10-4)
08 Cardinals (8-7)
08 Steelers (11-4)
08 Ravens (10-5)
08 Eagles (8-5-1)

 

[JohnsKey19]

so basically with Romo, we have become the Raiders......all or nothing vertical attack.

I'm not sure if it's Romo or what...but yeah, in recent years we have basically live and died with the big play.

 

[theWave21]

Can you do a statistical rundown in those big games and see how many turnovers our defense caused? I'll guess it's very few.

 

[goshan]

This is funny, because I basically posted the exact same thing Monday and got a few posts that agree with me (I didn't have the stats to back it up).

The best chance of beating the Cowboys offense is to shut down the WR deep routes and make them run the ball or throw dump offs. Romo hates to dump it because he wants to make the big play. So he will tend to throw picks because he doesn't have patience and he always looks big first.

I will say I think this is mostly on Romo but also related to Garrett's lack of desire to run an offense based upon the ground game and short passes to RBs and TEs.

It seems fixable to me.

 

[wick]

If we take away the meaningless Week 17 game in 2007 and include any game against a team that finished with a winning record against everyone else (at least 8-7 if we played them once or 8-6 if we played them twice), Romo is actually 9-9 against winning teams, not 7-10.

You cannot label an 8-8 team a winning team. It's fine to look at teams that were 8-7 or 8-6 outside of the Dallas game, but don't call them winning teams when they were not. By doing so, you make a false statement that Romo was 9-9 against winning teams.

You also missed the main point of the thread.