Romo by the numbers: Big games

[TD-33]

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.

If our defense was sitting on routes and getting turnovers like some of the other teams we would be destroying teams. It wouldn't even be close.

 

[newlander]

EXTREMELY RELEVANT as that's what the Gspots did on Sun. night. Problem is, he can't beat a GOOD team underneath. Look at his throw to Witten off his foot and into the DB's arms for a TD. He isn't consistently accurate enough. McPuke in Philly use to have the same problem. Got it turned around and is REAL accurate now. Answers? No idea: better QB coach? I don't know..................I think it's fixable too goshan........IF he's patient enough and throws the shorter routes to his very talented RB's and TE's but as you guys have said: he just doesn't want to do that: it's against his nature. Maybe Sun. was an epiphany: lets' hope so...or we're screwed. Now for the defense............

 

[goshan]

What is interesting is that because Romo does always want the big play, we will rarely have games like the NE/Jets game this week. QBs like Brady will throw short stuff all day long if the deep stuff is covered. This will, in many cases, lead to a low scoring game with less Ints but also no big plays. But a lot of times you lose these games, especially of your D can't stop them or you can't establish a running game.

The question I have is this...

If Romo did run more dump-offs and throw short intead of go big, would we really win these games, or would we lose more low scoring close games? Romo's stat sheet may look better (a lot of 175 yd passing games, 5 YPA), but would our record be any better?

 

[Boyzmamacita]

This is some good stuff Wick and Adam. Thanks for gathering the data.

 

[newlander]

MUCH better chance of winning IMO Goshan: win the turnover battle: win the game. PLUS you keep their offense off the field which means they aren't grinding down our very avg. defense...just my two cents.

 

[rcaldw]

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.

Great job of putting this together. I actually think it gets a bit worse than this because just because you are playing a team with a winning record doesn't make it a big game, just a tougher game. But I get the point.

Also, I think one other magic number that you dug up is COMPLETION PCT. 69 vs. 54 is a huge difference. And, interesting enough, Romo's completion pct has gone DOWN each season he has been a starter, and so far this season, in both a win and a loss, he hasn't hit 60% yet.

 

[zrinkill]

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)

Nice .....

 

[rcaldw]

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)

Even using your statistical "adjustments" , he is .500 at best against winning teams. yes?

 

[TwentyOne]

Even using your statistical "adjustments" , he is .500 at best against winning teams. yes?

Now that's a fact. And i think we all should give that alot more attention.

 

[zrinkill]

Even using your statistical "adjustments" , he is .500 at best against winning teams. yes?

Now that's a fact. And i think we all should give that alot more attention.

I do not think the Romo haters are gonna like what they find out about other "good" Qb's in the league.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

Can someone please compile some stats on how many "big" games Newman or Ware have won? How about Flozell or Gurode? I would really appreciate it.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

Can someone please compile some stats on how many "big" games Newman or Ware have won? How about Flozell or Gurode? I would really appreciate it.

That's a silly notion even if this is a team game the 2 people that get credited and focused on Loss and Wins are the Head Coaches and Quarterbacks. They're also the only spot where we keep track on wins and losses but nice try though.

Me and my friend was talking about something similiar and Romo's lack of showing up in big games . I would also like to see Romo's overall record against NFCE since he has become the starter. Also stats would be nice to add to this like how he performed and such.Each game yards tds ints attempts QB rating completion % things of that nature.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

I do not think the Romo haters are gonna like what they find out about other "good" Qb's in the league.

Exactly. If you go .500 against the good teams and 1000 against the bad teams, you end up with a pretty good record. That's how the other "good" QBs do it.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

That's a silly notion even if this is a team game the 2 people that get credited and focused on Loss and Wins are the Head Coaches and Quarterbacks. They're also the only spot where we keep track on wins and losses but nice try though.

Me and my friend was talking about something similiar and Romo's lack of showing up in big games . I would also like to see Romo's overall record against NFCE since he has become the starter. Also stats would be nice to add to this like how he performed and such.Each game yards tds ints attempts QB rating completion % things of that nature.

Does that make it right? Romo played horrible Sunday night. We get that, but the defense was outright putrid too. We needed a stop there at the end and they didn't come close to harassing Eli. Many things happened in that game, but you must admit that a stop on 3rd down (and maybe 4th down too) in that last drive would've won that game. Why isn't Ware or Bradie being called out?

Blame Romo for his mistakes, but this was a team effort, no doubt.

 

[Alexander]

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.

It is two separate issues, neither has a causal factor on the other unless you believe Romo's impulsiveness is because he feels he has to make the plays because the defense isn't doing so.

I agree that our defense needs to do better. Even if it did, all it would be doing is masking the general problem with Romo. Great teams do that. Bradshaw threw tons of interceptions. Their defense bailed him out. Roethlisberger does the same thing. It still doesn't excuse the behavior. Unfortunately we aren't going to have an all-world defense. Few teams do as a matter of fact. Even ones that do, more often than not rely on the QB to limit mistakes. That's was part of the Coach Parcells credo--take care of the football. Even the great Bears and Ravens defenses that could shut down other teams had to have players like Jim McMahon and Trent Dilfer playing smart conservative football and minimizing errors. We are more like the Steelers of the 1970s, except that we don't have the reliance on the run game and we don't have that defense. Until we do, we have to hope the miscues from the QB don't happen in bunches.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

Does that make it right? Romo played horrible Sunday night. We get that, but the defense was outright putrid too. We needed a stop there at the end and they didn't come close to harassing Eli. Many things happened in that game, but you must admit that a stop on 3rd down (and maybe 4th down too) in that last drive would've won that game. Why isn't Ware or Bradie being called out?

Blame Romo for his mistakes, but this was a team effort, no doubt.

But that still doesn't prevent the fact that at the end of the day. The QB and HC are first to get blamed. Defense was terrible. Hamlin can ever be called out also. Same with Newman Sensabaugh Brookings Scandrick Jenkins Spencer. But it still falls on the QB and HC and if they can't handle that they need to quit. There's a lot of blame to go around for Sunday. You can eve blame Felix.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

Does that make it right? Romo played horrible Sunday night. We get that, but the defense was outright putrid too. We needed a stop there at the end and they didn't come close to harassing Eli. Many things happened in that game, but you must admit that a stop on 3rd down (and maybe 4th down too) in that last drive would've won that game. Why isn't Ware or Bradie being called out?

Blame Romo for his mistakes, but this was a team effort, no doubt.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Romo no doubt had a horrible game, but why is he the only one being called out? Why is he the only one who can't win the "big" games?

He gets blamed for the botched snap in Seattle, but no one mentions the fumble by Glenn, or the long run that if stopped, would have given the Cowboys another chance. No one mentions how he brought us back against the Ravens, only to see the defense allow 2 long runs dooming our chances of winning. The playoff loss to the Giants, Fasano drops a sure TD, and if crayton makes that one catch he may have scored a long TD. He gets blamed for Jacques Reeeves giving up the TD right before the half.

How many times have the Cowboys been blown out, with no chance of winning, in the Romo era?

Call out the defense, the OL and everyone else who plays bad. The main problem with this team is that they cannot play a perfect game.

When Romo plays lights out, another unit stinks it up, be it the special teams or defense. There is never a game where the whole team plays well. This past game, only the running game was spectacular. Everyone else should be called out.

 

[htownboyzfan]

That's a silly notion even if this is a team game the 2 people that get credited and focused on Loss and Wins are the Head Coaches and Quarterbacks. They're also the only spot where we keep track on wins and losses but nice try though.

Me and my friend was talking about something similiar and Romo's lack of showing up in big games . I would also like to see Romo's overall record against NFCE since he has become the starter. Also stats would be nice to add to this like how he performed and such.Each game yards tds ints attempts QB rating completion % things of that nature.

Romo is 8-8 against the NFC East as a starter.

I may be in the minority here, but I think that nearly every one of the games the Cowboys have played since Romo became the starter has been a "big game." Here is my reasoning:

* Of the 41 regular season starts Romo has made (28-13 record or 68% win %), the Cowboys are 13-8 at home (62%) and 15-5 (75%) on the road.

* Only 5 of the 41 games were regionally televised. That means that 36 of them were at least the second half of a double-header, which means that most , if not all, of the country got the game. We have played on Sunday Night 9 times (7-2 record), Monday Night twice (2-0 record), Thanksgiving 3 times (3-0 record), Thursday night once (1-0 record), Saturday Night 3 times (2-1 record) and in the National double-header 17 times (9-8 record).

* His record in night games during the regular season is 12-3 (80%), including 8-0 on the road (100%).

 

[DaBoys4Life]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Romo no doubt had a horrible game, but why is he the only one being called out? Why is he the only one who can't win the "big" games?

He gets blamed for the botched snap in Seattle, but no one mentions the fumble by Glenn, or the long run that if stopped, would have given the Cowboys another chance. No one mentions how he brought us back against the Ravens, only to see the defense allow 2 long runs dooming our chances of winning. The playoff loss to the Giants, Fasano drops a sure TD, and if crayton makes that one catch he may have scored a long TD. He gets blamed for Jacques Reeeves giving up the TD right before the half.

How many times have the Cowboys been blown out, with no chance of winning, in the Romo era?

Call out the defense, the OL and everyone else who plays bad. The main problem with this team is that they cannot play a perfect game.

When Romo plays lights out, another unit stinks it up, be it the special teams or defense. There is never a game where the whole team plays well. This past game, only the running game was spectacular. Everyone else should be called out.

He is the Qb that's why he's being targeted. He threw 3 INT's that's why he's being targeted. Both teams defense played like **** however one teams QB play was able to raise them other the others.

 

[rcaldw]

That's exactly what I'm saying. Romo no doubt had a horrible game, but why is he the only one being called out? Why is he the only one who can't win the "big" games?

He gets blamed for the botched snap in Seattle, but no one mentions the fumble by Glenn, or the long run that if stopped, would have given the Cowboys another chance. No one mentions how he brought us back against the Ravens, only to see the defense allow 2 long runs dooming our chances of winning. The playoff loss to the Giants, Fasano drops a sure TD, and if crayton makes that one catch he may have scored a long TD. He gets blamed for Jacques Reeeves giving up the TD right before the half.

How many times have the Cowboys been blown out, with no chance of winning, in the Romo era?

Call out the defense, the OL and everyone else who plays bad. The main problem with this team is that they cannot play a perfect game.

When Romo plays lights out, another unit stinks it up, be it the special teams or defense. There is never a game where the whole team plays well. This past game, only the running game was spectacular. Everyone else should be called out.

Somewhere along the line don't you guys have to admit:

1. It may not be that we don't like Romo (i.e., Romo haters). I can't speak for everyone who weighs in, but I for one like Tony Romo and want him to succeed.

2. That he really hasn't played that well so far in the biggest games? I really don't think that is debatable.

3. THAT KNOWLEDGEABLE NFL TYPES ARE SAYING THE SAME THINGS?

I don't know, Steve Young, Emmitt Smith, Tony Dorsett, even Aikman, as much as he has praised Romo, talks about areas where Romo has to change.

I swear that if the guy threw 5 picks in every playoff game we ever played some of you would blame Garrett, or receivers, or ANYTHING ELSE except the play of the QB.