Romo by the numbers: Big games

[AdamJT13]

That's not true. Here's what you said:

"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."

I clearly defined what I was talking about in that same sentence.

You are free to include games against teams that had a winning record in games not played against the Cowboys. You are not free to call teams that finished 8-8 or 7-9 winning teams.

There are no 7-9 teams that would have a winning record against everyone else. An 8-8 team might, if they went 0-1 or 0-2 against us and 8-7 or 8-6 against everyone else. But a 7-9 team can't possibly be any better than 7-7 against everyone else, even if we swept them.

An 8-8 team would be included ONLY if we went 2-0 or 1-0 against them.

A winning team is universally understood to have a winning overall record.

And like I said, your statistic is self-fulfilling. Any non-division game against a team that goes 8-7 against the rest of the league automatically qualifies as one of your "big games" ONLY if we lose. And if a division opponent goes 8-6 against the rest of the league, our two games against them don't qualify for your list of "big games" if we sweep them, but they do if we split or get swept. You know that's ludicrous.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think it is just semantics. I would characterize a short to intermediate offense as one that focuses on a lot of routes that basically become extended handoffs. (west coast variety) Lots of short crossing routes and the like. An attack offense focuses a lot of routes in the 15-25 yard range. I don't think any offense (other than the Raiduhs), just looks to bomb away.

I know there was some variety to what we did as compared with the Rams, but IMO it was the same offense. Turner was a Zampese disciple, and then after Turner left WE HAD ZAMPESE HIMSELF.

Either way, though, I think we agree about what would help our current approach.

We did have Zampese but if you recall, he was not succesful here because the offense changed. We went away from a lot of Slants and outs and went to more deeper routes. I always thought that was odd but I guess it does show that each guy adds to what he learns and the next guy behind him kinda takes it further then you left it.

I remember the Rams offenses well. I can't say that I recall them running a timing based offense like we did. I think it was much closer to Coryell's offense then ours was. They did have a very good offense though. Greg Bell, Everett, Henry Ellard, Ron Brown, Flipper Anderson, Aaron Cox, Pete Holohan, they had some decent offenses.

 

[LarryCanadian]

Football is a team game though! Romo hasn't been his best in big games, ok, I agree with that, BUT he hasn't lost all of these games by himself. Many of these games, it is other players that ALSO came up short, OR played far worse than Romo did.

I love many of our players, but Ware, Newman, James, Flo, Columbo, Gurode, TO, Crayton, Raitliff many of these key (pro-bowl) guys were/are having bad games in key games as well.

That is the frustration. We just can't seem to get the complete effort, where everyone, or almost everyone is sharp most of the time.

Romo blew the Pittsburgh game last year, but Baltimore was on the run defense. Crayton had a couple off plays in the Giants Playoff game. Newman and Scandrick really stunk in this last Giant's game. It's not just always Romo. His playoff and December record has as much, and probably more to do ,with the rest of the team playing poorly (AND I am beginning to think us being out coached or at least out-strategized) in many key games.

This last game, and one or two others, ok, I put on Romo, but many of those other "Big Games", Romo has played well enough for us to win, and put us in the position to win, and others then did not make a play (defensive stops anyone?).

LarryCanadian

 

[rcaldw]

We did have Zampese but if you recall, he was not succesful here because the offense changed. We went away from a lot of Slants and outs and went to more deeper routes. I always thought that was odd but I guess it does show that each guy adds to what he learns and the next guy behind him kinda takes it further then you left it.

I remember the Rams offenses well. I can't say that I recall them running a timing based offense like we did. I think it was much closer to Coryell's offense then ours was. They did have a very good offense though. Greg Bell, Everett, Henry Ellard, Ron Brown, Flipper Anderson, Aaron Cox, Pete Holohan, they had some decent offenses.

We won the 1995 Super Bowl with Zampese. And the offense didn't change at all except it became a little bit more run oriented. Statistically it was almost identical. The Rams ran the exact same timing offense, and the skinny post was a key component, which is a timing pattern.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We won the 1995 Super Bowl with Zampese. And the offense didn't change at all except it became a little bit more run oriented. Statistically it was almost identical. The Rams ran the exact same timing offense, and the skinny post was a key component, which is a timing pattern.

Zampese was here 94-97. Practically nothing changed in that season, however, if you review the 95-96 season and the 96-97 season, you see that it we went from the 3rd ranked scoring offense and 5th ranked offense in total yards, in the entire NFL to the 25th ranked scoring offense, 24th ranked total yardage offense in 95-96. In 96-97 we were the 22nd and 20th respectively. There are reasons other then Zampese for this but, clearly the offense was not as productive and a big reason for that was due to the fact that the offense under Zampese changed.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

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

Yeah, criticizing with something substantive rather than whining with pure emotive cries of "look at me", "look at me" type stuff. Nicely done. That said, I'm still optimistic.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

And like I said, your statistic is self-fulfilling. Any non-division game against a team that goes 8-7 against the rest of the league automatically qualifies as one of your "big games" ONLY if we lose. And if a division opponent goes 8-6 against the rest of the league, our two games against them don't qualify for your list of "big games" if we sweep them, but they do if we split or get swept. You know that's ludicrous.

In comparison to most, it's a nice try tho.

 

[rcaldw]

Zampese was here 94-97. Practically nothing changed in that season, however, if you review the 95-96 season and the 96-97 season, you see that it we went from the 3rd ranked scoring offense and 5th ranked offense in total yards, in the entire NFL to the 25th ranked scoring offense, 24th ranked total yardage offense in 95-96. In 96-97 we were the 22nd and 20th respectively. There are reasons other then Zampese for this but, clearly the offense was not as productive and a big reason for that was due to the fact that the offense under Zampese changed.

I remember those seasons very well (as I know you do too). I don't believe the offense changed schematically. I believe we had injuries, talent loss through fee agency, age, drug/arrests, finally coaching turnover, etc. Like I said, if anything we became more run oriented.

1992 - Overall yards 4th: passing yards 5th: rushing yards 5th (Norv Turner)
1993 - Overall yards 4th: passing yards 7th: rushing yards 2nd (Norv Turner)
1994 - Overall yards 8th: passing yards 12th: rushing yards 5th (Zampese) (Something very interesting at this point: 1992 Dallas 12th in passing attempts; 4th in rushing attempts; 1993 Dallas 24th in passing attempts; 6th in rushing attempts; 1994 (Zampese) Dallas 26th in passing attempts; 1st in rushing attempts (more run oriented like I said); 1995 (Zampese) Dallas 28th in passing attempts; 4th in rushing attempts) Zampese (probably due to Switzer's influence) went more to the run.

1995 - Overall yards 5th: passing yards 13th: rushing yards 2nd (Zampese)

Something else interesting:

Dallas was 12th in passing attempts but 5th in yards and 3rd in YPA in 1992 (6.8)
Dallas was 24th in passing attempts but 7th in yards and 3rd in YPA in 1993 (6.9)
Dallas was 26th in passing attempts but 12th in yards and 2nd in YPA in 1994 (7.2)
Dallas was 28th in passing attempts but 13th in yards and 1st in YPA in 1995 (7.1)

My observations:

1. Dallas went more to the run under Zampese
2. Both Turner's offense AND Zampese's offense were down the field offense finishing 3rd, 3rd, 2nd and 1st in YPA.
3. Overall offensive production in yards was 4th, 4th, 8th, and 5th indicating less effectiveness by Zampese's offense (only slightly in 1995) but also corresponding to an overall lack of discipline (Gunsmoke) and loss of talent.

The decline of the 90's Cowboys started in 1994 and had reached its end by 1996.

 

[Ken]

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

Yes, "he" is...the rest of the cowboys are undefeated apparently....:bang2:

 

[rcaldw]

Yes, "he" is...the rest of the cowboys are undefeated apparently....:bang2:

siiiiiiiiiiiigggggghhhhhhhh. this has been fun.

 

[wick]

I clearly defined what I was talking about in that same sentence.

You did, but it's still wrong. You are attempting to call an 8-8 team a winning team, when they were not, in fact, a winning team. If you want to call them something else, that's fine. Say that the Romo-led Cowboys are 9-9 against teams who had winning records in games not involving Dallas. But you can't decide that an 8-8 team is a winning team.

 

[wick]

And like I said, your statistic is self-fulfilling. Any non-division game against a team that goes 8-7 against the rest of the league automatically qualifies as one of your "big games" ONLY if we lose. And if a division opponent goes 8-6 against the rest of the league, our two games against them don't qualify for your list of "big games" if we sweep them, but they do if we split or get swept. You know that's ludicrous.

I wouldn't say it's ludicrous, as the team that actually wins the game against Dallas to finish with a better record than it would have with a loss is, by definition, the better team of the two alternatives. In any case, the point was not to emphasize a 7-10 record but rather to look for reasons why we win and lose those games. While you claim to have had no time to address the main point, you have apparently had sufficient time to attack the the definition of a big game, which just makes you seem argumentative.