Romo by the numbers: Big games

[rcaldw]

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.

Romo is already a good QB. I have never debated that and never will. He is the best we have had since Aikman and one of the better QB's in the league. He is the BEST (in my opinion) since Staubach of finding guys DOWN THE FIELD when the first options are covered. I think he has the physical abilities to be as good as anyone in the league.

What I want to see him be is a BIG GAME QB, and that is something different. He has the physical abilities to do it, I think he needs the CALM to be able to do it. I think he needs the JUDGMENT to be able to do it.

I don't think he has demonstrated that yet, and I'm hoping this will be the year that he does.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

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.

I don't think I said he is not to blame or that he did not play bad. But to say that he is the sole reason for the team not winning in "big" games is just stupid.

 

[rcaldw]

I don't think I said he is not to blame or that he did not play bad. But to say that he is the sole reason for the team not winning in "big" games is just stupid.

Sole reason? Not often. (Monday night came very close) Major reason? If your QB doesn't play his BEST games in those big games you are going to lose a BUNCH of them. And if you don't know that about the QB position, which is about a lot more than just throwing the football, then you are just wrong. The reason why QB's get so much focus is because all of the offense runs through them. Even running plays sometimes involve QB adjustments at the line of scrimmage. A QB's leadership also comes into play, especially when PRESSURE is at its height and either nervousness or calm and confidence will be a team's personality.

If you doubt that, just listen to the teammates of Staubach, Montana, Aikman and others describe those guys in the most pressure packed situations. Their teams fed off their sense of calm.

I think Tony has had that at times and at other times it begins to feel like a fire drill.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think it has to do with game planning. I don't think that we go into games with the intent to use 3 and 5 step drops as our staple focus. We go into games looking for 5 and 7 step routes. Our offense is designed to go intermediate and deep as our first reads. The short passing game is not our focus. Now, is that because of Garrett or is that because of Romo or is it both? I don't know the answer to this but I know that typically, Romo is being flushed out of the pocket and probably on his third progression before he looks short many times, particularly on 1st and 2nd downs. We don't go into an offensive series with the intent to get 5 yards on 1st down. We go in looking for 15 or more. What does this mean? It means that if we don't have success down field, we see more 2nd and 10s then we do 2nd and 5s. With 2nd and 10, your 2nd down play has to produce positive yards so that your 3rd down is at least managable. If you have 2nd and 5, your whole playbook is open and you force the defense to account for all options. What does this mean? Means that most DCs are going to guard against the deeper ball so as not to break on 2nd and 5 as opposed to being more aggressive on 2nd and 10. It also means that if we have any penalty at all, it's probably going to kill the drive. If we are looking at 2nd and 15 or 20, we are probably not going to be succesful on extending and will be providing that much more advantage to the defense and how they defend us.

I think it's more about how our offense is designed. If Tony got into his drop with the specific intent to set up and get the ball out of his hands quickly, I think we would be much more succesful in our short passing game but that's not how our offense works.

JMO.

 

[rcaldw]

I think it has to do with game planning. I don't think that we go into games with the intent to use 3 and 5 step drops as our staple focus. We go into games looking for 5 and 7 step routes. Our offense is designed to go intermediate and deep as our first reads. The short passing game is not our focus. Now, is that because of Garrett or is that because of Romo or is it both? I don't know the answer to this but I know that typically, Romo is being flushed out of the pocket and probably on his third progression before he looks short many times, particularly on 1st and 2nd downs. We don't go into an offensive series with the intent to get 5 yards on 1st down. We go in looking for 15 or more. What does this mean? It means that if we don't have success down field, we see more 2nd and 10s then we do 2nd and 5s. With 2nd and 10, your 2nd down play has to produce positive yards so that your 3rd down is at least managable. If you have 2nd and 5, your whole playbook is open and you force the defense to account for all options. What does this mean? Means that most DCs are going to guard against the deeper ball so as not to break on 2nd and 5 as opposed to being more aggressive on 2nd and 10. It also means that if we have any penalty at all, it's probably going to kill the drive. If we are looking at 2nd and 15 or 20, we are probably not going to be succesful on extending and will be providing that much more advantage to the defense and how they defend us.

I think it's more about how our offense is designed. If Tony got into his drop with the specific intent to set up and get the ball out of his hands quickly, I think we would be much more succesful in our short passing game but that's not how our offense works.

JMO.

I think you are probably right, but I also think it is basically the same philosophy the Cowboys of the 90's had. Trent Dilfer on NFL network yesterday listed his top 10 QB's of the Super Bowl era. He had Aikman at #7, and the one thing he marveled at was that Aikman had the accuracy he did in an offense DESIGNED to go downfield. His exact words were "and these are not checkdowns." (Talking about his accuracy)

So, even if the offense is designed to go downfield, doesn't Romo have to decide when it isn't possible and move to the shorter stuff?

 

[Idgit]

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

Exactly. I want a QB with Romo's winning percentages, but who wins all of his games against the good teams. Also, it would be helpful if he could win most or all of the games against the teams we should beat, too.

 

[JonJon]

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.

This is beautiful. However, I would like to point out something that hasn't been mentioned yet. If it has, I must have missed it and apologize.

In the wins, Romo attempts less passes than in the losses (28.1 in wins, 33.0 in losses). By this, we can conclude that the less Romo passes, the Cowboys chances of winning increases.

One thing that has remained consistent in both wins and losses is that Romo has roughly a 3-4% chance of having his passes intercepted (0.030 in wins, 0.039 in losses).

I would like to see the amount of runs attempted in those games and also the amount of fumbles included. Someone else asked for the amount of turnovers created by the defense as well. That should aid in this study of "big" games.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think you are probably right, but I also think it is basically the same philosophy the Cowboys of the 90's had. Trent Dilfer on NFL network yesterday listed his top 10 QB's of the Super Bowl era. He had Aikman at #7, and the one thing he marveled at was that Aikman had the accuracy he did in an offense DESIGNED to go downfield. His exact words were "and these are not checkdowns." (Talking about his accuracy)

So, even if the offense is designed to go downfield, doesn't Romo have to decide when it isn't possible and move to the shorter stuff?

I don't necessarily think our offense was designed to go downfield in the 90s. I think we were more of a short to intermediate passing offense. Aikman had such accuracy and such velocity on his ball that he could get away with things very few QBs could. He could get away with things Romo will never be able to. Because it was a timing offense, Aikman had fewer reads, fewer options open to him. Aikman threw to a spot much more then Romo does. Romo is more traditional in his reads. Romo, IMO, has much more latitude in this offense. He also has way more weapons. Seriously, Romo may have too many options open to him. Romo and Garrett probably just need to learn these lessons and stick to them. To me, that's the real problem we face with our offense. We seem to ignor what we know to be factual in favor of what we want. We know that in certain situations, we are better off running a short passing game or using the backs out of the backfield more in the passing game. We know that we should focus more on ball control running attacks but we get away from that. We seem to fall in love with the more wide open passing game at times and just don't listen to ourselves. Both Garrett and Tony need to be more disciplined in this regard. I think that comes with experience. People forget that JG and TR are both still very young in there respective developments. I think it will get better but time will tell.

 

[AdamJT13]

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.

I said they were "winning teams against the rest of the league."

You know as well as I do that your criteria was flawed.

You also missed the main point of the thread.

No, I just didn't have time to get to it. It was 3 a.m. here when I posted that. The short version of my response to the YPA factor is that it's easier said than done, and the same thing is true for most quarterbacks. As I've said myriad times in the past few days and hundreds of times before that, passing efficiency almost always determines who wins in the NFL. And the better the opponent, the higher your YPA likely will need to be in order to win, because their quarterback likely will post a high YPA, too.

If I have time today, I might be able to go more in depth about that.

 

[AdamJT13]

In the wins, Romo attempts less passes than in the losses (28.1 in wins, 33.0 in losses). By this, we can conclude that the less Romo passes, the Cowboys chances of winning increases.

Except that you're mistaking the chicken for the egg.

Teams pass more WHEN they are losing. They don't lose because they are passing more. And they run more WHEN they are winning. They don't win because they run more.

 

[rcaldw]

I don't necessarily think our offense was designed to go downfield in the 90s. I think we were more of a short to intermediate passing offense. Aikman had such accuracy and such velocity on his ball that he could get away with things very few QBs could. He could get away with things Romo will never be able to. Because it was a timing offense, Aikman had fewer reads, fewer options open to him. Aikman threw to a spot much more then Romo does. Romo is more traditional in his reads. Romo, IMO, has much more latitude in this offense. He also has way more weapons. Seriously, Romo may have too many options open to him. Romo and Garrett probably just need to learn these lessons and stick to them. To me, that's the real problem we face with our offense. We seem to ignor what we know to be factual in favor of what we want. We know that in certain situations, we are better off running a short passing game or using the backs out of the backfield more in the passing game. We know that we should focus more on ball control running attacks but we get away from that. We seem to fall in love with the more wide open passing game at times and just don't listen to ourselves. Both Garrett and Tony need to be more disciplined in this regard. I think that comes with experience. People forget that JG and TR are both still very young in there respective developments. I think it will get better but time will tell.

Good thoughts, but I can't agree with you that the offense of the 90's was a short to intermediate passing offense. They ran 15-20 yard comeback routes with regularity. That is no short passing attack. The passing game of that offense was an attack passing game. The West Coast approach was a lot more short stuff. It was 49ers approach vs. Rams approach and they weren't the same. The Cowboys approach came from the Rams school of thought. Aikman often checked down to shorter stuff, and one of the aspects of that offense was to always have a safety valve, which is why you saw an awful lot of swing passes out to the back when Aikman saw nothing open. I just think Aikman was as good as anyone in NFL history in terms of getting into his drop quickly, and getting the ball out on time.

 

[Alexander]

I think it has to do with game planning. I don't think that we go into games with the intent to use 3 and 5 step drops as our staple focus. We go into games looking for 5 and 7 step routes. Our offense is designed to go intermediate and deep as our first reads. The short passing game is not our focus. Now, is that because of Garrett or is that because of Romo or is it both? I don't know the answer to this but I know that typically, Romo is being flushed out of the pocket and probably on his third progression before he looks short many times, particularly on 1st and 2nd downs. We don't go into an offensive series with the intent to get 5 yards on 1st down. We go in looking for 15 or more. What does this mean? It means that if we don't have success down field, we see more 2nd and 10s then we do 2nd and 5s. With 2nd and 10, your 2nd down play has to produce positive yards so that your 3rd down is at least managable. If you have 2nd and 5, your whole playbook is open and you force the defense to account for all options. What does this mean? Means that most DCs are going to guard against the deeper ball so as not to break on 2nd and 5 as opposed to being more aggressive on 2nd and 10. It also means that if we have any penalty at all, it's probably going to kill the drive. If we are looking at 2nd and 15 or 20, we are probably not going to be succesful on extending and will be providing that much more advantage to the defense and how they defend us.

I think it's more about how our offense is designed. If Tony got into his drop with the specific intent to set up and get the ball out of his hands quickly, I think we would be much more succesful in our short passing game but that's not how our offense works.

JMO.

Romo and Garrett are intoxicated by the big play. Neither can resist the temptation. The success against Tampa Bay took away some of the flavor I think was being developed in preseason, which was slow and methodical, featuring a lot more short passes. We ran well and expected them to bite significantly on the playaction and it didn't happen. Romo was also way off. He didn't even get that inaccurate when he was recovering from his pinky injury last year.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Good thoughts, but I can't agree with you that the offense of the 90's was a short to intermediate passing offense. They ran 15-20 yard comeback routes with regularity. That is no short passing attack. The passing game of that offense was an attack passing game. The West Coast approach was a lot more short stuff. It was 49ers approach vs. Rams approach and they weren't the same. The Cowboys approach came from the Rams school of thought. Aikman often checked down to shorter stuff, and one of the aspects of that offense was to always have a safety valve, which is why you saw an awful lot of swing passes out to the back when Aikman saw nothing open. I just think Aikman was as good as anyone in NFL history in terms of getting into his drop quickly, and getting the ball out on time.

Perhaps it's semantics. To me, a deep threat or long ball attack is 30 plus. An intermediate attack is 20 to 30 and short is 15 and down. We did not run the same offense as the Rams did. Zampese's offense was a much more wide open, much more vertical attack when with the Rams. Zampese's offensive style came from Coryell and it used a much more vertical attack then we did. Our offense of the 90s was based on timing much more then was Zampese's and we used short to intermediate routes much more effectively then did Zampese's Rams offense IMO. We had something they did not. We had Aikman and the Rams, as good as their offense was, never had a QB who could throw timing routes like Aikman could. They stretched the field much more then we did and flooded zones using multiple receivers much more then we did. We used execution in our timing routes to beat defenses. Of course we threw long but we didn't throw long as a rule. The Rams used the long ball to open up the field. We used it as a methode to score quickly.

 

[AdamJT13]

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

Most good teams build their record against weak teams and go .500 or a little better against winning teams. Romo is 9-7 against those teams in the regular season, which is pretty good. It's the 0-2 record in the playoffs that needs to change. And the 1-4 in the past five games against them.

 

[rcaldw]

Perhaps it's semantics. To me, a deep threat or long ball attack is 30 plus. An intermediate attack is 20 to 30 and short is 15 and down. We did not run the same offense as the Rams did. Zampese's offense was a much more wide open, much more vertical attack when with the Rams. Zampese's offensive style came from Coryell and it used a much more vertical attack then we did. Our offense of the 90s was based on timing much more then was Zampese's and we used short to intermediate routes much more effectively then did Zampese's Rams offense IMO. We had something they did not. We had Aikman and the Rams, as good as their offense was, never had a QB who could throw timing routes like Aikman could. They stretched the field much more then we did and flooded zones using multiple receivers much more then we did. We used execution in our timing routes to beat defenses. Of course we threw long but we didn't throw long as a rule. The Rams used the long ball to open up the field. We used it as a methode to score quickly.

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.

 

[rcaldw]

Most good teams build their record against weak teams and go .500 or a little better against winning teams. Romo is 9-7 against those teams in the regular season, which is pretty good. It's the 0-2 record in the playoffs that needs to change. And the 1-4 in the past five games against them.

I can agree with that Adam, whole heartedly. I don't think Tony is very far away, I really don't. I just think if he can stay calm, make good decisions and play within himself, he can take us as far as we want to go.

 

[the kid 05]

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

What you are failing to mention or at least every one else is in those games right there the TEAM played like utter crap.

 

[cowboyed]

I am not discounting an aspect of the assessment but it doesn't take into account the negative or positive impact of the defense and offensive line on Tony Romo in any given big game. How many of these games win or lose were road games?

 

[TheDude]

How about this for big games

2006
Philly 12/16 - Loss (win and can get division title)
Sea (playoffs) Loss

2007

@NYG 11/11 - Win (a loss could have made the Giants a factor in Division title, etc)
GB 11/29 - Win (For Homefield advantage
NYG (playoffs) Loss

2008
@Pit 12/7 - Loss (any win in Dec would likely have put us in driver seat for a playoff spot)
NYG 12/14 - Win (kept playoff hope alive and in driver seat)
Balt 12/20 - Loss (lost playoff hold and final game at Tx Stadium)
@Philly 12/28 - Loss (Win and in - control own destiny)

You can argue that all division games are always big games, but I put the stock on the importance of the games at the time (@Wash 2007 was meaningless but 2nd 2007 NYG game could have changed the playoff seeding).

For me, last year is when I really begin t think Romo has choke/tendencies. Fair or not, 2006 if we beat Philly at home and then the lions, we would have won the division. 2007 GB game was the biggest game at the time and he put on a show. 2008, every game plan was (fake/slant draw, deep post, fly pattern). The interceptions and fumbles got ridiculous and the "good as a punt on 1st down" and "if the worst thing in my life is a football loss" attitude was inexcuseable.

Is he the best QB since Aikman - hands down. However, each year he is reverting to more Favre-ish play and away from his earlier style.

That said...teams have caught on to Romo and Garret. If you watch the bomb to Hurd INT, Phillips starts backpeddling 25 yards before the snap. They knew what was coming. Pierce called out of the blitz to cover Romos audible. This is all on Romo and Garrett, the Ed Reed punt decisions and fumbles are Romo.

 

[wick]

I said they were "winning teams against the rest of the league."

You know as well as I do that your criteria was flawed.

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."

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