Romo or Brees

[Super_Kazuya]

Hide? No, I can just find better things to do on a day off work than attempt to explain statistical probability to someone who's gone too far to turn back and admit anything now. You were given multiple examples by multiple people and your response is basically, "Nuh uh. Throwing more doesn't matter." I tried baseball, tried basketball, was thinking about soccer shots on goal but ran out of patience. So pound your chest all you want but you're the one not addressing people's specific examples while looking like the idiot here.

Again, respectfully, let’s make a ban bet. We can pose the question to a math authority. We can both agree on the wording of the question and who we send it to. Maybe we can both learn something. You can say yes or you can say no. If you say no, I won’t bother you again about it. What do you say?

 

[Diehardblues]

Again, I don't think career sample size is the only issue. There is also game to game, year to year sample size, and without question a QB who throws 40 times a game or more has more pressure on him than one that throws 30 times a game.

If you took Romo’s best season vs Brees best season. Who do you take?

 

[MarcusRock]

Again, respectfully, let’s make a ban bet. We can pose the question to a math authority. We can both agree on the wording of the question and who we send it to. Maybe we can both learn something. You can say yes or you can say no. If you say no, I won’t bother you again about it. What do you say?

What are you 12? These are the same dumb bets people tried to toss at me when I was handing it to them in the "Dez didn't really catch it" debates. If you have actual evidence to back what you say, produce it. The internet is large place. Is there not 1 reputable sports article out there written by some "math authority" that addresses this? Until then, you're in here like a flat earther preaching to people who've actually been in space to view the evidence.

 

[Roadtrip635]

900 is probably a fine sample size. It depends on what you are dealing with. Calculating sample size is pretty complicated and beyond the ability of laymen like ourselves, and certainly beyond novices like Roadtrip635 and the MarcusRock troll, which is why they went to immediately hide under their rock when challenged.
The NFL seems to think that 1500 attempts is a good starting point to qualify for their career stats, and I feel confident they didn’t pull those out of thin air. Romo has over 4,000.

I just chose to stop when you started using Curry's shooting FTs as somehow equivalent to an NFL QB throwing passes against defenses actively trying to stop them. It's laymen like yourself that fail to interpret stats in their proper context and twist their significance to fit your argument without understanding how those stats were actually gained.

 

[percyhoward]

I agree with better defenses, Tony would probably have at least one ring and Brees multiple.

Poor defenses is what they have most in common. That, and their Late & Close performances.

4th qtr or OT of one-score game
(ranking based on min 500 att since 2000)
Romo 468 of 726 6104yd 46 td 20 int 100.5 (1st)
Brees 822 of 1263 9606 yd 62 td 37 int 92.2 (4th)

But then, there's longevity (durability) and 1st-quarter performance. No contest.

1st qtr
(ranking based on min 750 att since 2000)
Brees 1489 of 2176 16370 yd 102 td 44 int 97.7 (4th)
Romo 640 of 997 6850 yd 40 td 34 int 83.4 (23rd)

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I just chose to stop when you started using Curry's shooting FTs as somehow equivalent to an NFL QB throwing passes against defenses actively trying to stop them. It's laymen like yourself that fail to interpret stats in their proper context and twist their significance to fit your argument without understanding how those stats were actually gained.

Yes, that’s a fine excuse for your cowardice. You were challenged and you backed down into a corner, and now you and the MarcusRock troll have deluded yourselves into thinking everyone agrees with you, instead of laughing at you.

The man literally said it’s easier for Romo to have a higher completion percentage than Brees, despite Romo throwing 4000 passes of sample size. All you can do is laugh at the stupidity.

 

[CPanther95]

I think this has been played out.

Can we move on to Rico vs Antonio Gates now?

 

[MarcusRock]

I think this has been played out.

Can we move on to Rico vs Antonio Gates now?

Rico is clearly just as talented if not better than Gates based on his preseason performance when you compare it to Gates' decade plus career. It's no more or less difficult to beast out at the TE position whether you have 5 catches or 500 catches.

 

[Insomniac]

That doesn't mean passer rating is flawed. It's the cross-era comparisons that are flawed, because passing ratings are higher than they used to be.

Use the yearly rankings, not the raw ratings. Then you can compare players from any era. (League size starts to matter a lot if you go back before 1970.)

(passer rating)
Avg rank -- 5 best seasons
Staubach 1st
Brees 2nd
Aikman 4th
Romo 5th

Avg rank -- 8 best seasons
Brees 3rd
Staubach 5th
Romo 6th
Aikman 7th

With better defenses over their careers, Romo would probably have at least one ring, and Brees would likely have multiple rings.

For QB efficiency I prefer Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt to Passer Rating. They have a high correlation anyway. For historical comparisons I use the Index stats. This compares the players stats to the league average of when they played with 100 being average. This isn't the be all end all stat either because efficiency isn't the only factor in evaluating a career but it's a start. Career totals, years leading the league or being in the top 5 in some of the passing stats, team success in the regular season and playoffs count too.

The efficiency stats are the best (only?) arguments in Romo's favor in comparing him to top QBs of the last 50 years. He edges Brees out in efficiency by a little but the rest of the factors greatly favor Brees.

Since 1970
ANY/A+
Steve Young* 123
Joe Montana* 121
Roger Staubach* 121
Peyton Manning 120
Dan Marino* 119
Aaron Rodgers 119
Tom Brady 118
Dan Fouts* 117
Tony Romo 116
Kurt Warner* 116
Drew Brees 115
Ken Anderson 113
Bob Griese* 113
Philip Rivers 113
Jeff Garcia 112
Trent Green 112
Russell Wilson 112


Passer Rating+
Steve Young* 126
Joe Montana* 123
Aaron Rodgers 123
Roger Staubach* 121
Peyton Manning 118
Tom Brady 118
Bob Griese* 118
Kurt Warner* 117
Tony Romo 116
Drew Brees 116
Ken Anderson 115
Russell Wilson 115
Fran Tarkenton* 115
Dan Marino* 113
Dan Fouts* 112

 

[DFWJC]

Poor defenses is what they have most in common. That, and their Late & Close performances.

4th qtr or OT of one-score game
(ranking based on min 500 att since 2000)
Romo 468 of 726 6104yd 46 td 20 int 100.5 (1st)
Brees 822 of 1263 9606 yd 62 td 37 int 92.2 (4th)

But then, there's longevity (durability) and 1st-quarter performance. No contest.

1st qtr
(ranking based on min 750 att since 2000)
Brees 1489 of 2176 16370 yd 102 td 44 int 97.7 (4th)
Romo 640 of 997 6850 yd 40 td 34 int 83.4 (23rd)

Yes.
I’m a clear Romo fan, and I do think Brees mostly played with better olines, on average.
But I just cant take Romo ahead of Brees because of the insane consistency of Brees.

Ive always put Brees up there with Rosgers and Brady, and Romo in a tier group below them.

 

[DFWJC]

For QB efficiency I prefer Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt to Passer Rating. They have a high correlation anyway. For historical comparisons I use the Index stats. This compares the players stats to the league average of when they played with 100 being average. This isn't the be all end all stat either because efficiency isn't the only factor in evaluating a career but it's a start. Career totals, years leading the league or being in the top 5 in some of the passing stats, team success in the regular season and playoffs count too.

The efficiency stats are the best (only?) arguments in Romo's favor in comparing him to top QBs of the last 50 years. He edges Brees out in efficiency by a little but the rest of the factors greatly favor Brees.

Since 1970
ANY/A+
Steve Young* 123
Joe Montana* 121
Roger Staubach* 121
Peyton Manning 120
Dan Marino* 119
Aaron Rodgers 119
Tom Brady 118
Dan Fouts* 117
Tony Romo 116
Kurt Warner* 116
Drew Brees 115
Ken Anderson 113
Bob Griese* 113
Philip Rivers 113
Jeff Garcia 112
Trent Green 112
Russell Wilson 112


Passer Rating+
Steve Young* 126
Joe Montana* 123
Aaron Rodgers 123
Roger Staubach* 121
Peyton Manning 118
Tom Brady 118
Bob Griese* 118
Kurt Warner* 117
Tony Romo 116
Drew Brees 116
Ken Anderson 115
Russell Wilson 115
Fran Tarkenton* 115
Dan Marino* 113
Dan Fouts* 112

For me, the glaring point is that Romo always shows up somewher high in this group of great QBs.
Some here may overrate him, but I think overall, he was underrrated by the masses.

 

[G2]

Hide? No, I can just find better things to do on a day off work than attempt to explain statistical probability to someone who's gone too far to turn back and admit anything now. You were given multiple examples by multiple people and your response is basically, "Nuh uh. Throwing more doesn't matter." I tried baseball, tried basketball, was thinking about soccer shots on goal but ran out of patience. So pound your chest all you want but you're the one not addressing people's specific examples while looking like the idiot here.

Frequency waters down percentages. And, regardless Brees is on a different level.

 

[gimmesix]

Keep in mind that football is a team sport. Thus, Brees may have more playoff wins, yet it doesn't automatically= " Better".

In their prime, who would you rather have? Furthermore, who was better in your opinion?

I'd have to give the edge to Brees because he has a Super Bowl title.

I may, and do, believe that in better circumstances that Romo also would have a title or multiple titles, but I can't prove it.

Other than that, we can nitpick, but I don't see a lot separating the two other than the length of their careers.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I'd have to give the edge to Brees because he has a Super Bowl title.

I may, and do, believe that in better circumstances that Romo also would have a title or multiple titles, but I can't prove it.

Other than that, we can nitpick, but I don't see a lot separating the two other than the length of their careers.

According to some of the nimrods on here, Romo’s career was so short that if you added one completion to his total, his percentage would jump five points!

 

[percyhoward]

For QB efficiency I prefer Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt to Passer Rating. They have a high correlation anyway. For historical comparisons I use the Index stats. This compares the players stats to the league average of when they played with 100 being average.

That's basically what I did, and there's little difference in win correlation between ANY/A and passer rating, as they're both efficiency stats anyway.

Where I differ from the person who came up with the stats you're using is that person is looking at the player's entire career, which I think is a mistake. Players are remembered for their best five years or so -- sometimes less. A player's 9th-best year has no effect on his legacy one way or the other.

Anything that factors in era is appreciated, though.

 

[percyhoward]

For me, the glaring point is that Romo always shows up somewher high in this group of great QBs.
Some here may overrate him, but I think overall, he was underrrated by the masses.

He's underrated by those who usually underrate the team aspect to about the same degree, and that's no coincidence.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Again, respectfully, let’s make a ban bet. We can pose the question to a math authority. We can both agree on the wording of the question and who we send it to. Maybe we can both learn something. You can say yes or you can say no. If you say no, I won’t bother you again about it. What do you say?

That's assuming the math authority actual knows something about the game of football and are using relevant data and situations or generalized assumptions. I currently have a sig bet with someone about 4th down %. He's using research from a couple different "math authorities" showing that because the probabilities they calculated that teams should go for it almost all the time on 4th regardless of distance needed or field position. Looking deeper at their data, it was inherently flawed. The "math authorities" cited, didn't use 4th down stats because there wasn't enough to attempts to draw a reasonable conclusion, so they used 3rd down stats, one study only used 3rd down stats from 1st and 3rd qtrs to eliminate the issue with time running out, iirc the other study only used 3rd down stats from the 1st qtr of games. Each study also left out other 3rd down attempts on different criteria. These "math experts" are starting with flawed data to start their calculations, the strategy a coach would use to call a 3rd vs 4th down play are different, and the consequences are different for failure. The data they used was over a 12-15 yr span in each case. They concluded that coaches should always go for it or at least go for it in almost every case, regardless of yards needed or field position. Our bet was that he thinks there will be a 20% increase in 4th down attempts, based on these studies and that the Eagles were effective with them. He doesn't get that different teams are better or worse than others and that those stats are for generic team A or B, it doesn't work for each real life team. The usual difference on 4th down attempts each season over the last decade have only varied 1-2% up or down.

In your attempt of a basketball analogy, If Curry and Shaq each made 9/10 FTs, the chance of each of them then making 900/1000 is much different. The teams or players don't rise or regress to the league average, they rise or regress to their own ability. In such a team dependent sport as football, there also are numerous other variables to evaluate.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

That's assuming the math authority actual knows something about the game of football and are using relevant data and situations or generalized assumptions. I currently have a sig bet with someone about 4th down %. He's using research from a couple different "math authorities" showing that because the probabilities they calculated that teams should go for it almost all the time on 4th regardless of distance needed or field position. Looking deeper at their data, it was inherently flawed. The "math authorities" cited, didn't use 4th down stats because there wasn't enough to attempts to draw a reasonable conclusion, so they used 3rd down stats, one study only used 3rd down stats from 1st and 3rd qtrs to eliminate the issue with time running out, iirc the other study only used 3rd down stats from the 1st qtr of games. Each study also left out other 3rd down attempts on different criteria. These "math experts" are starting with flawed data to start their calculations, the strategy a coach would use to call a 3rd vs 4th down play are different, and the consequences are different for failure. The data they used was over a 12-15 yr span in each case. They concluded that coaches should always go for it or at least go for it in almost every case, regardless of yards needed or field position. Our bet was that he thinks there will be a 20% increase in 4th down attempts, based on these studies and that the Eagles were effective with them. He doesn't get that different teams are better or worse than others and that those stats are for generic team A or B, it doesn't work for each real life team. The usual difference on 4th down attempts each season over the last decade have only varied 1-2% up or down.

In your attempt of a basketball analogy, If Curry and Shaq each made 9/10 FTs, the chance of each of them then making 900/1000 is much different. The teams or players don't rise or regress to the league average, they rise or regress to their own ability. In such a team dependent sport as football, there also are numerous other variables to evaluate.

If unlike the MarcusRock troll you are brave enough to take the bet, I am completely open minded to any suggestion you may have to appeal to an authority. I don’t have the slightest doubt his assertion about Romo’s statistics are rubbbish. It’s up to you.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Poor defenses is what they have most in common. That, and their Late & Close performances.

4th qtr or OT of one-score game
(ranking based on min 500 att since 2000)
Romo 468 of 726 6104yd 46 td 20 int 100.5 (1st)
Brees 822 of 1263 9606 yd 62 td 37 int 92.2 (4th)

But then, there's longevity (durability) and 1st-quarter performance. No contest.

1st qtr
(ranking based on min 750 att since 2000)
Brees 1489 of 2176 16370 yd 102 td 44 int 97.7 (4th)
Romo 640 of 997 6850 yd 40 td 34 int 83.4 (23rd)

Durability is an issue. At first look, one would think that Brees due to his smaller stature would be less durable. I think scheme has something to do with that, Brees is in an offense that uses a lot of short passes, get the ball out quick, where Tony was in a primarily downfield passing offense, hold the ball longer, prone to more hits. I think it's also mindset, Brees had a major injury early in his career and knows he doesn't have the physique to take too much pounding. Tony by nature is a risk taker it's good and bad, sometimes you scramble to make the big play and sometimes you hold it too long and take the big shot.

 

[percyhoward]

I don't see a lot separating the two other than the length of their careers.

Romo's "slow starts" separate him from all the elites, including Brees.

Career 1st quarter
Rodgers 107.9
Manning 101.2
Brees 97.7
Brady 97.6
Romo 83.4

Career rest of game (diff)
Rodgers 102.6 (-5.3)
Romo 100.8 (+17.4)
Brady 96.9 (-0.7)
Brees 96.3 (-1.4)
Manning 95.0 (-6.2)