Stopping the New Romo Myth

[percyhoward]

Looking at that recent trend, it kind of unravels the argument, anyway. I can live with 126.2 in a pinch, if he's not able to bring it up some more.

The 115.4 without all the rushing support the year before wasn't too shabby, either.

The 115.4 is for the past two seasons combined -- not for 2013. IOW, the time period that we've been looking at (the last 5 seasons) happens to be the one that makes Romo look the least impressive in these situations. If you look at any other time frame, Romo's numbers would be even better.

Not that there's anything inordinate about the five-season drop off in the first place.

 

[Idgit]

The 115.4 is for the past two seasons combined -- not for 2013. IOW, the time period that we've been looking at (the last 5 seasons) happens to be the one that makes Romo look the least impressive in these situations. If you look at any other time frame, Romo's numbers would be even better.

Not that there's anything inordinate about the five-season drop off in the first place.

Ah, yes. Misread that, but that's clear what it says. The point's the same, though. The fading after too many passes has been a non-issue over the course of the last two seasons.

 

[percyhoward]

Ah, yes. Misread that, but that's clear what it says. The point's the same, though. The fading after too many passes has been a non-issue over the course of the last two seasons.

Yes, and I think we have to say the whole idea that Romo has a disproportionate drop off after a high number of attempts is a non-issue.

 

[blindzebra]

2010 - 2013 seasons, under Romo:

2010

@ Washington, Final Score 7-13, 47 attempts

Chicago, Final Score 20-27 (score was 20-24 after the 3rd quarter), 51 attempts

Tennessee, Final Score 27-34 (score was 17-20 after the 3rd quarter), 46 attempts


2011

@ NJY Final Score 24-27 (score was 24-10 in the 4th quarter with 10 minutes left), 36 pass attempts

Detroit, Final score 30-34, (score was 27-3 in the 3rd quarter WITH THE BALL), 47 pass attempts

@ New England, Final Score 16-20 (score was 16-13 in the 4th quarter before final possession), 41 pass atempts

@ Philadelphia, Final Score 7-34, 35 pass attempts

@ Washington, Final Score 27-24 in Overtime (score was 24-17 Dallas) 37 pass attempts (but in Overtime, Murray had 25 carries)

@ Arizona, Final Score 13-19 in Overtime (score was 13-6 Dallas after 3rd quarter) 42 pass attempts (Murray had 12 carries)

@ NYG, Final Score 14-31, 37 pass attempts


2012

@ Seattle 7-27, 40 attempts

Tampa, Final score 16-10, 39 attempts

Chicago, Final Score 18-34, 43 attempts

NY Giants, Final Score 24-29 (score was 24-23 with 11 minutes left) 62 pass attempts

Cleveland, Final Score 23-20, (although score was 3-13 with 4 minutes left in the 3rd and went to 10-13 in the beginning of the 4th quarter), 50 attempts

Washington, Final Score 31-38 (score was 3-28, but was also 3-0 after first quarter and had 62 pass attempts, we never intended on running the ball).

@ Cinci, Final Score 20-19, Score was 10-13 at the half, 43 attempts

Pittsburgh, Final Score 27-24 (no lead more than 7 points), 42 attempts to Murrays 14 runs

@ New Orleans 31-34 (score was 17-24 after the 3rd quarter), 43 pass attempts to Murray's 11 attempts

@ Washington, 18-28, Score was 10-14 to start the 4th quarter, 37 pass attempts (but Murray did have 17 rushes)


2013

NYG, Final Score 36-31 (score was 27-10 with 5 minutes left in the 3rd quarter), 49 pass attempts

@KC, Final Score 16-17 (close score througout), 42 pass attempts

@ Denver, 48-51, 36 pass attempts (great game, but threw a pick on his 36th throw)

@ PHI, 17-3, 47 pass attempts

Minnesota, Final Score 27-23, (score was 20-10 in the 3rd quarter), 51 pass attempts

@NYG 24-21 (had a 21-6 lead), 38 pass attempts

Green Bay, 36-37 (up 26-3 at halftime), 48 pass attempts


So, let's count this up where we had pass attempts of more than 33 pass attempts (let's not nitpick over 1, 2 or 3 more attempts than the norm). There's 27 games listed. I will throw out the Washington game in 2011 as it was an OT game and he only threw it 37 times and we ran it 25 times. That many throws was more of a function of having more plays.

I counted 20 of those games where we weren't down by some huge deficit and *had* to throw the ball to get into the game. So in 76% of those games we egregiously threw the ball and did NOT have to play catch up.

And we had plenty of games that were ridiculous where we were throwing it 45+ times for almost no reason whatsoever.






YR

The king of no context strikes again.

I absolutely hate posters that spit out stats to support an argument with no actual facts to go along with it. I bet you also used the when Murray rushes 20 times stat too.

In this thread you have:
1. Used stats without context
2. Said context does not matter
3. Said it does not matter what other QBs do and then brought up Rodgers
4. Called stats with context lies
5. Challenged Percy a stats king on stats
6. Challenged Adam a stats God on stats

Any of those make you look silly, all of them make you a complete joke.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

The king of no context strikes again.

I absolutely hate posters that spit out stats to support an argument with no actual facts to go along with it. I bet you also used the when Murray rushes 20 times stat too.

In this thread you have:
1. Used stats without context

Wrong.

2. Said context does not matter

Again, wrong.

What does Tom Brady have to do with my statement that Romo tends to become much less effective after 31+ throws?

Tom Brady is not a part of our team. Tom Brady is rarely an opponent of ours.

Context DOES matter. Just your goofy ideas are not 'context.'

3. Said it does not matter what other QBs do and then brought up Rodgers

This is dishonest.

I have repeatedly stated that even with Rodgers it still doesn't matter as far as to the point of the article.

This is an old trick that lawyers and politicians like to do. When they can't win an argument, they'll revert to side arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Win those side arguments and it creates a perception that they must be right.

Problem is...Percy and Adam couldn't win those side arguments. Particularly Percy because he conveniently left out Rodgers and conveniently didn't include Romo's 2010 season and conveniently didn't show the actual QB ratings of Romo thru the years.

4. Called stats with context lies

No, I called mistruths, incomplete stats and obvious attempts to cherry pick stats to be lies and being purposely deceptive.

5. Challenged Percy a stats king on stats

You do know that I work as a statistician for a living, right?

6. Challenged Adam a stats God on stats

You do know that I work as a statistician for a living, right?

Any of those make you look silly, all of them make you a complete joke.

There’s a tale of an old attorney that is famous for getting all of his clients to be found not guilty regardless of how much evidence is against them.


A young attorney has a client that is pretty much guilty as sin. He knows it, the client knows it and the young attorney is certain he has no chance in this case. So, the young attorney seeks out this old attorney and asks ‘how do you get your clients off all of the time?’ and the old attorney finally tells him the secret. The old attorney says to the effect ‘always argue with the witnesses something that they are NOT an expert on.’


The old attorney later explains that ‘if you have a ballistics expert, ask them questions about blood. If you have a blood expert, ask them questions about ballistics. If you have an eye witness, ask them questions about race. Do not ask the ballistics expert about ballistics and the blood expert about blood and the eye witness about what they saw.’


The point is that by arguing about points that have nothing to do with the case at hand and that they are not experts in, the attorney can then poke holes in those arguments and therefore dent their credibility to the point that the jury forgets about the basic arguments of the case and is now fully engulfed in the arguments that these witness got wrong. It doesn’t matter what actually happened and what the actual facts and evidence show if you create a perception of doubt.


Effective lawyers can pull that off in court and politicians love to pull that in debates.


That’s more or less what Adam and Percy have done here. When they’ve argued against my point, they have tried to bring up other QB’s in the league, showed examples of how the rest of the league throws more when they are down by large deficits and cherry picked arguments that have nothing to do with the original argument. Try and win those little side arguments that have nothing to do with the main overall argument and people will erroneously think you are correct. Move the goal posts when you’re not winning those arguments and deflect into new arguments by stating facts that have nothing to do with the original argument.


And by the looks of it, it still works on some unsuspecting people. So, the joke is on you.






YR

 

[blindzebra]

Wrong.



Again, wrong.

What does Tom Brady have to do with my statement that Romo tends to become much less effective after 31+ throws?

Tom Brady is not a part of our team. Tom Brady is rarely an opponent of ours.

Context DOES matter. Just your goofy ideas are not 'context.'



This is dishonest.

I have repeatedly stated that even with Rodgers it still doesn't matter as far as to the point of the article.

This is an old trick that lawyers and politicians like to do. When they can't win an argument, they'll revert to side arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Win those side arguments and it creates a perception that they must be right.

Problem is...Percy and Adam couldn't win those side arguments. Particularly Percy because he conveniently left out Rodgers and conveniently didn't include Romo's 2010 season and conveniently didn't show the actual QB ratings of Romo thru the years.



No, I called mistruths, incomplete stats and obvious attempts to cherry pick stats to be lies and being purposely deceptive.



You do know that I work as a statistician for a living, right?



You do know that I work as a statistician for a living, right?




There’s a tale of an old attorney that is famous for getting all of his clients to be found not guilty regardless of how much evidence is against them.


A young attorney has a client that is pretty much guilty as sin. He knows it, the client knows it and the young attorney is certain he has no chance in this case. So, the young attorney seeks out this old attorney and asks ‘how do you get your clients off all of the time?’ and the old attorney finally tells him the secret. The old attorney says to the effect ‘always argue with the witnesses something that they are NOT an expert on.’


The old attorney later explains that ‘if you have a ballistics expert, ask them questions about blood. If you have a blood expert, ask them questions about ballistics. If you have an eye witness, ask them questions about race. Do not ask the ballistics expert about ballistics and the blood expert about blood and the eye witness about what they saw.’


The point is that by arguing about points that have nothing to do with the case at hand and that they are not experts in, the attorney can then poke holes in those arguments and therefore dent their credibility to the point that the jury forgets about the basic arguments of the case and is now fully engulfed in the arguments that these witness got wrong. It doesn’t matter what actually happened and what the actual facts and evidence show if you create a perception of doubt.


Effective lawyers can pull that off in court and politicians love to pull that in debates.


That’s more or less what Adam and Percy have done here. When they’ve argued against my point, they have tried to bring up other QB’s in the league, showed examples of how the rest of the league throws more when they are down by large deficits and cherry picked arguments that have nothing to do with the original argument. Try and win those little side arguments that have nothing to do with the main overall argument and people will erroneously think you are correct. Move the goal posts when you’re not winning those arguments and deflect into new arguments by stating facts that have nothing to do with the original argument.


And by the looks of it, it still works on some unsuspecting people. So, the joke is on you.






YR

Wrong.



Again, wrong.

What does Tom Brady have to do with my statement that Romo tends to become much less effective after 31+ throws?

Tom Brady is not a part of our team. Tom Brady is rarely an opponent of ours.

Context DOES matter. Just your goofy ideas are not 'context.'



This is dishonest.

I have repeatedly stated that even with Rodgers it still doesn't matter as far as to the point of the article.

This is an old trick that lawyers and politicians like to do. When they can't win an argument, they'll revert to side arguments that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Win those side arguments and it creates a perception that they must be right.

Problem is...Percy and Adam couldn't win those side arguments. Particularly Percy because he conveniently left out Rodgers and conveniently didn't include Romo's 2010 season and conveniently didn't show the actual QB ratings of Romo thru the years.



No, I called mistruths, incomplete stats and obvious attempts to cherry pick stats to be lies and being purposely deceptive.



You do know that I work as a statistician for a living, right?



You do know that I work as a statistician for a living, right?




There’s a tale of an old attorney that is famous for getting all of his clients to be found not guilty regardless of how much evidence is against them.


A young attorney has a client that is pretty much guilty as sin. He knows it, the client knows it and the young attorney is certain he has no chance in this case. So, the young attorney seeks out this old attorney and asks ‘how do you get your clients off all of the time?’ and the old attorney finally tells him the secret. The old attorney says to the effect ‘always argue with the witnesses something that they are NOT an expert on.’


The old attorney later explains that ‘if you have a ballistics expert, ask them questions about blood. If you have a blood expert, ask them questions about ballistics. If you have an eye witness, ask them questions about race. Do not ask the ballistics expert about ballistics and the blood expert about blood and the eye witness about what they saw.’


The point is that by arguing about points that have nothing to do with the case at hand and that they are not experts in, the attorney can then poke holes in those arguments and therefore dent their credibility to the point that the jury forgets about the basic arguments of the case and is now fully engulfed in the arguments that these witness got wrong. It doesn’t matter what actually happened and what the actual facts and evidence show if you create a perception of doubt.


Effective lawyers can pull that off in court and politicians love to pull that in debates.


That’s more or less what Adam and Percy have done here. When they’ve argued against my point, they have tried to bring up other QB’s in the league, showed examples of how the rest of the league throws more when they are down by large deficits and cherry picked arguments that have nothing to do with the original argument. Try and win those little side arguments that have nothing to do with the main overall argument and people will erroneously think you are correct. Move the goal posts when you’re not winning those arguments and deflect into new arguments by stating facts that have nothing to do with the original argument.


And by the looks of it, it still works on some unsuspecting people. So, the joke is on you.






YR

Once again a lot of words with nothing to say. As for dishonest, talk about laughable, we can all read your posts. Not one thing written in this thread to you was dishonest.

Your job means little to me, flipping burgers at McDonalds does not make you a culinary expert and compared to Percy and Adam you are the one asking if we want fries with that.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/more-aggressive-offense-next-year.318098/page-5#post-6041394

I mentioned Rodgers six times in the above post that you quoted, and that (I'm assuming) you read. Then, to remind you, I also posted a link in this thread. In the future, I will try to remember to repeat myself frequently in our discussions.

Over the past five full seasons, Romo's "actual performance" after 30 attempts in a game is consistent with where Romo ranks relative to the other four QB. You would expect the 5th-best QB over that time period to be the 5th-best QB after 30 attempts over that time period. Maybe you can explain why we should expect Romo to show more improvement after 30 attempts than these other guys?

Rodgers 224 of 337 2989 30 7 115.4
PManning 490 of 758 5587 48 21 96.2
Brady 400 of 648 4605 36 13 93.3
Brees 573 of 904 6517 51 26 91.8
Romo 278 of 445 3251 24 13 90.4

More importantly, his drop off (which is what we're actually talking about) is also consistent with three of the other four QB. This is why the credo that "less Romo is more," makes no more sense than "less Brady, Manning, or Brees is more." And this is based on the assumption that the only factor that influences such a drop off is the number of attempts, which is at best shaky, and is almost certainly false.

Rodgers +5.9
Brady -8.1
PManning -8.8
Romo -10.5
Brees -11.1

Finally, you keep referring to Romo's 5 1/3 games in 2010 as a "season." That means you're going back 4 and 1/3 seasons for Romo, and 5 seasons for everybody else. As a veteran of research, you know that's not a valid comparison. With the data that is available to us (without going back and counting each and every game) all we can use to compare are their qualifying seasons. For Rodgers and Brees, that's 2010-14, and for the rest it's 2009-14. But let's include Romo's games from 2010 anyway, even though it makes his sample larger than the rest. Romo's drop off goes down to 12.8 rating points, making his drop off 1.7 points lower than Brees.

They all have drop offs of 8.1-12.8 rating points. So you're still faced with the same question. What is it that makes "less Romo is more" true, that doesn't also make "less Brees, Brady, or Manning is more" true?

Yes,

And you're still neglecting the actual QB ratings by season and left off the 2010 season so you can conveniently back up your point.

Like I said, if I had a QB that had a QB rating that dropped from 120 to 100 or a QB with a rating of 100 to 90...you're trying to present it like we would want the 2nd QB because his drop-off is smaller.

It's a hideous point.

As far as Rodgers go, you can't reasonably expect me to read every post of yours that does not pertain to me and then make an argument with *me* NOT showing Rodgers. You should have made your original post showing Rodgers' metrics as well and it's clear that you didn't to cherry pick stats for your own argument. Nothing to hide, right?

And you have never satisfactorily explained why a few QB's that have dropped off is 'context' with how much Romo drops off.

Let me guess....the next argument will be 'well we were losing and had to throw the ball and that puts Romo in situations to foul up' which I've thoroughly debunked. Maybe we could run thru pass attempts in the first half, which is an inane argument.

Keep throwing crap on the wall, it may stick eventually.






YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Once again a lot of words with nothing to say. As for dishonest, talk about laughable, we can all read your posts. Not one thing written in this thread to you was dishonest.

Your job means little to me, flipping burgers at McDonalds does not make you a culinary expert and compared to Percy and Adam you are the one asking if we want fries with that.

The fact is that the truth hurts you. You don't have any reasonable argument and instead of actually countering the points, you resort to ad hominem attacks which blatantly shows 'you got nuthin'

Your analogy is once again another laughable point in your sea of laughable points that could overflow the Grand Canyon. Does having a degree in Applied Mathematics and having 15 years working in analytics, including working for a Fortune 500 company work? How about having a statistical consulting business that works with pro athletes and pro and college teams? How about being featured in a major publication?

Unlike you, I just don't throw the word 'stats god' around and just let every Tom, Dick and Harry that throws up numbers that agree with your preconceived notions do the thinking for me.





YR

 

[percyhoward]

I have stated specifically that Romo throws the ball more effectively in passes 25-35 than in passes 35+. What does throwing the ball in the first half really have to do with anything?

A lot. Remember, you're actually claiming that the coaching staff limited Romo's attempts in 2014. Not that they decided to run more with the league's best run-blocking OL and a Pro Bowl RB, but that they decided to put a limit on their QB's pass attempts, based on a drop off which you claim is disproportionate.

Predictably, people want to know your basis for these claims. Where is the evidence that Romo's attempts were being limited, and that Romo's drop off is somehow not commensurate with those of the NFL's elite?

How do you explain why Brady, Manning, and Brees also experience significant drop offs after a high number of attempts? How do you account for a QB's lower passer ratings when his team is behind, and why shouldn't this be considered in Romo's case, given that he has been behind more often than these other QB? And, as a professional statistician, what does all the statistical variance tell you about the reliability of these samples anyway?

Even if we skip past all of that, and we accept your assertion at face value that Romo's rating drops inordinately after x number of attempts, then how do you explain why coaches who are trying to limit Romo's attempts let him average 17+ attempts in the first half, as he always has?

That’s more or less what Adam and Percy have done here. When they’ve argued against my point, they have tried to bring up other QB’s in the league, showed examples of how the rest of the league throws more when they are down by large deficits and cherry picked arguments that have nothing to do with the original argument.

If your point isn't that Romo's drop off is disproportionate, then it isn't a point about Romo. The statement "less Romo is more" banks on people being ignorant of the fact that "less Brees, Brady, and Manning" is also more, by the same measurement. It's like you're saying "black umbrellas keep you dry," then when someone points out that color doesn't matter, you respond with, "but I'm only talking about the black ones. Any other color is a side argument."

Being a statistician doesn't exempt you from having to make sense.

 

[blindzebra]

The fact is that the truth hurts you. You don't have any reasonable argument and instead of actually countering the points, you resort to ad hominem attacks which blatantly shows 'you got nuthin'

Your analogy is once again another laughable point in your sea of laughable points that could overflow the Grand Canyon. Does having a degree in Applied Mathematics and having 15 years working in analytics, including working for a Fortune 500 company work? How about having a statistical consulting business that works with pro athletes and pro and college teams? How about being featured in a major publication?

Unlike you, I just don't throw the word 'stats god' around and just let every Tom, Dick and Harry that throws up numbers that agree with your preconceived notions do the thinking for me.





YR

Once again what does your alledged resume have to do with anything?

You are the one making a blanket statement and twisting stats to fit it. When others point out that those stats are not exclusive to Romo, you get your panties in a bunch and start trying to discredit stats that actually do prove something as opposed to your agenda driven drivel.

 

[percyhoward]

Yes,

And you're still neglecting the actual QB ratings by season and left off the 2010 season so you can conveniently back up your point.

As far as Rodgers go, you can't reasonably expect me to read every post of yours that does not pertain to me and then make an argument with *me* NOT showing Rodgers.

You don't always read the posts that you quote, do you?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

A lot. Remember, you're actually claiming that the coaching staff limited Romo's attempts in 2014. Not that they decided to run more with the league's best run-blocking OL and a Pro Bowl RB, but that they decided to put a limit on their QB's pass attempts, based on a drop off which you claim is disproportionate.

Predictably, people want to know your basis for these claims. Where is the evidence that Romo's attempts were being limited, and that Romo's drop off is somehow not commensurate with those of the NFL's elite?[/quote]

First, I never said that in this thread.

Again, change the argument to try and win a side argument and distract from the actual argument and what I said.

But, *if* you want to argue that there was a report that said that the staff did indeed tell Romo to stop audibling out of running plays so much.

Secondly, as Garrett said in the press conference after the Eagles win where we ran the ball 31 times with Murray for a whopping 2.6 yards per carry....that they preached about continuing to run the ball even when you have the defense stacking the box and you're only getting those ugly runs because it keeps the defense honest to set up big pass plays.

Sounds like to me that the Cowboys coaching staff was in some form or fashion, trying to limit how much he throws when they tell a guy to STOP audibling out of running plays and to keep running the ball even if the box is stacked and you're running it for 2.6 yards per carry.

Also remember that in the 2nd half of the 2013 season we ran the ball incredibly well. Yet, we still had a problem with throwing the ball too often like we did in the Packers game where we were up by 23 points at the half (and at home). Funny how we did a complete about face like when we were down by 21 points to the Rams (on the road) and Romo only threw it 23 times. There certainly was a large switch in offensive playcalling philosophy from this season compared to 2013, even in the second half of 2013 when we ran the ball extremely well. Or as Packers defenders said 'the best zone run team in the league.'

How do you explain why Brady, Manning, and Brees also experience significant drop offs after a high number of attempts?

Like I showed, their QB ratings were still not as low as Romo's were per season. You still don't get that point which is borderline fascinating if it were not so redundant. And it eludes my point that their performance HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ROMO and how he plays, what the strengths of his game are, etc.

How do you account for a QB's lower passer ratings when his team is behind, and why shouldn't this be considered in Romo's case

If you want to compare QB's, that's a different subject. And I would absolutely consider it IF that was the subject of comparison. The problem is that as I showed, most of the games where we threw over 35+ times in a game we were not losing by a substantial margin. I showed 76% of games from 2010 where we were not substantially down AND couldn't get the defense to hold. That would lead to the logic that we had to throw in order to score quickly AND had to keep pace with the opponent.

If you and Adam want to nit pick a few games, FINE. You're still going to be at around 60% of games that did not meet that criteria. Yet, when we were down by 21 points to the Rams, we stuck with the run and only threw it 23 times and Romo played spectacular after that INT. It flies right in the face of your arguments.

Even if we skip past all of that, and we accept your assertion at face value that Romo's rating drops inordinately after x number of attempts, then how do you explain why coaches who are trying to limit Romo's attempts let him average 17+ attempts in the first half, as he always has?

You must have missed my argument asking to show the team's rushing attempts in the first half in 2014 versus 2010-2013. Notice how that gets ignored? Might have to do with having more plays. Call me crazy.

Furthermore, I've argued that on pass attempts 25-35 he's is usually at his most effective and then drops off dramatically at throw 35+. So, if you're throwing the ball in the first half and can get to throws 25 by the third quarter, perhaps you can grab that lead or at least score more points because your QB is throwing the ball more effectively.

Being a statistician doesn't exempt you from having to make sense.

I have made sense, you just refuse to believe it because it doesn't agree with your confirmation bias (something that statisticians have to fight against).

But, let me ask you a question since I answered yours...

If 'less is not more with Romo', shouldn't the opposite then be, for the most part, true? That by the logic that 'less is not more with Romo' then that 'more is more with Romo?'

Because Romo is so good and he's at a position of the game critical to winning and we know that there is a strong correlation between yards gained and points scored, that we just utilized Romo incorrectly in 2014 because we should have had him throwing far more often than he did?

I'm not talking about wins in the end either. We'll ignore the potential impact that throwing more has on the defense. I'm talking about the offense. If 'more is more' with Romo, then do you believe we would have scored more points and Romo would be more effective by throwing the ball more?





YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Once again what does your alledged resume have to do with anything?

Good grief.

It shows that I'm not the equivalent of a short order cook claiming that he's a culinary expert. That was YOUR analogy.

It would be like a discussion where a poster talks about the mechanics of throwing a curveball and me claiming 'just because your flip burgers doesn't mean you're a culinary expert! LULZ!!!' to somebody who pitched in the Majors and threw curveballs.





YR

 

[blindzebra]

Good grief.

It shows that I'm not the equivalent of a short order cook claiming that he's a culinary expert. That was YOUR analogy.

It would be like a discussion where a poster talks about the mechanics of throwing a curveball and me claiming 'just because your flip burgers doesn't mean you're a culinary expert! LULZ!!!' to somebody who pitched in the Majors and threw curveballs.





YR

Your ego is showing.

You are the one using a failed system. You reached a conclusion and attempted to use cherry picked stats to prove it. When others presented a wider view that countered your attempt to limit the discussion to your agenda you cried like a little girl and tried to discredit a fair and complete look at declining efficiency.

 

[DFWJC]

The Dallas coaching never EVER told Romo to completely stop audibling out of run plays.
That would be idiotic and it is a myth.

They may have suggested he have more patience (can't blame him for losing faith in us converting hard 1st downs with the run from 2010-2013) but we are literally talking 1-2 plays a game....if that.
One the very best qualities, that has improved over time, is his ability recognize what the defense is doing. No QB is 100% right all the time in that area....there are smart DCs too in this league.

 

[TheDude]

Well I too am statistician. I appreciate the effort here, but I have found very few stats as being predictive in football - just too many variables and not enough isolated variables (i.e. pitcher vs batter). To me, my thesis is wins are about points. You must score. While you assume that is mostly on a QB, there are still other issues you cant rule out.

I did the following analysis in 2012 (and have since lost my datafile). I believe this was the year we scored more than 10points in the first half twice all year...the first being in week 15 I believe.

by the second half, you have to assume some initial game plans are changed, scrapped, etc. If you can generate >10 points in the first half, it went a long way to victory (70%). If you can manage any lead with more than 10 points at the half - the league winning % was 78%. Of course, there is some autocorrelation here, but the point is reasonable that "if you start fast, the other team has to react." Dallas was much better (sorry lost the file) last year at this, and oddly had a better record and it didnt come down to boxing match scoring on Romo (i.e. what was his last drive result).

To me, the fourth quarter game is dictated by the previous 3 quarters. I am going to reread the debate here as it is interesting, but I dont think any of it is really statistically significant as all the variables arent there (i.e. if Romo throws 3 picks in the first half and gets down 21 points, why do I care that he wont get worse in the 4th quarter? - Example only)

 

[Idgit]

Yes,

And you're still neglecting the actual QB ratings by season and left off the 2010 season so you can conveniently back up your point.

Like I said, if I had a QB that had a QB rating that dropped from 120 to 100 or a QB with a rating of 100 to 90...you're trying to present it like we would want the 2nd QB because his drop-off is smaller.

It's a hideous point.

As far as Rodgers go, you can't reasonably expect me to read every post of yours that does not pertain to me and then make an argument with *me* NOT showing Rodgers. You should have made your original post showing Rodgers' metrics as well and it's clear that you didn't to cherry pick stats for your own argument. Nothing to hide, right?

And you have never satisfactorily explained why a few QB's that have dropped off is 'context' with how much Romo drops off.

Let me guess....the next argument will be 'well we were losing and had to throw the ball and that puts Romo in situations to foul up' which I've thoroughly debunked. Maybe we could run thru pass attempts in the first half, which is an inane argument.

Keep throwing crap on the wall, it may stick eventually.

YR

Generally, I"m digging this thread, because it's got a lot of smart people backing up their points. The tone's getting disrespectful, though, and it doesn't need to, so please, everybody (and I"m quoting YR here but not addressing this to him specifically), let's play hardball, but play it by the rules. And note here, YR is getting ganged up here and still bringing mostly arguments and not reducing the debate to mush. That's something I can really get behind.

As far as the arguments go, and the notions of cherry picking stats and changing goal posts, for my part anyway, I'm not sure any of that matters all that much. What matters more than the original frame of reference for the argument is that we're working with a sample that's likely to paint an accurate picture of what we're trying to measure here. If what we're trying to measure here is the ability of Tony Romo to be effective (and any measure of effectiveness necessarily implies his performance relative to the teams he's playing against) this coming season, in situations where he's throwing 30+ times/game. If the 5 year data shows a trend where he was relatively ineffective 5 seasons ago and became steadily more effective as we get closer and closer to the present to the point where he was actually very effective, then that tells us something. It tells us that this is probably not something we need to actually be all that worried about.

We just go about calling plays in a way to get Romo in as advantageous a situation as we possibly can each week. Maybe we take some small comfort in knowing that he's actually been quite effective still in high-passing situations over the course of the last two years or so. In the back of our head we can remember that there's a frame of time we talked about once where his aggregated performance wasn't as good statistically (or maybe it was). Because it's not all that relative to his likely future performance, I just don't care.

 

[CowboyRoy]

At the moment, Romo is better than Brees...

Romo is never better than Brees. No way, no how. And what does "at the moment" mean anyway? How can you be "at the moment"? These guys have both been QB's for like 9 or 10 years and Brees has been the better QB no question.

 

[Idgit]

Well I too am statistician. I appreciate the effort here, but I have found very few stats as being predictive in football - just too many variables and not enough isolated variables (i.e. pitcher vs batter). To me, my thesis is wins are about points. You must score. While you assume that is mostly on a QB, there are still other issues you cant rule out.

I did the following analysis in 2012 (and have since lost my datafile). I believe this was the year we scored more than 10points in the first half twice all year...the first being in week 15 I believe.

by the second half, you have to assume some initial game plans are changed, scrapped, etc. If you can generate >10 points in the first half, it went a long way to victory (70%). If you can manage any lead with more than 10 points at the half - the league winning % was 78%. Of course, there is some autocorrelation here, but the point is reasonable that "if you start fast, the other team has to react." Dallas was much better (sorry lost the file) last year at this, and oddly had a better record and it didnt come down to boxing match scoring on Romo (i.e. what was his last drive result).

To me, the fourth quarter game is dictated by the previous 3 quarters. I am going to reread the debate here as it is interesting, but I dont think any of it is really statistically significant as all the variables arent there (i.e. if Romo throws 3 picks in the first half and gets down 21 points, why do I care that he wont get worse in the 4th quarter? - Example only)

See, I saw you on the fringes of this thread here and was waiting for you to weigh in.

I'll have to grok this better at leisure, but let me just say that on the surface I agree with your premise that scoring more points in half the game is likely to increase your chances of winning it later. That's basically what this says, right?

 

[Idgit]

The Dallas coaching never EVER told Romo to completely stop audibling out of run plays.
That would be idiotic and it is a myth.

They may have suggested he have more patience (can't blame him for losing faith in us converting hard 1st downs with the run from 2010-2013) but we are literally talking 1-2 plays a game....if that.
One the very best qualities, that has improved over time, is his ability recognize what the defense is doing. No QB is 100% right all the time in that area....there are smart DCs too in this league.

What I think they did is give him more running options in audibling situations. So instead of coming up to the line with run-pass-pass options, they build in run-run-pass or run-run-run or whatever. Linehan or Garrett made mention of that in camp last season, iirc. I believe (I'm just choosing to believe this) that Romo was basically making the proper checks in 2012 and 2013 based off of the offense as it was designed, and we were just in some situations where DCs were able to dictate what we did because of the design of the offense and the way we were calling the plays.

By and large, though, our offense has also shown the tendency to figure out what the defense is looking to accomplish and to adapt to it by passing at it more effectively as the games wear on. No matter how you slice it, playing more effective pass defense is the ticket to winning more games the easiest from where we've been in recent years. I care much much more about that overall than I do about the number of passing attempts we make in a losing effort.