Stopping the New Romo Myth

[Idgit]

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.

He was more effective than Brees overall last year, anyway. Not sure what other definition of 'better' you prefer to use, but I'm happy enough sticking with the current measures of effectiveness until we have something better.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

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.

Thanks, but I'm done with this thread.

Taken up too much of time and energy only to be called the equivalent of a burger flipper.

I generally agree with Adam. And I've have found myself in the past disagreeing with *myself* when Adam has corrected me. And the general assumption that throwing the ball more often means you are trailing is somewhat true.

However, the game has changed. Teams now throw the ball much more frequently. This isn't 1995 and teams often throw heavily because they can rack up tons of points that way and you're winning half the battle if you can put up monster points. That's why I asked if a certain poster had ran a correlation coefficient between pass attempts per team and wins over the past 10 seasons. If he did, he wouldn't be happy with the results.

Still, that doesn't have anything to do with the original point of "are we throwing the ball 35+ times mostly because we are down by a substantial margin AND our defense can't hold anybody.' That's because it is *interpreted* as a more hazardous time to throw the ball for any QB.

I had gone thru this a while ago and I knew the answer was 'no.' We've had close games, we've had games that we had a lead or were down by only a TD going into the 4th quarter and we kept throwing anyway. There wasn't a lot of situations where the defense only has to play the pass and the pass rushers can pin their ears back and the LB's and DB's can play in coverage and we *had* to make big plays quickly.

Instead, we had very close games where the defense has to be honest, but weren't because they probably knew we had no intention of running the ball. As Dom Capers said after Green Bay beat us a few years ago 'I kept blitzing because I knew they didn't want to run the ball. Had they ran the ball the fear is the running back gets past the blitzers and that would force me to stop blitzing so much."

And we had games where we were ahead and still threw the ball for no good reason. And that's when Romo's turnovers tend to come.

So I understand the assumption, but I have yet to meet a person that is infallible, much less a statistician. And I have yet to find a valid rebuttal to my main point, just more deflecting arguments into new arguments.

Some of them remind me of typical political arguments like securing our borders and some people will say 'well, I just want to make sure our country is protected." It's a trick that people pull to take away from the facts of the argument. Nobody is saying that they don't want our country protected. Just like nobody is saying that we didn't throw the ball more times in the first half of 2014 than we did in 2010-2013. It just nicely deflects from the actual facts.

Like I said, if you disagree with 'less is more with Romo' I think it is perfectly logical to say that you feel that for the most part, the opposite is true 'more is more with Romo.' Forgetting about wins-losses aspect, do you really think if we threw the ball more in 2014 we would be more effective and score more points on offense?

I think it's a fair and tough question.

But as I said, I'm finished with this thread. Too many people get hurt feelings over the strengths and weaknesses of a QB that led the league in QB rating and gets paid a gazillion dollars and it just doesn't make posting very enjoyable.

If anybody wants a comfortable debate on this, feel free to PM me.






YR

 

[TheDude]

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?

Started to jump in many times but wasnt up on the entire thread, then it got a little to "targeted", etc.. Also, some of this reeks of "duh," but I see the fourth quarter as being more reactive (as a whole to the NFL) than proactive. Ultimately, in football, I think you always want to be able to dictate to the other team. Losing teams have to pass, the defense knows this. Winning teams have the option to do both but have to defend the pass. Many teams may stay on the attack (NE Pats 2007) or some may begin to wear you down and bleed the clock (1990s cowboys).

So to me, the 4th quarter QB rating is interesting, but negates 3/4ths of the game. If 24 points wins most games, getting 21 in the first half should make the job much easier, duh, and begin to dictate and anticipate the other teams response.

The numbers from that season were pretty strong. I think in human nature you remember the extraordinary and tail events. Many times the extraordinary happened to Dallas (i.e. losing 24-26 point leads to Det/GB, etc.). Manning or Rogers may be outliers for large combacks, stats, etc. But ultimately even those teams cant consistently dig out of double digit deficits.

 

[percyhoward]

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.

Adam's point about statistical volatility is a good one -- there may be too much variance here to put a lot of importance on these numbers. For example, Romo's "trend" led you to believe he was relatively ineffective five seasons ago, but when you look at Romo's 2009 season his rating was 115.1 after 30 attempts. Brady had a 116.3, 95,1, 91,2 124.9, 90.2, 73.9, and 83.9 the past seven seasons. Is he trending down, or would it be no surprise if he had a 110+ next year? Since 2010, Manning's rating after 30 attempts has gone either up or down at least 13 points every single year, and never the same direction two years in a row. It looks like there aren't any real trends here.

At the very least, this volatility supports the idea of taking a good sized sample (at least five years), but any bigger than that, as you say, is almost like ancient history and wouldn't affect anything that's happening now.

As much as I like the vibe of your fist paragraph, I have to draw the line when people aren't reading the posts they're ostensibly responding to. I don't mind wasting my time talking about football, but I'd rather not do it quite so redundantly.

 

[WillieBeamen]

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.

It means at this stage in their careers, Romo is a better QB. You do know players decline right?

 

[Idgit]

Thanks, but I'm done with this thread.

Taken up too much of time and energy only to be called the equivalent of a burger flipper.

I generally agree with Adam. And I've have found myself in the past disagreeing with *myself* when Adam has corrected me. And the general assumption that throwing the ball more often means you are trailing is somewhat true.

However, the game has changed. Teams now throw the ball much more frequently. This isn't 1995 and teams often throw heavily because they can rack up tons of points that way and you're winning half the battle if you can put up monster points. That's why I asked if a certain poster had ran a correlation coefficient between pass attempts per team and wins over the past 10 seasons. If he did, he wouldn't be happy with the results.

Still, that doesn't have anything to do with the original point of "are we throwing the ball 35+ times mostly because we are down by a substantial margin AND our defense can't hold anybody.' That's because it is *interpreted* as a more hazardous time to throw the ball for any QB.

I had gone thru this a while ago and I knew the answer was 'no.' We've had close games, we've had games that we had a lead or were down by only a TD going into the 4th quarter and we kept throwing anyway. There wasn't a lot of situations where the defense only has to play the pass and the pass rushers can pin their ears back and the LB's and DB's can play in coverage and we *had* to make big plays quickly.

Instead, we had very close games where the defense has to be honest, but weren't because they probably knew we had no intention of running the ball. As Dom Capers said after Green Bay beat us a few years ago 'I kept blitzing because I knew they didn't want to run the ball. Had they ran the ball the fear is the running back gets past the blitzers and that would force me to stop blitzing so much."

And we had games where we were ahead and still threw the ball for no good reason. And that's when Romo's turnovers tend to come.

So I understand the assumption, but I have yet to meet a person that is infallible, much less a statistician. And I have yet to find a valid rebuttal to my main point, just more deflecting arguments into new arguments.

Some of them remind me of typical political arguments like securing our borders and some people will say 'well, I just want to make sure our country is protected." It's a trick that people pull to take away from the facts of the argument. Nobody is saying that they don't want our country protected. Just like nobody is saying that we didn't throw the ball more times in the first half of 2014 than we did in 2010-2013. It just nicely deflects from the actual facts.

Like I said, if you disagree with 'less is more with Romo' I think it is perfectly logical to say that you feel that for the most part, the opposite is true 'more is more with Romo.' Forgetting about wins-losses aspect, do you really think if we threw the ball more in 2014 we would be more effective and score more points on offense?

I think it's a fair and tough question.

But as I said, I'm finished with this thread. Too many people get hurt feelings over the strengths and weaknesses of a QB that led the league in QB rating and gets paid a gazillion dollars and it just doesn't make posting very enjoyable.

If anybody wants a comfortable debate on this, feel free to PM me.

YR

Well, I don't know about you guys, but I'm going to take this as confirmation that we were all right and that YR was wrong. For no other reason than he's left the thread and so can't dispute that interpretation. And I'm not answering any PMs on the topic.

Good work, everybody. I feel like we really accomplished something here. Another CZ topic opened and shut.

 

[Idgit]

...As much as I like the vibe of your fist paragraph, I have to draw the line when people aren't reading the posts they're ostensibly responding to. I don't mind wasting my time talking about football, but I'd rather not do it quite so redundantly.

See, you weren't really involved in anything tone-related, anyway. Calling out people for a suspicion they're not reading your earlier arguments is completely fair game in my book. You take all that time to drop a pearl on us, and then the swine just ignore it?

But I think YR just agreed with us, if I'm reading his last post correctly, so we're all good.

 

[AdamJT13]

Keep changing the argument in hopes that new arguments may give you a point and that makes it appear that you are correct in the original argument.

I was never part of your original conversation. I "changed the argument" when I jumped in because the duration chosen paints Romo in the worst possible light -- ANY OTHER DURATION would have resulted in Romo's situational rating being higher.

The fact is that less is more with Romo.

Again, you are ignoring the WHY it appears that way.

The stats show this and if you're looking to compare him to Carson Palmer, Andy Dalton, Sam Bradford and even Flacco (who has never had a high QB rating), it reeks of desperation.

You described his passer rating in those situations from 2010-2014 as "horrifically low" and his performance as "wholly ineffective." I pointed out that those quarterbacks have had lower passer ratings OVERALL during those years, and nobody would describe them as "horrific" or "wholly ineffective" -- they're all average or above average.

If you think a passer rating of 93.6 (good enough for seventh in the league) isn't a "high" rating, then you have a seriously distorted perception of NFL passer ratings -- which, come to think of it, might explain your comments in this thread.

And the fact is that you claimed that these games of 31+ passes were usually due to being down by a large deficit

Nope, I never said that. I said it's usually necessary "only when things are not going as well for the team," and that "when you're playing well and winning, there's not usually any reason to pass more than 30-35 times." For example, I said, if "your defense is allowing a lot of points, you're going to have games when you have to throw a lot to keep up or come back." All of what I said is clearly supported by the facts, including the games that you posted (and misconstrued, in many cases). I didn't say anything about "a large deficit" -- any deficit late in the fourth quarter is usually reason enough to try scoring quickly, is it not? And if your defense is allowing 30 or 40 points, you might need to score that many, too, don't you think?

 

[AdamJT13]

We threw the ball blindly and the defense was doing just fine. In fact, 7 of the points were given up BY THE OFFENSE FOR THROWING THE BALL RIGHT BEFORE THE HALF on a play we weren't going to score on.

So you have a problem with teams trying to score when they get the ball on their own 30-yard line with 27 seconds left in the half and have not scored yet AND have to kick off to start the third quarter? Really? You enjoy losing that much?

You claimed that throwing the ball more than 35 times a game is done when you are down by a lot and the defense can't stay up.

Again, I never claimed that. I said it's usually necessary when things aren't going well. The defense struggling and being down by a lot is one example -- NOT the only example.

This again is categorically false in this scenario.

Getting shut out until late in the third quarter and trailing by double digits at halftime and in the third quarter absolutely fits that criteria. Needing a touchdown to win in the final 2 minutes and using 12 consecutive passes in the final 1:45 to try to win the game absolutely fits that criteria, too.

What would you have preferred, hoping for an 81-yard TD run in the final minute so we didn't have to go over the precious 35-attempt mark? Please.

Oh, and let's not forget that Romo's 47th pass attempt would have won the game on the final play if Alex Barron hadn't been flagged for holding.

Remember, we were down by 21 points to the Rams this year and STILL RAN THE BALL instead of trying to throw it left and right.

Oh, really? Down 21-7, our last possession of the half went like this -- pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, field goal (on first down with 5 seconds left). What was that about throwing the ball blindly right before the half? And how did we score to make it 21-17 early in the third? On a first-down pass, right after converting on third-and-2 with a pass.

After Romo's go-ahead TD pass in the fourth quarter, the defense didn't fold ... it got a pick-six that put us UP by double digits. Even after the Rams scored to cut it to 34-31 with less than three minutes, we STILL passed ... on second down after our first run was stuffed and again on third and short. Was that not a prime example of the extremely risky, "unnecessary" passing that you hate?

Of course, Claiborne's interception on the Rams' final possession meant that we could just kneel on the ball on our final possession, instead of, you know, throwing the ball all willy-nilly trying to drive for a game-winning touchdown -- which would have pushed us over that dreaded 31-attempt threshold.

Again, it was not a large deficit and perhaps the defense actually plays better if we aren't throwing it 51 friggin times and they are on the field for so much.

On the field so much? We held the ball for 33:40! Our defense was on the field for only 26:20 -- and the last 1:17 of that was with Chicago kneeling down after recovering our onside kick. Our defense gets too tired in 25 minutes, 3 seconds of action? Facing only 46 total plays?? Please.

And as I've stated before, simply running the ball more has only a small effect on time of possession, if any. Pass completion percentage and converting on third downs have a much greater effect -- remember, the clock runs after completed passes, too. And you don't get to keep the ball if you don't convert on third downs (unless you go for it on fourth, and then you have to convert on fourth down). Romo completed 66.7 percent of his passes in that game, and we completed 6 of 13 third-down plays.

Compare that to the Eagles game where we were DOWN by 3 points in the 3rd quarter and the defense didn't play well and we still ran the ball 31 times for 2.6 yards per carry.

Uh, we called 40 pass plays -- 31 pass attempts, three sacks, a scramble/illegal forward pass that counted as one of those runs, plus five passes plays wiped out by penalties on either team -- even though we didn't have to pass a single time in the last five minutes because we were up by double digits. Our last six plays after that were all runs (three runs and a punt, then three knees). Isn't it amazing how the run/pass ratio changes when you're leading at the end instead of having to throw 12 straight passes in the last two minutes to try to win the game?

 

[blindzebra]

So you have a problem with teams trying to score when they get the ball on their own 30-yard line with 27 seconds left in the half and have not scored yet AND have to kick off to start the third quarter? Really? You enjoy losing that much?



Again, I never claimed that. I said it's usually necessary when things aren't going well. The defense struggling and being down by a lot is one example -- NOT the only example.



Getting shut out until late in the third quarter and trailing by double digits at halftime and in the third quarter absolutely fits that criteria. Needing a touchdown to win in the final 2 minutes and using 12 consecutive passes in the final 1:45 to try to win the game absolutely fits that criteria, too.

What would you have preferred, hoping for an 81-yard TD run in the final minute so we didn't have to go over the precious 35-attempt mark? Please.

Oh, and let's not forget that Romo's 47th pass attempt would have won the game on the final play if Alex Barron hadn't been flagged for holding.



Oh, really? Down 21-7, our last possession of the half went like this -- pass, pass, pass, pass, pass, field goal (on first down with 5 seconds left). What was that about throwing the ball blindly right before the half? And how did we score to make it 21-17 early in the third? On a first-down pass, right after converting on third-and-2 with a pass.

After Romo's go-ahead TD pass in the fourth quarter, the defense didn't fold ... it got a pick-six that put us UP by double digits. Even after the Rams scored to cut it to 34-31 with less than three minutes, we STILL passed ... on second down after our first run was stuffed and again on third and short. Was that not a prime example of the extremely risky, "unnecessary" passing that you hate?

Of course, Claiborne's interception on the Rams' final possession meant that we could just kneel on the ball on our final possession, instead of, you know, throwing the ball all willy-nilly trying to drive for a game-winning touchdown -- which would have pushed us over that dreaded 31-attempt threshold.





On the field so much? We held the ball for 33:40! Our defense was on the field for only 26:20 -- and the last 1:17 of that was with Chicago kneeling down after recovering our onside kick. Our defense gets too tired in 25 minutes, 3 seconds of action? Facing only 46 total plays?? Please.

And as I've stated before, simply running the ball more has only a small effect on time of possession, if any. Pass completion percentage and converting on third downs have a much greater effect -- remember, the clock runs after completed passes, too. And you don't get to keep the ball if you don't convert on third downs (unless you go for it on fourth, and then you have to convert on fourth down). Romo completed 66.7 percent of his passes in that game, and we completed 6 of 13 third-down plays.




Uh, we called 40 pass plays -- 31 pass attempts, three sacks, a scramble/illegal forward pass that counted as one of those runs, plus five passes plays wiped out by penalties on either team -- even though we didn't have to pass a single time in the last five minutes because we were up by double digits. Our last six plays after that were all runs (three runs and a punt, then three knees). Isn't it amazing how the run/pass ratio changes when you're leading at the end instead of having to throw 12 straight passes in the last two minutes to try to win the game?

It is what we have all been saying that stats without context is useless. It is like comparing 5 baseball players all hitting .300 and saying they are equal hitters. When to actually judge them you would need to see what number of that 30% of hits resulted in runs scored or knocked in. You would also want to look at the 70% that resulted in outs, were they part of a double play? Did they leave men on base?

 

[TheDude]

So you have a problem with teams trying to score when they get the ball on their own 30-yard line with 27 seconds left in the half and have not scored yet AND have to kick off to start the third quarter? Really? You enjoy losing that much?

Yeah, So that really isnt a true representation of that drive. Down 0 - 3. 1st and 20 with :04 left. After the holding call, you dont throw a lateral to 3rd string back.


1st and 10 at DAL 30(Shotgun) T.Romo pass short right to T.Choice pushed ob at DAL 32 for 2 yards (D.Hall).03
2nd and 8 at DAL 32(Shotgun) T.Romo pass incomplete deep left to D.Bryant (P.Buchanon) [B.Orakpo].
3rd and 8 at DAL 32(Shotgun) T.Romo pass short right to D.Bryant ran ob at DAL 46 for 14 yards.
1st and 10 at DAL 46(Shotgun) T.Romo pass incomplete short right to D.Bryant. PENALTY on DAL-A.Barron, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at DAL 46 - No Play.
1st and 20 at DAL 36(Shotgun) T.Romo pass short right to T.Choice to DAL 37 for 1 yard (D.Hall). FUMBLES (D.Hall), RECOVERED by WAS-D.Hall at DAL 32. D.Hall for 32 yards, TOUCHDOWN.0

No coach runs that play on their own 30. There is a .000000000000000000000001% chance of a fluke TD. .99999999999999999999999% chance there is no score for the offense. The odds of a turnover are multiple times greater (as proven)

I took me many years to get over that and the end of the AZ game...and I dont think romo deserve the majority of the blame in either - though he should know to kneel in the Wash game

 

[TheDude]

It is what we have all been saying that stats without context is useless. It is like comparing 5 baseball players all hitting .300 and saying they are equal hitters. When to actually judge them you would need to see what number of that 30% of hits resulted in runs scored or knocked in. You would also want to look at the 70% that resulted in outs, were they part of a double play? Did they leave men on base?

Thats why there is sabermetrics and other stats that give you a pretty defined view of a player. In Baseball, you dont have a hitter hit the ball, but the hit called off because the on-deck batter was outside the circle. stats are interesting in football, but mostly not significant because of the multiple situations a player faces and Alex Baron (as mentioned here) wipes it away.

 

[AdamJT13]

Yeah, So that really isnt a true representation of that drive. Down 0 - 3. 1st and 20 with :04 left. After the holding call, you dont throw a lateral to 3rd string back.


1st and 10 at DAL 30(Shotgun) T.Romo pass short right to T.Choice pushed ob at DAL 32 for 2 yards (D.Hall).03
2nd and 8 at DAL 32(Shotgun) T.Romo pass incomplete deep left to D.Bryant (P.Buchanon) [B.Orakpo].
3rd and 8 at DAL 32(Shotgun) T.Romo pass short right to D.Bryant ran ob at DAL 46 for 14 yards.
1st and 10 at DAL 46(Shotgun) T.Romo pass incomplete short right to D.Bryant. PENALTY on DAL-A.Barron, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at DAL 46 - No Play.
1st and 20 at DAL 36(Shotgun) T.Romo pass short right to T.Choice to DAL 37 for 1 yard (D.Hall). FUMBLES (D.Hall), RECOVERED by WAS-D.Hall at DAL 32. D.Hall for 32 yards, TOUCHDOWN.0

No coach runs that play on their own 30. There is a .000000000000000000000001% chance of a fluke TD. .99999999999999999999999% chance there is no score for the offense. The odds of a turnover are multiple times greater (as proven)

That's changing the argument to which type of pass you are calling, not the fact that you are passing on that possession. We absolutely should have been trying to score on that possession, not simply run out the clock. Throwing a short sideline pass to Choice with 4 seconds left was the mistake, not the fact that we were passing on that drive. Whether you pass with 4 seconds left is debatable -- I would have tried a long pass and hoped for a big play or at least an interference penalty to set up a field goal -- but there's no way you should waste that entire possession by not passing at all.

 

[TheDude]

That's changing the argument to which type of pass you are calling, not the fact that you are passing on that possession. We absolutely should have been trying to score on that possession, not simply run out the clock. Throwing a short sideline pass to Choice with 4 seconds left was the mistake, not the fact that we were passing on that drive. Whether you pass with 4 seconds left is debatable -- I would have tried a long pass and hoped for a big play or at least an interference penalty to set up a field goal -- but there's no way you should waste that entire possession by not passing at all.

Its not a different argument at its foundation. I agree you try to get a score with 30 seconds left....not with :04 from that far away. Down 0-3 with :04 and needing a 30 yard penalty as your only remote positive outcome vs getting a strip sack, Int, fumble, etc. just doesnt play the percentages.

In that game the defense gave up a FG in the 1st qtr and the 4th qtr. 6 points. The offense gave up 7 points. At the end of the day, that was an offensive meltdown from garrett to Romo to choice.

It wasn't a negative stat on Romo, but the prudent football play would have been to slide versus chucking a lateral. The even smarter call is for garrett to kneel on it. This is why stats are pretty useless in football because of these isolated instances with multiple option trees and scenarios. If this was a pass vs lateral, it goes down as a completion and wasn't a bad outcome. However, and ironically in this instance, wth :04 left, I would have been fine with your approach to chuck it down field and pray for PI. If it was intercepted, the Romo stat looks worse, but the probability of Wash scoring from a Hail mary jump ball is much smaller than a potential lateral under duress and getting 1 yard. Things like this dont show up in a stat sheet, other than increasing the probability of an "L" outcome.

Its 16 games where 1 or 2 plays can decide 2-3 games per year. That variance was well in the channel of missing the playoffs 2011,2012 and 2013.

 

[Idgit]

Its not a different argument at its foundation. I agree you try to get a score with 30 seconds left....not with :04 from that far away. Down 0-3 with :04 and needing a 30 yard penalty as your only remote positive outcome vs getting a strip sack, Int, fumble, etc. just doesnt play the percentages.

In that game the defense gave up a FG in the 1st qtr and the 4th qtr. 6 points. The offense gave up 7 points. At the end of the day, that was an offensive meltdown from garrett to Romo to choice.

It wasn't a negative stat on Romo, but the prudent football play would have been to slide versus chucking a lateral. The even smarter call is for garrett to kneel on it. This is why stats are pretty useless in football because of these isolated instances with multiple option trees and scenarios. If this was a pass vs lateral, it goes down as a completion and wasn't a bad outcome. However, and ironically in this instance, wth :04 left, I would have been fine with your approach to chuck it down field and pray for PI. If it was intercepted, the Romo stat looks worse, but the probability of Wash scoring from a Hail mary jump ball is much smaller than a potential lateral under duress and getting 1 yard. Things like this dont show up in a stat sheet, other than increasing the probability of an "L" outcome.

Its 16 games where 1 or 2 plays can decide 2-3 games per year. That variance was well in the channel of missing the playoffs 2011,2012 and 2013.

I've never understood the problem people have with this call. There were two issues on that play: 1, two of the five OLs got beat, keeping Romo from an opportunity to go downfield. He took his outlet receiver who caught the ball just fine. 2. The receiver then fumbled the ball.

I guess you can take some exception with where he was on the field when he fumbled it, but that sort of play is routine in football. The issue is, as Collinsworth says, standing up in traffic and not taking enough care of the football.

As for throwing it deep at the end of the half from our own 30, I have no problem with that. Give me Dez v. Hall with one play downfield when you can get it. You get either a penalty or a blown coverage or a CB slipping, and you put points on the board. Granted, it's a low probability play, but I still like the chances of that a lot better than I like the chances of a pick six or a strip fumble. Plus, I like the mindset of pushing for points on each possession. We've got a passing game capable of producing big positive plays. Might as well use it.

It's when it works the other way that we look foolish for trying a low-probability call in the first place, but that's second guessing the outcome.

 

[TheDude]

I've never understood the problem people have with this call. There were two issues on that play: 1, two of the five OLs got beat, keeping Romo from an opportunity to go downfield. He took his outlet receiver who caught the ball just fine. 2. The receiver then fumbled the ball.

I guess you can take some exception with where he was on the field when he fumbled it, but that sort of play is routine in football. The issue is, as Collinsworth says, standing up in traffic and not taking enough care of the football.

As for throwing it deep at the end of the half from our own 30, I have no problem with that. Give me Dez v. Hall with one play downfield when you can get it. You get either a penalty or a blown coverage or a CB slipping, and you put points on the board. Granted, it's a low probability play, but I still like the chances of that a lot better than I like the chances of a pick six or a strip fumble. Plus, I like the mindset of pushing for points on each possession. We've got a passing game capable of producing big positive plays. Might as well use it.

It's when it works the other way that we look foolish for trying a low-probability call in the first place, but that's second guessing the outcome.

I thought I laid it out. So not to be pedantic, but.....

The scenario: :04 seconds left at your own 36 before the end of half down 0-3.

How do you score in that time from that distance?:

• PI call to have an untimed down. Kick FG.
  • So maybe someone has time to look up, but I cant recall a PI on an end of half jump ball in any game in recent memory. the ball has to at least get 30-35 yards down field...safeties are already back. Any other play than a deep pass is really VOID of reward and only poses RISK.
• TD
  • Romo cant throw it 75 yards in the air, so what is the point?

In both of those cases, I dont recall any team converting in that exact sceanrio.

What can go wrong with a short pass?

• The offensive line gives up sack - injury/fumble
  • Alex Barron, Phil Costa, fin
• Tipped Pass INT
• Strip tackle fumble.

So the deep pass still poses the risk of sack (as you alluded to with Barron and Davis getting beat), but has the ONLY possible reward. Every other play only poses risk.

Its about probability. It wasnt a time in the game to take a risk from there with :04 and that score. No problem with the plays preceding the Holding call that backed them up 10 yards before this call - time was less a constraint


So my question is what was the probability of any meaningful outcome coming from choice catching it. I guess if it was a lateral he had to, but that play had zero chance of adding points. In that case, why do it at all?

[posted too early and edited fast had more but this is the jist]

 

[Alexander]

I don't see the issue. Romo has had problems when he has tried to do too much in the past. Last year, a great deal of the pressure came off due to a good line and a good RB. He played the best football of his career. What is the problem?

The problem is some individuals refuse to believe that there was a relationship between a strong run commitment and Romo's efficiency. I would take more of 2014 over any other gaudy season he has had previously, mainly because we won. And I think he would too.

 

[Alexander]

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

There is also what appeared to be a lot less checking by Romo at the line in 2014, than in previous years. Call the play, run the play. I do not believe it is a stretch to suggest Romo killed quite a few run plays in previous years, thinking he saw something that was not there. A lot has to do with the confidence that they can run the ball as well.

 

[Idgit]

I thought I laid it out. So not to be pedantic, but.....

The scenario: :04 seconds left at your own 36 before the end of half down 0-3.

How do you score in that time from that distance?:

• PI call to have an untimed down. Kick FG.
  • So maybe someone has time to look up, but I cant recall a PI on an end of half jump ball in any game in recent memory. the ball has to at least get 30-35 yards down field...safeties are already back. Any other play than a deep pass is really VOID of reward and only poses RISK.
• TD
  • Romo cant throw it 75 yards in the air, so what is the point?

In both of those cases, I dont recall any team converting in that exact sceanrio.

What can go wrong with a short pass?

• The offensive line gives up sack - injury/fumble
  • Alex Barron, Phil Costa, fin
• Tipped Pass INT
• Strip tackle fumble.

So the deep pass still poses the risk of sack (as you alluded to with Barron and Davis getting beat), but has the ONLY possible reward. Every other play only poses risk.

Its about probability. It wasnt a time in the game to take a risk from there with :04 and that score. No problem with the plays preceding the Holding call that backed them up 10 yards before this call - time was less a constraint


So my question is what was the probability of any meaningful outcome coming from choice catching it. I guess if it was a lateral he had to, but that play had zero chance of adding points. In that case, why do it at all?

[posted too early and edited fast had more but this is the jist]

We just disagree on our respective blind guesses as to the probabilities of a big positive play if Tony does that that ball off downfield to Dez. The way Dez plays, I don't believe a PI call or a big play after the catch are all that unheard of. We've seen him do it before. Last year v. JAX in London, for example. We've got an effective passing combination, nothing wrong in using it to threaten the defense.

I imagine the outlet to Choice was built into the play. You're right that there's no point in throwing it once the pressure breaks down. Tony would have been smarter to just dump it. Still, though, he was open, and he caught the ball. Again, the real negative with the play was the strip-fumble return when he got stood up on the sideline in the open field. And that could have happened in that situation on any down and people would have been ok with it.

I bet you more than half of Cowboy Nation was at home saying 'good, way to be aggressive before half. Now let's get some points,' about two seconds before coming on CZ and freaking out about how stupid that play call was. But it's the strip-fumble-return that they really should be unhappy about.

 

[CowboyRoy]

He was more effective than Brees overall last year, anyway. Not sure what other definition of 'better' you prefer to use, but I'm happy enough sticking with the current measures of effectiveness until we have something better.

Even if he happen to be for one season or a few games. It doesnt make him better than Brees under any scenario. There is no temporary better. There is only better.
Romo is NOT better than Brees.