Sturm Debunks Dak and Dunk

[percyhoward]

Hard to imagine any qb having a completion percentage that high if they were trailing and had to be less selective.

If the percentage was that high at the end, it was that high throughout the game, and was probably a big part of why that QB's team was leading.

Although we did enter the 4th quarter trailing, and Dak was 6 of 6 in the 4th.

 

[Miller]

You have the definition, but still don't understand it.

Nobody has expressed dissatisfaction or annoyance about being 12-2.
Nobody has expressed dissatisfaction about Dak. People understand Dak is a rookie and he has exceeded expectations. Nobody dislikes him or thinks poorly of him.
What people have expressed dissatisfaction about is a situation that has a very good chance of ending the team's season short of their goal. A better chance than the alternative. It's about the better QB sitting on the bench. That is NOT the same as expressing dissatisfaction about Dak. There is a difference. If you don't understand that, then there is no getting through to you.

My logic has nothing to do with fantasy football. Logic is logic. I don't think you understand logic, but it is what it is. If you can't apply your logic consistently, then it is you who is dealing in fantasy nonsense.

Listen CP, your first paragraph is nicely laid out but under the definition posted I still take it complaining because you just said your expressing dissatisfaction with Romo on the bench. But we are parsing words here.

The real issue with our debate is the logic with thinking the better QB is on the bench. What have we've seen to say that? It's not like he tore up the league for 4-5 games this year, got hurt and lost his job. It's been 2 yrs since a full year. When he has played he has been incredibly erratic with last season ending in a string of pick sixes against a top D. Not the same guy who was great for years and not the warrior as he goes down hurt on contact. We have a situation where a guy making the right throw, though safe to many, works. A definitive Romo is better is a massive long shot because no one knows what he is now. All of that is fact and logic despite your protest

Part of me thinks the many agree with Jerry that the only way this season is great is if we win the SN, of course, and if Romo saves the day a few times. Just not sure if that's what's best to win SB

 

[xwalker]

Said I was wrong already

I didn't see it before I posted.

 

[Cowboy_Shawn]

I just asked him that. He responded:

This is the main reason I never paid any attention to the "Dak and Dunk" nonsense.

Arguably the greatest QB in league history has made a nice career for himself by relying on the underneath and over the middle stuff.

So obviously you can have success by utilizing that passing methodology.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Such is life.. I have had to listen to the homer Romo crowd here for years say everything was wrong with the team but him. And how wonderful he was and all the stats etc. So one more offseason until he is cut, traded, or retired won't be too bad.

Dude, you've been pissing in Romo's cornflakes as long as I've seen you on this forum.

 

[Sepia]

You must not watch Brady much if you think he doesn't make flashy plays. He throws precisely all over the field for huge plays all the time.

He 'doesn't take risks' because he is so precise. It is not the same at all.

The notions go hand in hand. One lends to the other.

Sturm posted Dak's throw chart vs. Brady in his game against us last season.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

I didn't see it before I posted.

Its all good. I know, barely anybody admits when they are wrong so it's surprising haha

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

The thing is if the Cowboys don't win the SB, and the odds are that they won't we'll have to listen to the whining until Romo is banished from the organization– which is kind of sad really.

They've been brainwashed into believing that Tony had 5 more years. lol

 

[khiladi]

Tom Brady the last thread years averaged over 100 deep balls a season. Stop the irrelevant comparisons.

There are similarities in the fact that Dak in passing situations normally operated out of shotgun. But like I said, most of Dallas passing game is predicated off play-action and LBs scared to death of Zeke.

 

[khiladi]

Dude, you've been pissing in Romo's cornflakes as long as I've seen you on this forum.

While saying Dak and Dez are winning in spite of the coaching staff..

 

[Kevinicus]

Listen CP, your first paragraph is nicely laid out but under the definition posted I still take it complaining because you just said your expressing dissatisfaction with Romo on the bench. But we are parsing words here.

The real issue with our debate is the logic with thinking the better QB is on the bench. What have we've seen to say that? It's not like he tore up the league for 4-5 games this year, got hurt and lost his job. It's been 2 yrs since a full year. When he has played he has been incredibly erratic with last season ending in a string of pick sixes against a top D. Not the same guy who was great for years and not the warrior as he goes down hurt on contact. We have a situation where a guy making the right throw, though safe to many, works. A definitive Romo is better is a massive long shot because no one knows what he is now. All of that is fact and logic despite your protest

Part of me thinks the many agree with Jerry that the only way this season is great is if we win the SN, of course, and if Romo saves the day a few times. Just not sure if that's what's best to win SB

Logic that factors in the player he has been, from watching football for over 30 years, and from the wisdom to not foolishly base anything on one game last year when he wasn't healthy. Logic based on even the most basic understanding of the human body and the injuries that have occurred. Logic based on all accounts and reports of how the player looks and the shape he is in. The logic is overwhelmingly on one side.

 

[Miller]

Logic that factors in the player he has been, from watching football for over 30 years, and from the wisdom to not foolishly base anything on one game last year when he wasn't healthy. Logic based on even the most basic understanding of the human body and the injuries that have occurred. Logic based on all accounts and reports of how the player looks and the shape he is in. The logic is overwhelmingly on one side.

You can say that but it's not. It's you WANTING him to be the old Romo. Who wouldn't? What logic goes on what a player did over 2 years ago? I've watched football since the mid 70s with SBs vs the Steelers so who cares about 30 yrs. I also didn't say one game. It's based on every game. What understanding of the human body ignores back injuries and recurring injuries along with age and NOT take into account he hasn't played in 2 years? So basically your logic is people saying "he looks awesome in practice" Have you ever heard teammates say a guy looks horrible in practice? These same players love Dak. Good luck with all your fantasy logic. None of it is logic considering age, injury history, recent playing samples, etc. He felt the best he ever felt in years going into and through camp and lasted 1 hit. That's logic. It's also reality. Love Romo and glad we have him but nothing you laid out is logic, it's hopeful thinking

 

[links18]

You bet.

The Niners lived off that short slant pattern that the WR would run for ages on.

But without the threat of a deep pass defenses would have sat on those routes and taken them away. They burned us on one in the 94 Championship game when Young hit Rice deep against Larry Brown right before the half.

 

[LatinMind]

I know we don't. Tony still completed a ton of long passes in 2014 because he almost always went there when it was available. He had a Y/A of 8.5 and 49 completions of 20 or more yards. Dez alone had 9 catches of 30+

Yup his greatest season 10 yrs into the league.

Dak 7.9 avg and on par with or slightly above or below Romo in every stat as a rookie. AS A ROOKIE. People want to talk about Dak's recent struggles against two of the top defenses in the NFL. And want to do the whole Romo would do this and that. I wonder if they even remember how many slow starts Romo had in 2014. More then a few games where he stunk it up in the first half only to have Murray save him in the 2nd half.

 

[SportsGuru80]

Good ole Sturm with a nice reality check.

 

[zeroburrito]

He certainly wasn't awful, but it was just unproductive. Not his fault, but big plays need to happen more often to avoid the drive-stopping mistakes.

Winston had 247 yards and 2 TDs, but the fumbles killed him. More like, David Irving killed him.

you may have missed the game. one of his td's was a complete fluke that should have been a pick. even if it wasn't picked and it bounced to the ground the game wouldn't be close. winston was truly awful that game. complete gift td from the gods and still lost by 6.

Tom Brady didn't even make the list.

That debunks the article right there.

reddit has a statistic posted somewhere that showed the patriots have over 60% of their total yards as yac. by far the highest in the league.

http://www.unconventionalstats.com/...the-line-of-scrimmage-yds-yac-through-week-10

through week 10 anyways.

tom brady is a dunker. always has been. he's still the goat.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

But without the threat of a deep pass defenses would have sat on those routes and taken them away. They burned us on one in the 94 Championship game when Young hit Rice deep against Larry Brown right before the half.

You guys act like Dak hasn't attempted a single deep ball.

God-almighty you're just too much.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Tom Brady didn't even make the list.

That debunks the article right there.

Why?

Maybe it just means there's more than one way to skin a cat.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Romo was never a dink and dunk QB and neither is Dak. Both of them will take what the defense gives them and if their guys can get open they'll make the throw. Romo's thrown a little more caution to the wind at times (and I think Dak has too to an extent like the hail mary throw to Dez that got picked off against the Giants,) but neither one of them are immediately checking down without any pressure. Dak goes through his reads and at times he's getting rushed and has to make the check down throw. I'll take a 6-7 yard check down to Witten on 3rd and 10 over trying to force a throw that isn't there and getting picked or incomplete at best. Have to play the odds, if the field is covered check down and play field position battle.

That's exactly right.

And that was the 2nd Giant loss. Prescott even admitted such. He got away from taking what the defense was giving him.

It's certainly not like Romo has a "howitzer" for an arm. Competent arm, but not outstanding.

 

[Clarkson]

And now comes the posturing. We both know that they issue is not that I think I am smart but that you are worried that I am smarter than you. Male machismo is nothing if not predictable.

It's great to tell me that I'm not as smart as I supposedly think I am but you were the one that brought up 'proper tests' and now that I have called you on it all you have done is appeal to your supposed authority and claim that you know. Less talk more demonstration.

Do the Browns have a better QB rating in the red zone then the Lions. Yes or no?

Also what comprises a large enough sample size to be predictive in this context. You keep asserting it but you have given nothing in the way of proof or logic. Instead its more handwaving much like your claims of randomness.

Dak has been a mediocre red zone passer as demonstrated objectively by his passer rating. You completely ignored my statement about needing to adjust the stats for everyone as you blithely insist on adding Dak and only Dak's rushing TD to his total and acting like it is valid.

You just talk in circles. If you actually understood statistics, you would know how weak it is to use QB rating as the one and only determining factor for how effective a QB has been. I'll ask you AGAIN: Has Prescott been better than Rodgers this year? His QB rating is higher, so based on your logic, he has been, right?

You brought up stats and how they're predictive. Demonstrate for me, first, exactly what red zone QB rating predicts, and next demonstrate how strongly it predicts those things. Does it predict team red zone TD%? Team success? Amount of TDs scored, total? With no background in statistics at all, someone could look at what you posted as well as a couple other stats and pretty quickly make a very good guess. And hint: Those stats would not back up whatever your point is.

More on QB rating. I'd be interested to see how quickly and easily it fluctuates (Any guess? You think it stays fairly consistent week-to-week?) My guess would be it's a volatile number considering the small amount of samples. What say you? (Don't worry, I'll summarize all of these questions for you at the end!)

"Also what comprises a large enough sample size to be predictive in this context." Uh, what? You're talking out of your behind here. Stay in your lane, bro.

Just for fun, because it was quick and easy, I added red zone TDs of a few QBs. Here's where we're at:

Brees - 27
Rodgers - 27
Prescott - 19
Bortles - 19
Luck - 19
Mariota - 19
Winston - 18
Brady - 16
Carr - 16
Taylor - 15

Tied for 3rd in the league seems pretty damn effective to me. But man, if only we had Cody Kessler we'd be able to better score in the red zone. ******!

If I find time today to run an analysis, I will. I'm certain you don't actually want that, though, and regardless of what's found out, you will squirm out of it, because you likely won't even understand it and you are far beyond admitting how dumb it was to use QB rating and QB rating alone to make a definitive claim.

But to summarize, can you answer any of the following:

1). Has Prescott been better, overall, than Rodgers? Why or why not?
2). What does QB rating predict? Does it correlate strongly with team or player TD%? Does it predict those things? How much so?
3). How easily does red zone QB rating change week-to-week?
4). How significant do you think the red zone QB rating differences are, considering the likely volatility due to relatively small sample sizes? How far do you suppose Prescott's RZ QB rating deviates from, say, #5 on your list?
5). What's an acceptable statistical sample size? (You can google that one).
6). This is more opinion: Do you think that more red zone opportunities would cause the QB ratings of certain players to drop? If Cody Kessler had the same amount of chances as Prescott, do you feel confident saying he'd still be better in the red zone?

For the record, I didn't appeal to my authority to simply say "I'm right, you're wrong"; you challenged that I even understood what tests could be run to get a clearer picture of this issue. I pointed out that I believe, based on my background, that I do, in fact, understand those things.