The Interception Ladder(Romo)

[AdamJT13]

Donovan McNabb

Nope.

 

[AdamJT13]

And is the answer Peyton?

Nope.

Here's a clue: He has been mentioned in this thread. And no, it's not Romo. He has only one -- when he threw five and still beat Buffalo.

 

[Iago33]

P. Manning

Oops. I missed the post above.

Rivers?

 

[xpistofer]

Speaking of interceptions, guess which quarterback has the most games this decade with four or more interceptions? (He has five of them.)

Kurt Warner

Edit: oops not mentioned in the thread....must be Brady

 

[adzrne7]

Speaking of interceptions, guess which quarterback has the most games this decade with four or more interceptions? (He has five of them.)

Tom Brady and his record in those games is 0-5.

 

[AdamJT13]

Tom Brady and his record in those games is 0-5.

Good "guess."

He's actually 0-7 when throwing more than two interceptions.

 

[adzrne7]

I've said all along, Romo's problem if you look at his turnover ratio's compared to other QB's is his fumbles, NOT his interceptions.

That is way more fixable than interceptions. And it starts with OL protection and holding the ball closer to his body which he seems to be doing this year.

Nice job Thumper

Actually his problem is both fumbles and interceptions. I don't know how you can say interceptions aren't a problem when he has a career 3.4 INT%. To his credit each year his INT % has gone down.

 

[Nav22]

The "ladder" is probably a bit misleading. When you're playing from behind, you're going to pass more often and force more passes into traffic than you normally would.

In those cases, the INTs are more of like the by-product of losing, and not necessarily the major cause of losing.

 

[Skinsmaniac]

Wish someone had compared these numbers to fumbles to see if it is just the surprise of sudden change and/or field position shift that does it or if INT's have some additional impact

Here is one man's effort to do so. He didn't have all the data he needed though, so he had to make some estimates. For those who don't want to read it, his conclusion was that fumbles are worse than interceptions (don't I know it). Also, footnote 5 is fascinating, anyone know if that research has been updated?

http://www.sportsquant.com/turnovers.htm

 

[THUMPER]

Actually his problem is both fumbles and interceptions. I don't know how you can say interceptions aren't a problem when he has a career 3.4 INT%. To his credit each year his INT % has gone down.

2-time SB Champion Ben Roethlisberger's career INT% is 3.64. Oops!

Romo's TD% is 6.3% while Ben's is 5.24%.

So Tony's INT% is lower and his TD% is significantly higher, but because the STEALERS have won 2 SBs while Ben is the QB, somehow he is the better QB.

If you include fumbles, Romo's TO% is 4.35% and Ben's is 4.41%

 

[Galian Beast]

this is a good thread.

I won't say that this is a "critical" year for Romo, like people have been saying. Thats a joke. Like tony said himself, every year that comes along has been "critical". But this is a good opportunity for him to advance in his maturation as a starting quarterback. Hopefully he can continue to make plays, but by holding back on costly turnovers, it will definitely put him in position to win more games, and bigger games.

We also need this defense to step up. The defense steps up and gets turnovers of their own, Romo doesn't have to try and work so hard on offense. We can run the ball more. Anyone notice our horrible time of possession in the tampa game?

Our running game and our defense should have been the priority this offense in terms of making this team ROMO friendly.

How do you explain Romo having much better stats than Roethlisberger? His defense is imposing. He had a great running game all his career, because Pittsburgh has been dependent on the run, where as the run is an after thought here.

I don't know if its our offensive line, or our running backs, or play call or what... but we do not have an imposing run attack.

Our team was the ranked 25th in the league in rush attempts last year. 21st the year before that.

We need to be running the ball 30 times per game in this league. And being successful when we do it.

Minus Tony romo's run we ran the ball 23 times against tampa.

 

[DallasEast]

http://i356.***BLOCKED***/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/bradshawstats.png

Team (and individual) success isn't necessarily dependent upon how many interceptions shall be attributed to the quarterback.

 

[robb01]

Team (and individual) success isn't necessarily dependent upon how many interceptions shall be attributed to the quarterback.

They sure are nice though

 

[joseephuss]

The most interesting part is that throwing INTs – or, more specifically, not throwing INTs – is actually more important than throwing touchdowns in the playoffs.

Romo fits that description. He has only thrown 1 INT in the playoffs and has a 1.5% interception percentage. That one INT came on a play where an incompletion would have lost the game or even a completion short of the endzone. There was no one open on that play.

 

[DallasEast]

They sure are nice though

I have to agree with you, but life in the NFL isn't perfect. When your team is blessed with a very good or an elite quarterback, there are tradeoffs on the road to championship success.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Very interesting information and I'm glad it was shared. This whole thread though simply points out, many times over, how winning championships is still, always has been, and always will be a team effort. What one player does, or doesn't do, doesn't win or lose championships.

 

[HoosierCowboy]

it's a post hoc fallacy (somewhat)--teams who are losing are more likely to throw interceptions; the interceptions are a result of losing, not necessarily the cause

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I have to agree with you, but life in the NFL isn't perfect. When your team is blessed with a very good or an elite quarterback, there are tradeoffs on the road to championship success.

not really

see one, Tom Brady

 

[THUMPER]

it's a post hoc fallacy (somewhat)--teams who are losing are more likely to throw interceptions; the interceptions are a result of losing, not necessarily the cause

Exactly! The correlation between INTs and losing is primarily due to being behind in the first place. The study took a couple of stats, combined with a preconceived agenda, then extrapolated a correlation. Unfortunately, they got it backwards. :bang2:

I would say that teams that are more successful at running the ball win more SBs. They also probably throw fewer INTs. Teams with good defenses also cut down on the number of INTs because you are typically not playing from behind when you have a good defense.

INTs typically happen when you are behind and have abandoned the running game. Now you are one-dimensional and the defense can tee off on the QB. With the additional pressure, the QB is forced to make a throw he probably wouldn't have if they were ahead, and an INT is the result.

 

[THUMPER]

Fantastic article, even if its harsh on Romo type QB's.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2623_The_mighty_CHFF_interception_ladder.html


"We’ve chronicled the impact of interceptions each year with our interception ladder. It basically says this: with every interception your team throws, it takes one giant step toward defeat. In fact, on average, a team’s chances of winning decline by about 20 percent with every single interception."

"The most interesting part of the interception ladder is not just that INTs are costly. Sure, chronicling the actual percentages is nice, but we all know that turnovers cost teams. The most interesting part is that throwing INTs – or, more specifically, not throwing INTs – is actually more important than throwing touchdowns in the playoffs.

• Teams that toss more touchdowns than their opponents are 207-62 (.770).
• Teams that toss fewer interceptions than their opponents are 258-56 (.822)."

Completely worthless article because it begins with an incorrect assumption and is in fact backwards in its approach and conclusions.

See my previous post for an explanation...