Twice as many game ending INTs since 2006

[ufcrules1]

Most football fans feel he is more choke than clutch and it couldn't make them any MORE RIGHT.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

I'd like to see "costly INT" defined by a scholarly source please. Especially when you use the term "typically", you're not really providing a solid foundation for your argument.

Dude, it's a stat that's being covered. I quoted "costly" because that's the word they kept using in the article. I posted the article in this thread. It's been all over ESPN today. Read the article. The stat is INTs that drop a team's win probability by 20 or more percentage points. It's a real stat. Romo has 7 since 2006. Only person with more is Schaub with 8. Another source (which I can't find but they quoted on First Take) said the next most by any QB is 4. Another article said these particular INTs come when your team is tied or with the lead in the last 5 minutes of the game. Read that article.

 

[The Natural]

Romo has thrown 7 INTs in the final minutes of the 4th quarter with a small lead or the game tied.

The funny thing is I can probably name them all off the top of my head. Yesterday, this year against Denver, week 17 last year against Washington, last time we played Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, week 1 against the Jets 2 years ago, I think the Detroit debacle last year is included somewhere, and I cant think of the 7th.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

The funny thing is I can probably name them all off the top of my head. Yesterday, this year against Denver, week 17 last year against Washington, last time we played Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, week 1 against the Jets 2 years ago, I think the Detroit debacle last year is included somewhere, and I cant think of the 7th.

They seem to have all come in the past 3 seasons.

 

[Nation]

I ran this stat using ProFootballReferences Game Play Finder. He does have 7 INTs in that scenario since 2006, which does lead all other quarterbacks by 3.

He also has 9 Touchdowns in that scenario, which ALSO leads all other quarterbacks by 2.

www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/play_finder.cgi?request=1&match=summary&year_min=2006&year_max=2013&team_id=&opp_id=&game_type=R&playoff_round=&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=0&week_num_max=99&quarter=4&quarter=5&tr_gtlt=lt&minutes=8&seconds=00&down=1&down=2&down=3&down=4&yds_to_go_min=&yds_to_go_max=&yg_gtlt=gt&yards=&is_first_down=-1&field_pos_min_field=team&field_pos_min=&field_pos_max_field=team&field_pos_max=&type=PASS&is_turnover=0&is_scoring=1&no_play=0&game_day_of_week=&game_location=&game_result=&margin_min=0&margin_max=7&order_by=game_date

 

[WhizKid]

Getting rid of the qb is meaningless if you don't have a head coach who is smart enough to cater his offense to his qb's skill set. Seriously if you don't realize that playing more balanced game on offense will yield more wins at this moment given this offense and this defense that we trot out there, changing qb will help no way and you were doomed from the start. Not because your qb but because your coach lacks the capacity to make the proper adjustments given game day situations too win. changing qb just to see how it is will most likely lead to more losses . Why take that route when you can do a more sure way of winning by just limiting the number of snaps the defense has to play , and raising the time of possession on offense. It keeps your weakest link off the field and your strength on the field.. and the offense is only a strength with Murray being involved more, the less he is involved the more inefficient that offense is running.

 

[Wood]

Getting rid of the qb is meaningless if you don't have a head coach who is smart enough to cater his offense to his qb's skill set. Seriously if you don't realize that playing more balanced game on offense will yield more wins at this moment given this offense and this defense that we trot out there, changing qb will help no way and you were doomed from the start. Not because your qb but because your coach lacks the capacity to make the proper adjustments given game day situations too win. changing qb just to see how it is will most likely lead to more losses . Why take that route when you can do a more sure way of winning by just limiting the number of snaps the defense has to play , and raising the time of possession on offense. It keeps your weakest link off the field and your strength on the field.. and the offense is only a strength with Murray being involved more, the less he is involved the more inefficient that offense is running.

actually the QB is much more meaningful than HC especially in today football. Dallas needs to replace both Garrett and Romo soon so its just a matter of how they do it.

 

[waving monkey]

The guy is put in a position that the game is close, and they are generally trailing, in seemingly every game. Of course he has thrown more picks than other guys.

I don't is "of course"

 

[foofighters]

Dude, it's a stat that's being covered. I quoted "costly" because that's the word they kept using in the article. I posted the article in this thread. It's been all over ESPN today. Read the article. The stat is INTs that drop a team's win probability by 20 or more percentage points. It's a real stat. Romo has 7 since 2006. Only person with more is Schaub with 8. Another source (which I can't find but they quoted on First Take) said the next most by any QB is 4. Another article said these particular INTs come when your team is tied or with the lead in the last 5 minutes of the game. Read that article.

I don't need to read the article. and you know why I don't? Because it's from bspn. I don't care if they write an article that loves or hates on Romo. The journalism they do is geared more for the casual fan and cannot grasp the real issues behind what's going on with teams. I neither hate Romo nor do I love the guy. What the hater's fail to grasp is that sure, let's get a new QB. Ok, so some of the games that Tony would have lost, the new guy wins but guess what? Some of the games that the new guy loses, Tony probably would've won.

So here's what you and bspn are failing to see about this "costly interception" stat. It's misleading. It's misleading because it's not taking into account how many times we throw the ball compared to running it. The more you throw it, the more your chance increases for turnovers. Are there times when Tony needs to be reigned in? Of course there is but who's gonna do that? JG? JJ? No. and there, my friend is the problem with this team.

 

[foofighters]

actually the QB is much more meaningful than HC especially in today football. Dallas needs to replace both Garrett and Romo soon so its just a matter of how they do it.

It won't change as long as the current GM is in place. The same non leadership, non accountability issues will continue.

 

[WhizKid]

actually the QB is much more meaningful than HC especially in today football. Dallas needs to replace both Garrett and Romo and soon its just a matter of how they do it.

I can ee your point and understand where you are coming from but the way our eam is setup and operating, our best chance of winning involves a more balanced attack. I would say for a majority of teams, yes, but our situation right now as it sits, does not ask for more pass, it needs more run as that helps the defense and the offense. At this point Garrett is going nowhere, despite my displeasure with him and Romo is staying also. So, if I am coach of this team I am not going to change a position and hope it gets more wins, I'm going t change my scheme and cater to my qb and rb's skills, play a more balanced attack and keep my historically bad defense off the field through T.O.P.
But I do get your point as I do think the league has moved in that direction.

 

[Wood]

I can ee your point and understand where you are coming from but the way our eam is setup and operating, our best chance of winning involves a more balanced attack. I would say for a majority of teams, yes, but our situation right now as it sits, does not ask for more pass, it needs more run as that helps the defense and the offense. At this point Garrett is going nowhere, despite my displeasure with him and Romo is staying also. So, if I am coach of this team I am not going to change a position and hope it gets more wins, I'm going t change my scheme and cater to my qb and rb's skills, play a more balanced attack and keep my historically bad defense off the field through T.O.P.
But I do get your point as I do think the league has moved in that direction.

I agree with you 100% on being balanced. But first you need the right pieces to be balanced. This is more about how team fails to respond favorably in critical situations. The team takes ques from HC and QB and from what I am seeing both are failing.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

I know there's this myth that Romo is more clutch than choke. Well, on First Take they just read an interesting stat. Romo has thrown 7 INTs in the final minutes of the 4th quarter with a small lead or the game tied. That's more than twice as many as any other QB since 2006. There's no defending the man as not being a choke artist. Two INTs in the final four minutes of yesterday's game. A bad throw to a wide open Miles and a poor decision to throw to Beasley who wasn't open.

The 1st int was bad but who was blocking Matthews ? It was amazing romo got away from the sack . It was a dumb play call should of ran it .No other qb is stuck with this defense that let's teams constantly battle back in the 4th quarter . This defense must be blown up now starting with ware .

 

[WhizKid]

I agree with you 100% on being balanced. But first you need the right pieces to be balanced. This is more about how team fails to respond favorably in critical situations. The team takes ques from HC and QB and from what I am seeing both are failing.

I think we are on the same page here but to a less extent with Romo.
I'm just saying right now with two games left there are adjustments that can be made to get two wins. Will they be made? Probably not. As a matter of fact I'm expecting an over usage of running or 50 passes plays because the red one is smarter than everyone.

 

[ufcrules1]

I agree with you 100% on being balanced. But first you need the right pieces to be balanced. This is more about how team fails to respond favorably in critical situations. The team takes ques from HC and QB and from what I am seeing both are failing.

100% correct. Both are failing badly and are not improving. It is the definition of insanity, doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results. You just can't squeeze blood out of turnips! They both need to go!! Romo can't run anymore, he can't throw down field without under/overthrowing his target, he can't throw into windows, he panics when there is nobody around, he still makes the same rookie mistakes he always has. I mean at some point, you just can't teach an old dog new tricks and it is time to move on. I have a feeling nothing is going to change until Jerry gets a real GM or dies.. whichever comes first.

 

[ufcrules1]

The 1st int was bad but who was blocking Matthews ? It was amazing romo got away from the sack . It was a dumb play call should of ran it .No other qb is stuck with this defense that let's teams constantly battle back in the 4th quarter . This defense must be blown up now starting with ware .

Yeah, I think by now we know the defense is horrendous.. but what on earth is the offenses excuse? They are 100% healthy. We played a pathetic Packers team yesterday and we had to settle for what.. 5 or 6 field goals. Some of those should have been touchdowns. Romo was under throwing Dez over and over too.

 

[TheIceman]

Please don't use the 07 Giants game to solidify your point. I believe that play was 4th down and Tony had to throw it. If he doesn't guys like you are saying he's a coward for not trying to win the game at the end.

Hey like i said, I was just going off the top of my head here, but now that it's been brought up I watched the play and it was a REALLY bad throw. WR completely covered. Sure its 4th down, he has to throw it blah blah blah...still a terrible pass. Anyway, i see you completely ignored the 3 INT game against Washington last year, which really just proves my point that even if you take away one pick late in the game for this excuse or that one, there's always another one. It's as much his M.O. as his comebacks are.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

Can't argue with you there . I would have pounded them with Murray more though . He had 100 yards in 1st half .

Yeah, I think by now we know the defense is horrendous.. but what on earth is the offenses excuse? They are 100% healthy. We played a pathetic Packers team yesterday and we had to settle for what.. 5 or 6 field goals. Some of those should have been touchdowns. Romo was under throwing Dez over and over too.

argue

 

[TheIceman]

Can you please source these stats? No other quarterback has thrown more than 3 INTs in the "final" minutes of the 4th quarter with a small lead or the game tied? I don't buy that.

[url]http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=331215006[/URL]

Right hand side of the page all the way down. If you click on the + sign you can see the other quarterbacks below him (Fitzpatrick, Schuab, Henne, Rothlisberger tied with 4 in that span). Btw It's since 2006 (When Romo became a starter).

 

[dupree89]

Most teams run the ball with the lead in the 4th Qtr.

Of course, Mr. Clutch Brady has finished 3 games this year with INTs, and should have had a 4th if New Orleans hadn't been stupid and given him another chance.

When Romo wins multiple Super Bowls, he will be given a free pass. Fair or not, thats how it works.