We are now in Last place in NFC east

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't doubt he'd scored more, but would he have scored 21 points more? Maybe, but I don't personally think so.

but we already averaged 26 points a game w/ Romo in the lineup

don't be a ******

 

[Skinsmaniac]

So, you're saying that it doesn't matter whether you give the opponent the ball at your 1 or their own 1?

You can't be serious.

I haven't read this whole thread, but I would argue that it doesn't make a difference. Either way is a seven point swing. Either you don't get the seven or you give them seven. Both those results have an equal effect on the result of the game.

Edit: After actually reading the thread, Adam was talking about whether it is easier to score from one yard away or 99 and was clearly right that it's harder to score from 99.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I would argue that it doesn't make a difference. Either way is a seven point swing. Either you don't get the seven or you give them seven. Both those results has an equal effect on the result of the game.

doesn't the chances of scoring decrease the longer the field you have to work w/?

 

[firehawk350]

I'm not speaking for him, I'm understanding his argument

which you aren't

the same way you misinterpreted a very simple statement that theebs made



does the O look better w/ Romo in the lineup? yes or no?

does that improve the Cowboys' chances of winning?

yes or no?

So now you are presuming to tell me how to respond??? Who do you think you are, some judge??? Life isn't yes or no, black or white.... Yes, he'd have made the offense better. Would he have made them good enough to win??? That's the question. Not your strawman...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

So now you are presuming to tell me how to respond??? Who do you think you are, some judge??? Life isn't yes or no, black or white.... Yes, he'd have made the offense better. Would he have made them good enough to win??? That's the question. Not your strawman...

I'm not telling you how to post

I'm helping you understand a simple argument

 

[firehawk350]

doesn't the chances of scoring decrease the longer the field you have to work w/?

You work with percentages when you try to predict future occurences. But we aren't, we are trying to determine what happened in the two blowout losses. Aggregate percentages have no place here.

 

[Bizwah]

I don't doubt he'd scored more, but would he have scored 21 points more? Maybe, but I don't personally think so.

Again, your logic is flawed.

It's almost a certainty that he would've moved the ball better. Which would've given our defense a rest....which would lead to fewer points on their behalf. So, I don't feel he would need to SCORE 21 more points.

And if you even add in one more TD, then we're in the game at the end.

As you said earlier...we're probably looking at a more palatable loss....

But the Ram game? Come on.....

 

[firehawk350]

I'm not telling you how to post

I'm helping you understand a simple argument

No you aren't, you are creating a strawman. You are trying to make the argument something it's not. You are trying to frame the argument into whether Romo makes the offense better, which of course he does. You want to make the argument this because you know that puts me in an untenable position. The argument is whether Romo would have won those two games...

 

[CF74]

What are the plans...

Keep calling the same crappy plays hoping your talent bails you out despite the league having figured out your OC.....:bang2:

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You work with percentages when you try to predict future occurences. But we aren't, we are trying to determine what happened in the two blowout losses. Aggregate percentages have no place here.

they do have a place here if you're assuming the points that were scored, would have been done so, no matter the distance of the field that the ball had to be moved

 

[firehawk350]

Again, your logic is flawed.

It's almost a certainty that he would've moved the ball better. Which would've given our defense a rest....which would lead to fewer points on their behalf. So, I don't feel he would need to SCORE 21 more points.

And if you even add in one more TD, then we're in the game at the end.

As you said earlier...we're probably looking at a more palatable loss....

But the Ram game? Come on.....

Okay, under Romo, your offense scores something like 26 ppg. Without Romo, your offense scores something like 13-14 pgg. That's a swing of 13-14 points. On the same hand, that extra rest and shorter fields turn into only giving up 2-3 ppg defensively. So using pure statistics, the Rams game turns into a 28-34 loss. Romo doesn't turn into a huge defensive advantage like some want you to believe...

 

[Bob Sacamano]

No you aren't, you are creating a strawman. You are trying to make the argument something it's not. You are trying to frame the argument into whether Romo makes the offense better, which of course he does. You want to make the argument this because you know that puts me in an untenable position. The argument is whether Romo would have won those two games...

no it's not

 

[firehawk350]

they do have a place here if you're assuming the points that were scored, would have been done so, no matter the distance of the field that the ball had to be moved

Addressed in my post after yours...

 

[firehawk350]

no it's not

So what is it then???

 

[Skinsmaniac]

doesn't the chances of scoring decrease the longer the field you have to work w/?

Yes, the longer the field the harder it is to score. So Romo does make the defense look better by sustaining longer drives.

I was thinking about a different point, which I haven't really thought through. My idea is, for example, you have two teams that are tied at 10. Statistically each team has a 50% chance of winning. Let's say we knew that a team leading 17-10 had a 60% chance of winning. Throwing an interception at the opposition' one yard line reduces your chances of winning from essentially 60% to 50% (because you wouldn't go up 17-10), while if you are tied at ten and you throw a pick at your own one you reduce your chance of winning from 50% to essentially 40% (because you'd go down 17-10). Maybe a stats guy can let us know if that is right or wrong.

Edit: the point I am trying to make is that throwing a pick at the opposition's one or at your own one yard line are equally bad. (and after reading the thread, no one said otherwise, so I'm just talking to myself).

 

[Bob Sacamano]

So what is it then???

Romo controls drives, scores points, and doesn't give the opposing O many short fields to work w/, by turning the ball over in his own territory

in other words, he makes the game manageable, and we don't suffer many blowouts, and a loss or 2 potentially become wins

noone is saying that we go undefeated w/ Romo at the helm

 

[jobberone]

I still have faith. I really do. I think once our best players come back this team will turn the corner.

You in Charleston or Sumter?

 

[Bizwah]

Okay, under Romo, your offense scores something like 26 ppg. Without Romo, your offense scores something like 13-14 pgg. That's a swing of 13-14 points. On the same hand, that extra rest and shorter fields turn into only giving up 2-3 ppg defensively. So using pure statistics, the Rams game turns into a 28-34 loss. Romo doesn't turn into a huge defensive advantage like some want you to believe...

Sure he does....

What exactly do you think our record would be without Romo? How many points would our team give up with BJ or BB at the helm for the first nine games?

I'm thinking we'd be 3-6....and that's a generous estimate. I think we'd easily be giving up 28 points a game without him.

So yes, he does give us a huge advantage.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I know we don't give up a 2:1 TOP advantage to the other team in the 1st half w/ Romo at the helm

 

[firehawk350]

in other words, he makes the game manageable, and we don't suffer many blowouts, and a loss or 2 potentially become wins

I have agreed with the first point NUMEROUS times in this thread. That was never the debate. And it's the second point was exactly my point. Which you haven't thrown out anything but a couple of strawmans and vague ideas.