Where are you Tony Romo haters?

[Doomsday101]

Peyton Manning just wasn't coming up big in the post season until he finally got the monkey off his back. But he wasn't falling down. He's a career 98.5 passer with 92 TDs and 38 Ints in the month of December for his career. Romo? 80.3 with 21 TDs and 20 Ints, and that's after his stellar December 2009. That comparison at this point is not a valid one yet.

BS it is just as vaild. Nothing but nay sayers popping off, Manning showed talent as has Romo it take a team to win it all not the QB alone. Romo numbers since he has taken over the starting is better than most QB's who have played in this league. Brees and Rivers have also had their struggles at times and still looking to break through. You want to hold dec as some tell all story? Well Romo had the best dec of any of them but to advance it is going to take a team to win it all as it has taken a team to make it through dec and clinching the east. So go ahead with the Romo can't BS you are not the 1st to doubt QB's in this league

 

[chuffly]

Peyton Manning just wasn't coming up big in the post season until he finally got the monkey off his back. But he wasn't falling down. He's a career 98.5 passer with 92 TDs and 38 Ints in the month of December for his career. Romo? 80.3 with 21 TDs and 20 Ints, and that's after his stellar December 2009. That comparison at this point is not a valid one yet.

So that takes care of statistics. Logic? An anomaly is when something is strange, unusual, or unique..out of the norm...occurs. 1 out of 4? Which is the anomaly? The 1? Or the 3? Logic would dictate that you can't definitively say one way or another what something is until a pattern has been established. A sample size of 4 is a small one, but so far 1 out of 4 isn't too promising.

Uh, claiming 3 out of 4 doesn't exactly prove your point that it's not an anomaly.

 

[DIAF]

BS it is just as vaild. Nothing but nay sayers popping off, Manning showed talent as has Romo it take a team to win it all not the QB alone. Romo numbers since he has taken over the starting is better than most QB's who have played in this league. Brees and Rivers have also had their struggles at times and still looking to break through. You want to hold dec as some tell all story? Well Romo had the best dec of any of them but to advance it is going to take a team to win it all as it has taken a team to make it through dec and clinching the east. So go ahead with the Romo can't BS you are not the 1st to doubt QB's in this league

The numbers and results are what they are. No "BS" here.

 

[DIAF]

Uh, claiming 3 out of 4 doesn't exactly prove your point that it's not an anomaly.

Claiming 1 out of 4 sure as heck doesn't mean it its the norm.

 

[NeonNinja]

The numbers and results are what they are. No "BS" here.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[chuffly]

Claiming 1 out of 4 sure as heck doesn't mean it its the norm.

The problem here is no one claimed that.

 

[brucekr]

Never been a Romo hater per se, but I definitely have questioned whether his mental game could ever catch up with his physical abilities. He's definitely shown he has matured significantly this season. Crow has never tasted so damn good.

 

[theogt]

Peyton Manning just wasn't coming up big in the post season until he finally got the monkey off his back. But he wasn't falling down. He's a career 98.5 passer with 92 TDs and 38 Ints in the month of December for his career. Romo? 80.3 with 21 TDs and 20 Ints, and that's after his stellar December 2009. That comparison at this point is not a valid one yet.

So that takes care of statistics. Logic? An anomaly is when something is strange, unusual, or unique..out of the norm...occurs. 1 out of 4? Which is the anomaly? The 1? Or the 3? Logic would dictate that you can't definitively say one way or another what something is until a pattern has been established. A sample size of 4 is a small one, but so far 1 out of 4 isn't too promising.

If you're just going to define his play by four months in his career, then it wouldn't be an anomaly. However, he's actually played about 15 months in the NFL, and only played poorly in 3 of those 15 months, so yes, it should be considered an anomaly. One of those three months, he was playing with a back and a hand injury. So that leaves two months in his career which he played poorly without a sufficient reason (Dec. 2007 and Dec. 2006).

I would think you'd have to be particularly dense to look past 12 months of play and only concentrate on 3 months of play in determining what type of player he is.

 

[DIAF]

The problem here is no one claimed that.

Just a few posts up, theo claimed that the 3 out of the 4 would be "the anomaly, by anyone using an ounce of logic"

Given that, it would seem that the small sample size of "fall[ing] on his face down the stretch" would cause those instances to be viewed, by anyone using an ounce of logic, as the anomaly and not the norm. So the fact that it didn't happen this year, when he and his team are healthy, shouldn't be surprising whatsoever.

So, 3 out of 4 proves it's an anomaly. That would mean the 1 out of 4 is the norm. What kind of logical analysis is that?

If you're just going to define his play by four months in his career, then it wouldn't be an anomaly. However, he's actually played about 15 months in the NFL, and only played poorly in 3 of those 15 months, so yes, it should be considered an anomaly. One of those three months, he was playing with a back and a hand injury. So that leaves two months in his career which he played poorly without a sufficient reason (Dec. 2007 and Dec. 2006).

My whole issue with Romo is that he plays poorly down the stretch and in the playoffs. Why would I consider stats that fall outside of the scope of that claim? If I say a QB is poor in December, why would I consider stats from September? Or October? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Doomsday101]

The numbers and results are what they are. No "BS" here.

True and the over 90 QB rating in every single season he has played is also is
what it is. Romo is not the 1st QB to go through stuggles he will not be the last and that includes many great QB's who have had to endure the nay sayers.

 

[zrinkill]

i think zrinkill and i went back and forth one morning after we lost the first giants game when he was on the downside of his bipolar attitude about the cowboys.

I actually thought you knew what I was doing.

Thought you were just playing along.

 

[chuffly]

Just a few posts up, theo claimed that the 3 out of the 4 would be "the anomaly, by anyone using an ounce of logic"

You don't get what an anomaly means here do you?

 

[theogt]

My whole issue with Romo is that he plays poorly down the stretch and in the playoffs. Why would I consider stats that fall outside of the scope of that claim? If I say a QB is poor in December, why would I consider stats from September? Or October? That doesn't make any sense.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with saying "Romo has played poorly in December until 2009." It's true. No one can deny it. The issue comes when people try to implicate that he will play poorly in December going forward based on such a small sample size.

It would make much more sense, logically, to look at 15 months of play and not just 3 months of play when judging how he will perform going forward.

 

[Arch Stanton]

I actually thought you knew what I was doing.

Thought you were just playing along.

When I read that post I thought that's not the Zrin I know!

All this thread needs now is stillnottheguru.

 

[Hoofbite]

The Homer Simpson with sunglasses was zrinkill - he was making fun of the "realist" fans by saying "don't be a blind homer."

But yeah, you've got a good post there. I think nobody is really hating on Romo anymore though, man.

I thought he was sporting that because he was accused of being a blind homer.

 

[DIAF]

You don't get what an anomaly means here do you?

So, what you are saying is posters on this board are bending the meaning of the term "anomaly" to fit their argument?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Romo doubter here.

I call BS on this. You're a Romo hater. I wonder why anyone would bother discussing him with you.

 

[theogt]

Just a few posts up, theo claimed that the 3 out of the 4 would be "the anomaly, by anyone using an ounce of logic"



So, 3 out of 4 proves it's an anomaly. That would mean the 1 out of 4 is the norm. What kind of logical analysis is that?

You really have to drop this "3 out of 4" line. You have to look at an entire body of statistics. You can't just look at the statistics that are the anomaly and claim that since almost all of those anomalous statistics do in point fact point to a given conclusion that they're not anomalous.

 

[theogt]

Let's say you flip a coin 100 times and 50 times are heads and 50 times are tails. But in those 100 flips, you have a 15 flip sequence where 14 out of the 15 flips were tails.

You can't point to those 15 flips and say it's not an anomaly that 14 out of 15 flips were tails. That's not logical.

 

[NeonNinja]

I call BS on this. You're a Romo hater. I wonder why anyone would bother discussing him with you.

Spot on.