Where does Romo Rank? (A Statistical View)

[DallasInDC]

While perusing ES after their laughable game yesterday, I came across a Tony Romo thread called "12 qb's better than Romo". It was pretty hilarious to read some of the asinine claims they were making, but it got me to thinking - where does Romo rank (statistically) since he became a starter. So I did a little research. I decided to look at the stats for all current starting qbs with at least 50 starts and ranked them based on Win %, comp%, Yds/Att, TDs, TD%, INT, INT %, TD/INT ratio, QB Rating and added big game impact factor for games 300 yds+, 3 TDs+ games and, games with 3+INTs. After ranking each category I totaled them up to see who had the best overall ranking (I know, this is not overly scientific). I thought some of you would be interested in what I came up with.

Stats:

http://img197.*************/img197/1056/stats53.jpg

Rankings:

http://img188.*************/img188/2048/stats53rank.jpg

Amazingly enough, he ranked in the top 5 in 7 of 11 categories and did not rank higher than 9 in any category.

I also decided to look at four different situational stat categories over the past 4 years, including: 2 minute offense, when ahead by 1-8pts, when behind 1-8 pts and, 4th quarter within 7 points. I see these as the most critical times to judge a qb's performance (I also wanted to look at 3rd down performance but that required more work than I was willing to put in). I admit overall, I was surprised by the results:

2-min Offense:
This is Romo at his best -he ranked 1st or 2nd in every category but 1 and that one he ranked 3rd. I can't believe anybody would question his ability to handle pressure situations.

http://img407.*************/img407/9436/stats2min.jpg

When ahead by 1-8 points:
Romo seems to be a little careless at this point in the game. This is where he had the most INTs. I also suspect that his slow starts have a big impact in this category

http://img188.*************/img188/5545/statsahead18.jpg

When behind 1-8 pts.
Again, Romo is pretty average in this category and as I mentioned above, the slow starts really hurt his stats in these categories.

http://img705.*************/img705/2149/statsbehind18.jpg

4th Quarter within 7:
Again, this is when Romo raises his game. When the stakes are on the line, Romo shows he can deliver

http://img441.*************/img441/3223/stats4thqtr.jpg

So if you look at a cumulative total score for all of the categories above, There is no doubt that Romo is a top 5 QB in the NFL and arguably top 3 behind Peyton Manning and Drew Brees.

http://img693.*************/img693/1081/combinedranking.jpg

For the life of me, I can't understand why the media and especially our fans dog Romo so much. If an UDFA for any other team played this well in their first 4 years, they would be worshipping him. Instead, we b**** and complain about how he is not a big game qb...give me a break. We are exceptionally lucky to Have Romo and I hope we take advantage of his talent to win 1 or 2 SB's while he is here. I guarantee if he can win a SB and continue to play at this level for 4-5 more years, he will be a 1st ballot HOFer.

 

[mmohican29]

Outstanding thorough analysis.

What is clear is that Tony is a special talent, and still has upside.

And I agree if he wins a Super Bowl, he will be a no-brainer HOF'er. He is an awesome QB.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I think Romo has made a quantum leap this season. He is poised, exhibiting leadership, using sound judgment
and focusing on ball security.

However, having said that, this is the only stat that matters.

Else he is Danny White.

 

[Rudy]

Awesome thread. Very interesting and thorough as someone said before me, not to mention I like what it says! Take Romo off this roster and we're watching a 5 win team again.

 

[chuffly]

Great stuff DallasinDC. It's going to be a shame if we don't win big while he's here and take advantage of having this guy.

 

[Rudy]

According to Wikipedia, Romo has the 2nd highest career passer rating ever, behind west-coaster Steve Young.

 

[T-RO]

However, having said that, this is the only stat that matters.

Else he is Danny White.

Funny how a qb can win a title all by himself.

This is the kind of crap that makes me puke with some cowboys fans.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Funny how a qb can win a title all by himself.

This is the kind of crap that makes me puke with some cowboys fans.

Puke away. They don't play for stats.

 

[GoCowboysGo]

According to Wikipedia, Romo has the 2nd highest career passer rating ever, behind west-coaster Steve Young.

I thought I read that with last weeks win vs. the Saints, he moved into first place? Is this true? Thanks!

 

[Beast_from_East]

I think Romo has made a quantum leap this season. He is poised, exhibiting leadership, using sound judgment
and focusing on ball security.

However, having said that, this is the only stat that matters.

Else he is Danny White.

So is Dan Marino a JAG because he never won a ring???

How about Jim Kelly, is he a JAG also since he never won a ring???

You realize both of these guys are in the Hall of Fame, right???



Using your logic that a ring is the only stat that matters:

Brad Johnson & Trent Dilfer >>>> Dan Marino & Jim Kelley

(Both guys have rings) >>>>>> (Neither guy has a ring).

 

[TwoDeep3]

So is Dan Marino a JAG because he never won a ring???

How about Jim Kelly, is he a JAG also since he never won a ring???

You realize both of these guys are in the Hall of Fame, right???



Using your logic that a ring is the only stat that matters:

Brad Johnson & Trent Dilfer >>>> Dan Marino & Jim Kelley

(Both guys have rings) >>>>>> (Neither guy has a ring).

Exactly. They don't tally up at the end of the year and the guy with the best stats is the winner.

Both Marino and Kelly would trade the stats for championships.

Well, maybe not Marino because he is an ego driven individual.

This is about winning it all. Now if you are satisfied with the Danny White results, then good for you.

Sports Illustrated doesn't make year end videos for the stat leader.

Wonder why?

 

[chuffly]

Exactly. They don't tally up at the end of the year and the guy with the best stats is the winner.

Both Marino and Kelly would trade the stats for championships.

Well, maybe not Marino because he is an ego driven individual.

This is about winning it all. Now if you are satisfied with the Danny White results, then good for you.

Sports Illustrated doesn't make year end videos for the stat leader.

Wonder why?

Sports Illustrated also doesn't make year end videos for one player on a championship team.

Wonder why?

 

[CrazyCowboy]

romo is the best!

 

[perrykemp]

Where did these numbers come from? How do you have a Top 16 QBs in the season ths year and not include Aaron Rogers? I'm sure he must be there somewhere but I'm not seeing him. If he's not there, then you have the question all the data and possible re-evaluate Romo against the adjusted data.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Sports Illustrated also doesn't make year end videos for one player on a championship team.

Wonder why?

The point is some people put Romo's results in front of the team results. After the Giants and San Diego games on two different message boards there were threads started that said, "You can't blame this loss on Romo."

It's like stats and his performance over ride the results of the team. You guys are so sensitive and go into attack mode on anyone who danes to not leap up and agree that Romo is the greatest player this game has ever seen.

My self-esteem about this team is not based on Romo's stats.

I like Romo a great deal. This year is truly the first year that I have seen something in this player that suggests he is more than pretty stats in the regular season.

But let's not lose focus on the prize.

His playing well is not a substitute for the team winning. And the simplistic comments about, "this is a team sport and thus...ect" also shoots your point in the foot when you post his stats only.

It's about winning. This ain't Pop Warner attacked by the soccer moms of the world where they don't keep score because we are all winners.

This is about championships. And Romo's place in history will be defined, just like every other quarterback in professional football by his Championships.

It's like people want to build in an excuse for him not attaining the prize here.

And that is contrary to loving this team for some of us.

 

[BIGDen]

Great job with the #'s. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

Only a complete idiot, with no ability to judge a QB, would think that Romo is not a top player.

A huge % of Cowboys fans felt/feel we have a poor to average receiving corps and a crappy O-line, yet Romo STILL puts up incredible #'s! He wins a majority of his games and makes many plays that nobody else makes. We are incredibly lucky to have him as our QB and he is a huge reason why we are currently a contender looking to win our 2nd NFC East title in 3 years.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Exactly. They don't tally up at the end of the year and the guy with the best stats is the winner.

Both Marino and Kelly would trade the stats for championships.

Well, maybe not Marino because he is an ego driven individual.

This is about winning it all. Now if you are satisfied with the Danny White results, then good for you.

Sports Illustrated doesn't make year end videos for the stat leader.

Wonder why?

Maybe Danny White would have a ring if his defense could have made a couple more plays, you think???

Maybe Jim Kelly would have a ring if Buffalo had drafted a better kicker, you think???


Using your logic, if Scott Norwood makes that FG in the SuperBowl then Jim Kelly is one of the best QBs ever since he has a ring. However, since Norwood missed that FG, Jim Kelly is just a JAG since he does not have a ring.

So the determining factor of how great a QB Jim Kelly was is if the football is 1 foot to the left or right??? Is that actually the point you are trying to make here???

Seriously???

 

[TwoDeep3]

Maybe Danny White would have a ring if his defense could have made a couple more plays, you think???

Maybe Jim Kelly would have a ring if Buffalo had drafted a better kicker, you think???


Using your logic, if Scott Norwood makes that FG in the SuperBowl then Jim Kelly is one of the best QBs ever since he has a ring. However, since Norwood missed that FG, Jim Kelly is just a JAG since he does not have a ring.

So the determining factor of how great a QB Jim Kelly was is if the football is 1 foot to the left or right??? Is that actually the point you are trying to make here???

Seriously???

So the OP laid out stats to PROVE Romo is one of the best to play the game.

He is using regular season stats to suggest this is so.

My point, he will be viewed for his championships, like all other quarterbacks are viewed.

Then the usual reply about team sport comes flying out.

So on the one hand people use stats to compare him to all the other quarterbacks to play this game and say he is one of the best, but when you factor in post season, an area that he is not very familiar, suddenly this is a team sport.

Danny White doesn't fumble he would have a ring.

Kelly leads his team to more scores he might also.

But whether you or anyone else like it, quarterbacks being hailed as one of the best are judged by championships.

Bob Hayes is a prime example of this. He was judged not because the game changed by his very presence, but his post season activity.

Drew Pearson eclipses Lynn Swann in almost every category, but Swann is in the Hall because of his post-season record while Pearson has been snubbed.

All players for the most part are judged by winning.

Quarterbacks are the field generals of the team and they are held to this standard. I didn't create this climate. I am merely expressing it exists.

For me this is about the very team sport you mention. And Romo's place in history after 50 games is fairly insignificant in my view compared to the goal of number six for the trophy case.

Because no one now EVER talks about White and his stats - which led the team in most every category over Staubach and Aikman until Romo arrived - in the same breath as Staubach and Aikman.

Which is my exact point.

Win championships and all this will be settled. Don't and be another Danny White.

 

[chuffly]

The point is some people put Romo's results in front of the team results. After the Giants and San Diego games on two different message boards there were threads started that said, "You can't blame this loss on Romo."

It's like stats and his performance over ride the results of the team. You guys are so sensitive and go into attack mode on anyone who danes to not leap up and agree that Romo is the greatest player this game has ever seen.

My self-esteem about this team is not based on Romo's stats.

I like Romo a great deal. This year is truly the first year that I have seen something in this player that suggests he is more than pretty stats in the regular season.

But let's not lose focus on the prize.

His playing well is not a substitute for the team winning. And the simplistic comments about, "this is a team sport and thus...ect" also shoots your point in the foot when you post his stats only.

It's about winning. This ain't Pop Warner attacked by the soccer moms of the world where they don't keep score because we are all winners.

This is about championships. And Romo's place in history will be defined, just like every other quarterback in professional football by his Championships.

It's like people want to build in an excuse for him not attaining the prize here.

And that is contrary to loving this team for some of us.

I agree it's about the prize. And that's why you try to assemble as many great pieces as you can in order to be able to win. Like it or not, Romo is one of those great pieces.

Unfortunately, he's not the only piece necessary to be a winning team as the Cowboys have clearly found out, but he does get this team closer to its goals. It's up to the rest of the team to find out how to get to bridge the rest of that gap (not to absolve Romo of the work needed to continue to improve, but I know I'm going to get that out of him because he's shown he's willing to put the work in, contrary to what the media says).

The thing is, you need to look at stats. Not every player on a team that doesn't win a championship is a loser. People like to make it a black-and-white issue, but the fact of the matter is there are great players on bad teams and lousy players on great teams. Not every player plays great in a win and not every player plays poorly in a loss. This is why you have stats - it helps separate the wheat from the chaff because your "wins and losses" dichotomy simply doesn't tell the whole story. Can stats also leave out parts of the story? Sure, if they are used simplistically and incorrectly, this can certainly happen. That's why it's important to look at the bigger picture. But to leave stats out of that bigger picture is like painting without the color red - it's going to severely limit you.

When you get a player like Romo where pretty much every stat available is pointing to him being a pretty good player, maybe you should at least give it some thought and consideration.

Your contention that the claim that "winning is a team game" is a simplistic comment strikes me as a bit ironic. What's funny is it's quite the opposite, and people miss this when they simplistically pin the blame or praise on one player. They miss that the whole beauty of watching a championship team is watching how that team managed to makes parts both good and bad fit together, and how they manage to minimize weaknesses while maximizing strengths in order to beat their opposition. Certain pieces help more than others, but in the end it's always about the whole not the pieces. That doesn't mean you can't appreciate the pieces. On the contrary, some of us have found it quite possible to appreciate both.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I agree it's about the prize. And that's why you try to assemble as many great pieces as you can in order to be able to win. Like it or not, Romo is one of those great pieces.

Unfortunately, he's not the only piece necessary to be a winning team as the Cowboys have clearly found out, but he does get this team closer to its goals. It's up to the rest of the team to find out how to get to bridge the rest of that gap (not to absolve Romo of the work needed to continue to improve, but I know I'm going to get that out of him because he's shown he's willing to put the work in, contrary to what the media says).

The thing is, you need to look at stats. Not every player on a team that doesn't win a championship is a loser. People like to make it a black-and-white issue, but the fact of the matter is there are great players on bad teams and lousy players on great teams. Not every player plays great in a win and not every player plays poorly in a loss. This is why you have stats - it helps separate the wheat from the chaff because your "wins and losses" dichotomy simply doesn't tell the whole story. Can stats also leave out parts of the story? Sure, if they are used simplistically and incorrectly, this can certainly happen. That's why it's important to look at the bigger picture. But to leave stats out of that bigger picture is like painting without the color red - it's going to severely limit you.

When you get a player like Romo where pretty much every stat available is pointing to him being a pretty good player, maybe you should at least give it some thought and consideration.

Your contention that the claim that "winning is a team game" is a simplistic comment strikes me as a bit ironic. What's funny is it's quite the opposite, and people miss this when they simplistically pin the blame or praise on one player. They miss that the whole beauty of watching a championship team is watching how that team managed to makes parts both good and bad fit together, and how they manage to minimize weaknesses while maximizing strengths in order to beat their opposition. Certain pieces help more than others, but in the end it's always about the whole not the pieces. That doesn't mean you can't appreciate the pieces. On the contrary, some of us have found it quite possible to appreciate both.

Marino and Kelly are not viewed like Montana and Bradshaw.

Marino owns the records, but fortunately or unfortunately his not winning the big game has a place in all this.

I guess I am confused why fans of this team have this discussion when Romo has at least five more years of quality play barring injury to make a case for him being one of the best.

But if he does not win it all, he will have the same stigma as Marino. People will laud his stats, but they will also mention his lack of hardware.

It's a cruel world.