Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sabertooth

Why is there such a witchhunt regarding Romo?

725 posts in this topic

Romo made the right decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 4/6/2017 at 7:36 PM, Arodin said:
On 4/6/2017 at 6:37 PM, GregR said:

  Winners    Losers
Q1    21%    18%
Q2    30%    31%
Q3    21%    20%
Q4    27%    29%

 

First interesting thing, though not really the answer to my question... both Winning and Losing teams score the largest percentage of their points in Q2.  Followed by Q4.  Then Q3, and finally Q1 (including Winners if you go out an extra decimal spot to break the tie).

Q2 and Q4 should outscore Q1 and Q3 because of the clock rules.  Extra stoppages near the ends of halves mean more plays and opportunities to score.  Plus the fact that teams will cut drives short to get points due to time running out, while at the end of Q1 or Q3 they won't, for instance, kick a FG on 1st down just because there are only 3 seconds left...

Q2 over Q4 actually makes sense too, when you factor in the time-soaking drives from teams with significant leads.

Not sure there's anything to distill from these stats as far as relative value of scoring by quarter.  (Which I think was part of your point...)

Well like I said, which quarter teams score the most in was interesting. But it doesn't really shed light on which quarter's points are the most VALUABLE. Value as in value towards winning the game. Winners and losers both score more points in the 4th quarter, than in the 3rd or 1st.  You can't draw even a weak inference as to how 4th quarter points affects who won the game from that fact since looking at from that standpoint, winners and losers are identical.

The latter was more to the question being asked. If 4th quarter points are the most valuable, then why do losing teams have a higher percentage of their points fall there than winning teams? Also as I said, it's not exactly proof. Can you draw an inference from it? Yes, if losing teams are getting a higher percentage of their points there than are winning teams, you might infer 4th quarter points won't correlate well with winning. I don't think it's a particularly strong inference though. (Because you can make a good point that just because a higher percentage of Losing team points come from there doesn't mean it's enough to make up that the winning team scored more over the course of the game).

A better argument, would be that teams who are winning have advantages in how they play defense and offense to try to reach the end of the game still ahead. In other words, early points might allow you to limit opponent points overall, or even just in some cases limit them in ways particular to a game's particular score and time situation in a way that enhances chances of winning more than the same points in the 4th would have. Can scoring more early cause the opponent's offense to become one dimensional?  Would a defensive coordinator have better options play-calling with a lead than trailing? Does having a lead from more early points let you decide what the trade off should be between surrendering more points vs how much time you make the opponent use up based on the defense you play?  I think the answer to all of those is yes, and they all are advantages of scoring early.  I think we can all agree that late points do not have a similar effect on things which already transpired early in the game.

Or another simple argument I'd make, I'll let your team score 100, all in the 4th quarter, if you let my team score 101, all in the first quarter. Obviously you won't take that deal, because 4th quarter points aren't even 1/100 more valuable than first quarter points on the final scoreboard. So if late points do not count more on the scoreboard, and being ahead gives the leading team advantages in play calling and clock strategy, and scoring late doesn't impact the early game, then what extra value could it have?

What it comes down to, I think, is either people get caught up in drama where since the late game points were more exciting to them, they just take for granted that they must be worth more somehow. Or for some, maybe it's thinking that because there is less time to change the outcome now the points matter more somehow. Which overlooks that it was the early points that dictated the current game situation that has to be overcome. They contributed every bit as much to the final outcome.

Edited by GregR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2017 at 8:44 PM, bostonfred said:

Do kneel downs count against fourth quarter qb rating?

They are counted as rushing attempts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

According to Bleacher Report's Mike Freeman, "most teams" think former Cowboys QB Tony Romo "will be back to play again sooner than later."

Freeman spoke to "several front office executives" who said if their starting quarterbacks get hurt, Romo will be the first call they make looking for a replacement. Romo has everything going for him. He doesn't have to practice right now and grind through a training camp, while also knowing he has a check coming from CBS Sports and can come back to the game at any time. Still just 37, Romo, despite multiple back problems, likely has 2-3 good years left.
 
 
May 31 - 1:35 PM

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://youtu.be/eRDxDEhEgNY

I thought Romo's analysis was fascinating when he was describing different defensive schemes and where the offensive play should go to.  Nailed a number of them.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.