Tony Romo is unbelievably underrated in clutch spots

Can you really say i do the same thing with peyton when i think hes arguably the goat qb? Its one thing to have critiques with someones career in specific moments. Its another to act like that defines them. Its just lazy analysis. And i certainly dont do that with peyton or anyone else. Im not the type of fan who needed to see drew brees win a sb before i knew he was more than just "an empty stat qb".

like Jake Plummer in Arizona

In comment 12001166 chris r said:

Quote:

career are the same people who used them last game to say Eli did enough to win even though he made some terribly unclutch plays.

How are "CAREER" stats the same as a single game stats?

And if you actually review Eli's stats last game, they blow out any playoff stats Romo has ever had.

It basically is:
Lets use his regular season stats in non-playoff games, while ignoring his chokes in the games that really count when discussing a player being clutch or not

Not surprised you dont have it right. And i love your lowest common denominator fan point of view when it comes to forming a narrative around a few moments in a long career while dismissing a resume' that someone has compiled over a decade.

Any time a football game is up for grabs in the 4th quarter, tony romo is generally not the guy you want to see on the other teams sideline. The fact that he has a reputation to the contrary is a sign of how dumb and gullible people can be when a narrative is incessantly pushed on them

My first post on this thread was not "a combination of pointless sarcasm with good old fashioned cluelessness." It was a reasonable critique of the narrow parameters you set for this discussion. I clearly questioned more than just the "since 1998" parameter (you ignored the rest), and I did NOT call "Romo's entire career too restrictive a sample" (you made that up). Respond to what I actually wrote, please.

Your criterion for claiming that Romo is "unbelievably underrated in clutch spots" consists of comparing him to all other quarterbacks according to the following:

- since 1998
- passer rating
- in the 4th quarter
- when the score is within 7 points

I challenged those parameters by saying:

- Passer rating doesn't account for fumbles (which he did, for example, late in the division title game in 2011). (Should fumbles factor into this assessment?)
- Big mistakes in the 3rd quarter of close games don't fall into this assessment. (Should they?)
- Big mistakes while down 8-10 points in the 4th quarter also wouldn't fall into this assessment. (Should they?)
- Big mistakes when his team was protecting a small lead late in games also didn't seem to fall into this assessment. (I misunderstood the "within 7 points" part, though. I first thought it meant strictly "trailing by less than 7." But I see on that stats page that it could also mean leading by within 7. So this critique no longer holds, it seems, unless I was right the first time.)

You didn't respond to that critique. When, in subsequent discussion, you added that his postseason sample size is too small to be considered relevant data, I challenged that, too. Why not add it in, if there were any playoff games that fit the parameters? It seemed to me that the statistical focus was getting narrower and narrower to manufacture a particular conclusion.

I also said that Romo is "a very good QB who takes some unwarranted shit, partly because he's the Cowboys QB and is under a microscope." I do not believe that Romo is a choke artist, and I never said or even implied it. But that doesn't seem good enough for you. Anything other than "Yes, Joe. You are absolutely right. Romo is unbelievably underrated in clutch spots" is unacceptable and must be dismissed, with personal digs, if necessary.

Many people would respond to a critique of their discussion criteria by explaining why they chose the criteria they chose and why they excluded other criteria. Some people might even reconsider their criteria in light of a cogent critique.

But I get "you need to learn something about sample sizes." If you're authentically concerned with objective discussion and analysis of this kind of topic, I'd think you'd welcome critiques of your assessment criteria. But I was clearly wrong.

Tony Romo based on his big game history is exactly who I want to see on the other side line

In comment 12001254 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

Can you really say i do the same thing with peyton when i think hes arguably the goat qb? Its one thing to have critiques with someones career in specific moments. Its another to act like that defines them. Its just lazy analysis. And i certainly dont do that with peyton or anyone else. Im not the type of fan who needed to see drew brees win a sb before i knew he was more than just "an empty stat qb".

Okay, so if your point is that "Tony Romo should not be stigmatized as 'unclutch' because it doesn't jive with the facts", then it's a sound one. But that's a separate point from commenting on other parts of his career (like playoff success). Both are realities.

I don't think Peyton is the GOAT. I think Brady & Montana trump him because of post-season success. It matters when evaluating these careers. Peyton's INT in a crucial moment to Tracy Porter, though it doesn't define him, matters when evaluating his overall career.

I could have and probably should have added playoffs. The fact that i didnt was not done to artfully craft any desired conclusion. Especially since adding playoffs would have had virtually no impact at all on the sample given how small the playoff sample is and how large the regular season sample is.

if you think my definition of "clutch time" is too restrictive (ie 4th quarter action, 1 possession game). Feel free to come up with your own criteria. Ill run it, and I have a feeling not much would change provided your sample is healthy enough

In comment 12001289 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

Not surprised you dont have it right. And i love your lowest common denominator fan point of view when it comes to forming a narrative around a few moments in a long career while dismissing a resume' that someone has compiled over a decade. Any time a football game is up for grabs in the 4th quarter, tony romo is generally not the guy you want to see on the other teams sideline. The fact that he has a reputation to the contrary is a sign of how dumb and gullible people can be when a narrative is incessantly pushed on them

Lol..Except you have not done one thing to disprove that rep of his. Look at his key-games record and performances, these are what ultimately determine if a player is truly clutch or not. He has come up small in every game but against us.

In comment 12001316 Exit 172 said:

Quote:

My first post on this thread was not "a combination of pointless sarcasm with good old fashioned cluelessness." It was a reasonable critique of the narrow parameters you set for this discussion. I clearly questioned more than just the "since 1998" parameter (you ignored the rest), and I did NOT call "Romo's entire career too restrictive a sample" (you made that up). Respond to what I actually wrote, please. Your criterion for claiming that Romo is "unbelievably underrated in clutch spots" consists of comparing him to all other quarterbacks according to the following: - since 1998 - passer rating - in the 4th quarter - when the score is within 7 points I challenged those parameters by saying: - Passer rating doesn't account for fumbles (which he did, for example, late in the division title game in 2011). (Should fumbles factor into this assessment?) - Big mistakes in the 3rd quarter of close games don't fall into this assessment. (Should they?) - Big mistakes while down 8-10 points in the 4th quarter also wouldn't fall into this assessment. (Should they?) - Big mistakes when his team was protecting a small lead late in games also didn't seem to fall into this assessment. (I misunderstood the "within 7 points" part, though. I first thought it meant strictly "trailing by less than 7." But I see on that stats page that it could also mean leading by within 7. So this critique no longer holds, it seems, unless I was right the first time.) You didn't respond to that critique. When, in subsequent discussion, you added that his postseason sample size is too small to be considered relevant data, I challenged that, too. Why not add it in, if there were any playoff games that fit the parameters? It seemed to me that the statistical focus was getting narrower and narrower to manufacture a particular conclusion.

What happened Exit is that you blew his argument up and that means in Joe's world you were "a combination of pointless sarcasm with good old fashioned cluelessness".

He can't argue against your points so Joe pulls out the old "Your clueless" smokescreen

In comment 12001154 MarshallOnMontana said:

Quote:

Thats some more moving of the goal posts type nonsense. Tell that to the people When romo throws the pick early in the season vs denver and loses 51-48 and gets lambasted and tagged with another "here goes romo again in the clutch with the game on the line." But if he leads a td drive instead in that exact same spot, im sure its "not really a clutch spot", because ypu judt define it as you go. If romo throws a pick to antrel rolle sunday night on that last drive, im sure the subject of "here goes romo in the clutch" comes up. But when he leads a td drive, its not really a clutch spot this is the nfl. The games are few. The separation is thin. Its clueless to act like big, important, season altering spots dont occur regularly

I don't buy this vague third party you describe that is up in arms over the early season loss as much as Romo's season ending losses. If that's a real group of people, I don't identify with them. Like I said earlier, I happen to think Romo is an excellent quarterback on the whole.

Getting back to what the crux of the argument is, what is clutch and what is not:
From your original post, you claim that clutch is how you perform in the 4th quarter of close games. All I said in my last post is that it matters when that game takes place. You don't know in week 2 of the season if the loss you just sustained was one loss too many. Elimination games are more pressure for that reason, and fans are interested in how guys perform under pressure. It's where reputations are born and Romo is no exception.

And if you think that that doesn't matter, that wins and losses all count the same, then why use aggregate 4th quarter stats as support that Romo is clutch? The (game altering) yards, TDs, and INTs in quarters 1-3 all count as well, right? I think that's acknowledgement on your part that the timing of performance does matter.

Regarding your last paragraph...... Notice how closely romos career clutch time stats (by my definition) resemble his routine production. Passer rating, td vs int ratio, yards per attempt all pretty similar to romo at any random point of the game. And the same could be said for most qbs on the list when the sample is large enough, though there are some exceptions. I dont think its accidental. Because the whole notion of someone bring "clutch" or "anti clutch" is kind of an overrated concept in general. Over enough time, over enough situations, the majority of guys will ascend to or revert to their standard of play. The way people get labels over a handful of games is silly. There is a good degree of randomness and luck at play

of sample size pretty much negates a large portion of the argument.

In football, sample sizes are going to be relatively small. Acting as if sample size has any impact or effect is pure nonsense.

To acknowledge there are serious issues making career defining declarations about guys based on a sample number of games you can count on your fingers. Its nonsense to deny it. And to deny that theres a good chance of pure randomness coming into play. Its a lot easier i suppose to just believe in hocus pocus like clutch genes and chokers. And boil careers down to ring count or playoff records like this is tennis. Definitely a lot easier. But its bullshit.

understand sample sizes, don't understand perception, or willfully don't care to further a certain narrative.

In a game like football where players have a handful of playoff appearances if they are lucky, you are never going to have an adequate sample size. What you are left with is perception.

I don't know why you continue to ignore this as if it doesn't matter.

Perception is what makes or breaks the legacies of many a player.

This thread operates under one main assumption - that Romo isn't very good. Unfortunately, I don't think a single person thinks that. Anything else is simply manuevering or trying to explain around the lack of success Romo has had in critical games.

Not sure why one goes to such great lengths to try and validate this argument. I, much like arc have a pretty damn good idea, but I'm pretty sure quite a few here have that same idea why too.

It borders on a really strange obsession.

This needed to be explained to you by many of us recently on an nba officiating thread. So let me lay it out again. Perception is perception. Reality is reality. There are times when perception can be proven wrong, and in the case of romo in close/tight games, that perception has been proven wrong. Just like your "perception is reality" rants about nba officials calling more fouls than ever. No, actually we can prove that to not only be false, but laughably false. fouls are being called at record lows. But when confronted with that, you dig in. "Perception is reality" just seems like your way of saying "even if im misinformed im still right"

And no shit sherlock, football is set up in a fashion where playoff samples will always be relatively small. Which is all the more reason why in this sport, with its single elimination format, its pretty silly to make such sweeping declarations.

your calling.

Humor me and tell me your idea behind my motivation for this thread

and while youre at it, tell me your motivation for starting "yay! Dangelo hall tore his achilles, karma strikes" threads and then being forced to delete them once confronted with what a miserable dipshit you are? You want to talk about obsessions? Your giant fanboy obsession is so prominent that youre a middle aged man who finds joy in division rivals going down to injury. Humanity goes out the window never mind objectivity. You cant be seen as an unbiased source in any conversation regarding romo. You have a personal policy of literally never knocking the giants for anything ever and pursuing pissing matches with those who do

In comment 12001432 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

of sample size pretty much negates a large portion of the argument. In football, sample sizes are going to be relatively small. Acting as if sample size has any impact or effect is pure nonsense.

Haha..It is obvious to everyone but Joe that just the fact he has such a small sample size with regards to playoff games, completely negates his whole days worth of silly arguments.

Joe:

Quote:

But what about the 11 fourth quarter game winning drives?!? "Fourth quarter game winning drives" is one of the dumbest, misleading stats in football. Take this 2012 game against the Eagles, for example. Note the score, the quarter, and the time left on the clock... Let's watch Romo at his 'Captain Comeback' best. The Cowboys retained the lead for the remaining 13+ minutes of this game, and Romo got credit for a fourth quarter game winning drive. Romo does it again! And then there was this heroic game winning drive with 14:26 left against the Raiders last season... And who can forget the time Romo knelt the ball in the center of the field for a game-winning field goal in overtime after this INT return to the one yard line by Brandon Carr. Watch as Romo sets it up for his kicker to bang in the winning FG. That's true late game magic. But yeah, the notion that Tony Romo often finds a way to lose late in games is a "narrative" invented by haters and absorbed like a sponge by half-wits who don't know squat about football.

There are a ton more gifs and visual evidence of Romo's late game heroics at the following link:


Link - ( New Window )

Because MoM usually has thought provoking OPs as is the case here. Some really good discussion and posts by many posters whom I respect.

But, if I understand the OP correctly, Romo is being touted as an underrated clutch QB based on his 4thQ regular season QB rating.

To completely disregard his performance in "clutch" games, when a season or post-season is on the line, is a major flaw in reaching this conclusion. And it's not based on perception; it's based in reality. Actual results from plays that occurred in big games.

Romo is a very good QB with a proven track record if the measuring stick is the numbers he puts up. But he has yet to prove he is a clutch QB until he comes through when the SEASON is on the line.

I appreciate the effort, but literally none of those instances you just highlighted has a thing to do with anything ive posted. None of them at all. Ive never even once mentioned 4th quarter comebacks or game winning drives. I never credited him for a punt return or a fg drive where he didnt move the ball through the air. Ive stuck to his individual performance in tight games late.

when 4th quarter comebacks, 4th quarter game winning drives, must win games, and playoff performances are off the table?

Everything is on the table to some degree. But your last post is trying to poke weaknesses in arguments that were never made. I assume you never clicked the link in the original post? Because if you did you would be able to see very quickly why nothing you just highlighted applies at all

That post was simply not factual. Romo absolutely did not get credited with a game winning drive in the 2012 game at philly. You can check his pfr page and see. I know you didnt write that, but whoever did just basically outright lied to prove some point about game winning drives being a flawed stat.

Quote:

You have a personal policy of literally never knocking the giants for anything ever and pursuing pissing matches with those who do

I've explained this many times before. Why should I knock things out of my control? Can I bring home a win by rooting harder? If not, should I wish death on reese, hope TC gets the axe, talk about what lazy SOB's we have here, etc.?

Christ, I've seen a bunch of posters talk about players as if they are pieces of shit. Hakeem Nicks has an injury that will have lingering effects for the rest of his life and people pile on him for "quitting".

Maybe it is having the perspective of being around the training room for many years which has allowed me to see the physical sacrifices players make. Maybe it is dealing with former players who will endure an average of 5 post-career surgeries that keeps me from blasting them.

Some people think simply because they root for a jersey that it is OK to make whatever negative comments they want to. I like to point out the hypocrisy in that. The problem is - most people don't like being told that they are a bunch of whining fucks who simply channel their disappointment into making insults against the organization they supposedly root so hard for.

I don't see any positive in knocking the Giants. Hell, we have a bunch of brain-dead schmucks who are still lamenting that Will Hill is gone.

I root for the Giants because it was what was passed down to me and I embraced it. In the meantime, I've seen low times and I've seen 5 SB's. Overall, I'm pretty happy about it. I see little gained in bitching about the people that I devote a great deal of time pulling for. If I'm going to channel anger, I'd rather direct it towards ungrateful fucks. Same outcome, but I don't root for you or them. I root for the giants and I'm damn proud to point that out everytime you start a thread showing your ignorance on QB play - which pops up regularly these days.

Tell me where starting threads gloating about injuries fits in with your unique experience being around training rooms and seeing the sacrifices players make? What a bunch of crap. Youre a mentally unstable fanboy cheerleader passing off your psychosis as admirable. Save it. And your not poking holes in a damn thing with your "perception is reality" nonsense every time something comes forth to make an assertion of yours look foolish

one thread "gloating" about a player getting injured and it was more to lambast the way DeAngelo Hall reinjured himself - in the kitchen of his house.

If you think that is representative of what I normally post than either you don't read many of my posts or it just continues the confirmation bias you seem to use over and over again.

I know people don't like when I challenge what they say - I know that doesn't make me popular. But don't make it sound like I have a history of posting glee at people getting injured. If I'm defined by that one thread, then I've done a really shitty job over the years supporting my positions.

Either that, or I've pissed so many people off they will latch onto anything like that to keep calling me out.

And being completely wrong even after all the attempts to parse the info

Yup its a Joe thread

I like your threads because you offer substance and good discussion, but man you have nothing to add with the Giants anymore. We get a lot of NBA from you, some Cam Newton and touting a rival QB to the Giants. I don't know if you lost the passion, but you used to add excellent Giant discussion regularly.

I literally just saw this typed by the man who started a thread gloating about dangelo hall resnapping his achilles like a week ago

Quote:

Maybe it is having the perspective of being around the training room for many years which has allowed me to see the physical sacrifices players make. Maybe it is dealing with former players who will endure an average of 5 post-career surgeries that keeps me from blasting them

you have got to be fucking kidding me. This is absolutely awesome.

What am i wrong about? Im still waiting for you to offer anything to this thread at all.

if you are going to have one thread define me, then you are grasping at straws.

I already apologized for making the comment. I admitted it was in poor taste and inappropriate.

While that is fucking hilarious to you, it is still more than I can say about your threads.

Hey, but call me a "fanboy" or some other pithy shit. Like I said - if you think calling me a fanboy of the giants is an insult, it gives a really illustrative glimpse into how you feel about the team.

Rooting on concussions to take their toll on brian dawkins post career in that same d. Hall thread. That thread was amazing. Whats more amazing though is having the balls to type something like that drivel quoted above so soon after.

having balls if one latches onto that thread as being indicative of my history.

But then again, you seem to have softer spots for non-Giants than you do the actual players you are supposedly rooting for, so I see where you are coming from.

God help me if I start a thread mocking sanchez, favre, Romo or Cam Newton.

I might get challenged to a fight on the corner of 51st for that faux pas.

Dude it just happened. Literally within the last week or two, and was the last interaction i recall having with you. You act like im digging up ancient history or that ive thrown this in your face before. After reading that nonsense you just posted, the contradiction had to be pointed out. Sorry you dont like being made to look foolish. But its not the first and wont be the last

Im not a fan of sanchez, never have been. And while we are on the topic of latching onto things, you continually misquote things i said on a thread literally half a decade ago (2009) after a vikes/saints nfc title game. This supposed sanchez love among the bizarre claims.

along with fire. FM you have your witty humor that seems insensitive at times. MOM what can I say other then Eli is like Maxwell Smart going against Kaos:he has some dumb luck

and even though it isn't Romo's fault, this perception also exists because every time Dallas is in a big game, they lose. They always lose the big game. Big game for first place today? Right on cue, they are getting their doors blown off.

we all know

missing people all over the place. When Murray isn't running wild Romo looks incredibly average.

He's certainly a top 10 QB thiugh and I don't think he's underrated at all. But I'll think the same about him until he can win a couple playoff games in a row. If he can't do that then what's the point of this thread? Small sample size, sure, but it's the same sample size that we judge all QBs on, especially 10 year veterans.

as football is way too team and luck dependent. Tom Brady was the epitome of clutch except he hasn't won the big one in a decade; Peyton Manning couldn't win the big one for a decade. Eli is incredibly clutch and the guy you want leading your team in big games except for all the must-win games over the last couple of years and every post season appearance or must-win game in his entire career save for two seasons.

It always seems that Romo finds himself in shootouts, requiring him to make many big plays over the course of a game. Those big plays are gained by taking risks. Take enough risks, and any player is bound to fail on occasion.

I am thankful the Cowboys with Romo haven't won the big game, But the idea that Romo is incapable or unclutch is based on a few specific plays he's made while ignoring the majority of his work.

One thing on which I agree with Joe as it applies to all sports discussions on clutch is that the nebulous concept of clutch has its advocates constantly shifting the goalposts and changing what is clutch.

.

Anything 30+ yards down the field looks like a punt.

I respectfully disagree with one point. I feel it is those that dismiss the concept of clutch that change the rules. I've read here that clutch exists in this sport and not that. That clutch is only applicable for this or that. Clutch is obviously impossible to quantify, and it's clearly bandied about more than it should be. But it's impossible to deny that some games are bigger than others and some points in games are bigger than others. Whole statistically the same, 2 free throws in the first quarter are just not the same as 2 to tie the game and send it to overtime. Same with a final at bat or FG attempt.

even though it's really long.

Joe laid out the parameters of clutch for the thread. He said that it was a myth that Tony Romo is a choker, or unclutch, whatever you want to call it.

People pointed out that deserved or not, the perception of Tony Romo is that he can't win the big game (meaning any game of importance, end of season or playoffs), and laid out numerous examples of why he's earned that reputation.

I know it's not over yet, but if the Cowboys don't make the playoffs this year, it will be five straight years without a postseason performance.

Romo has played in 2 or 3 in a row "play in" games at the end of the season, for the past couple of years, and failed.

In his ten year career, he has one playoff win.

The thread title is "Tony Romo is unbelievably underrated in clutch spots".

There really wasn't much goalpost moving, to be honest.

forget clutch this or clutch that. Dallas had a game at home today for first place and they got smoked. That's what I know and that's what I'm used to seeing with this team. Whenever there is a big game on the line with Dallas, they always seem to shit the bed. That's what my eyeballs are telling me.

But this game process nothing about his awesome clutchness. Clearly it wasn't within 7 points in the 4th quarter, with a full moon out, fireworks blasting, fat ladies singing and harps blaring so it doesn't meet the clutch criteria outlined in the first post.

.