Is this a new and improved Tony Romo because of DeMarco Murray?
by ScarletO on Nov 28, 2011 8:08 AM CST
Email
Print
At the beginning of the season, several Dallas Cowboys players went on the record stating that they expected Tony Romo to have a career season. Jason Witten and Miles Austin voiced their preseason opinions before anybody could imagine what DeMarco Murray could add to the offense.
Tony has exceeded his career quarterback passer rating (94.9) so far this season with a 97.5 passer rating through Thanksgiving. In addition, Romo has a better winning percentage so far this season (63.6%), than during his career prior to this season (61.5%).
So far, it seems that Miles and Jason were Nostradamus-esque with their preseason prediction. But how much of Tony’s perceived improvement as a passer and as a winner is due to the emergence of DeMarco Murray?
In order to have some measure of Murray’s effect on Romo, it was necessary to examine the effect successful running backs have had on successful quarterbacks. A successful running back was defined as a player that rushed for at least 100 yards during a game. A successful quarterback was defined as one that has won a Super Bowl (sans Tom Brady).
Back in October, Tony Romo’s performance was measured against the active Super Bowl winning quarterbacks (excluding Tom Brady) in the NFL. Here is the link:
It is interesting to see how those same quarterbacks flourish collectively when each has the benefit of handing off to a running back that rushes for at least 100 yards. In other words, how does a 100-yard rusher affect the quarterback passer rating of Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees (which as a group will be referred to as SB QB’s in the post)?
The result is unexpected.
Passer rating of SB QB’s when a 100-yard rusher is absent: 91.4
Passer rating of SB QB’s when a 100-yard rusher is present: 91.0
There is statistically no difference between the performance of Super Bowl winning quarterbacks when a running back runs for at least 100 yards, compared to when nobody exceeds 99 yards rushing. Individually, several quarterbacks (Eli and Drew) actually have slightly lower passer ratings when they play with a 100-yard rusher. Conversely, the other quarterbacks (Ben and Aaron) boast better passer ratings when a back rushes for at least 100 yards.
Roethlisberger is the quarterback that most benefits from a 100-yard rusher, as his rating jumps from 91.7 to 101.9. Manning’s rating drops more than the others, from 81.5 to 76.6, when a back breaks 100 yards rushing. Collectively, however, there is no significant difference in how the quarterbacks play when a 100-yard rusher exists as opposed to when nobody gains 100 yards rushing in a game.
So how does Tony Romo compare to the SB QB’s before DeMarco Murray’s amazing ascension?
Passer rating of Tony Romo when a 100-yard rusher is absent: 96.7
Passer rating of Tony Romo when a 100-yard rusher is present: 79.4
Before Murray’s record breaking performance against St. Louis, Romo had a 100-yard rusher in only 15.8% of the games in which Tony played significant minutes. Only Aaron Rodgers has had a lower percentage of games with a 100-yard rusher (14.8%).
Eli Manning has had a running back gain at least 100 yards in 33.3% of the games in which he has led in passing. Ben Roethlisberger has enjoyed having a 100-yard rusher in 36.9% of the games he has played. Drew Brees is in the middle of the SB QB group, with a running back gaining 100 yards or more in 21.2% of the games in which he has played.
While no other quarterback from the SB QB group varies more than 10.2 rating points (Ben), and Eli has the greatest drop of 4.9 rating points, Tony has an extraordinary drop of 17.3 rating points. That is a drop of 17.9% in Romo’s passer rating that in no way corresponds with the results produced by the SB QB’s.
It would be easy to point to this discrepancy and jump to the conclusion that Romo is clearly not a Super Bowl quality quarterback. If that is the case, however, then one would expect that there would be little, if any change in Romo’s performance with a change in running backs. After all, Drew Brees had LaDainian Tomlinson contribute most of his 100-yard rushing efforts, and although Tomlinson was regarded as an elite running back in San Diego, Brees’ passer rating stays relatively stable, only dropping from a 93 to a 91.8 when any running back gains at least 100 yards.
In games where DeMarco Murray has rushed for at least 100 yards, Tony Romo has a passer rating of 125.3. At no time during his career has Romo had a three game series with a 100-yard rusher that has resulted in a higher passer rating. In addition, only twice has Romo had a four game stretch where Tony has had a higher passer rating regardless of whether a running back has run for at least 100 yards or not.
DeMarco’s emergence as a running back has resulted in a swing of 45.9 rating points for Tony Romo. That is a remarkable 57.8% positive change in Romo’s passer rating, and a significant difference.
As referenced at the beginning of the post, however, there is more to playing quarterback in the NFL than passer rating. Many people measure quarterback play in wins and losses.
This is really where a running back rushing for over 100 yards has an impact. Among the SB QB group, there is a significant difference in winning ratio between games with and without a running back gaining at least 100 yards.
Winning ratio of SB QB’s when a 100-yard rusher is absent: .609
Winning ratio of SB QB’s when a 100-yard rusher is present: .814
Prior to the game against St. Louis, Romo’s winning ratio between games with and without a running back gaining at least 100 yards actually drops: staying in line with Tony’s passer rating.
Winning ratio of Tony Romo when a 100-yard rusher is absent: .619
Winning ratio of Tony Romo when a 100-yard rusher is present: .583
Of course, Tony Romo is 3-0 as a quarterback when DeMarco Murray rushes for over 100 yards. Notice how Romo’s winning ratio without a running back gaining at least 100 yards rushing is slightly greater than the SB QB group. Combine that winning ratio with the fact that only Rodgers gets less productivity from his running game, and this goes back to the theory that Romo has had to carry the team more than other quarterbacks (see the link above): and that Tony has done so successfully.
It could be argued that Tony Romo has been the key to the Cowboys offense over roughly the last six seasons. In an effort to stop (or slow down) the prolific Dallas passing attack, some teams over commit to stop the pass, leaving opportunities for average backs to gain an occasional 100 yards. For that reason, Romo has a dip in his passer rating, and the Cowboys tend to lose more than expected.
It has been truly a case of the passing game creating opportunities for the running game, rather than actually having a threatening running game in place. That argument also passes the eye-test when thinking of all the draws, traps, and counters designed to maximize a generally anemic running attack that play off of the success of the passing game.
So is this a new and improved Tony Romo because of DeMarco Murray?
You tell me…
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
69 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No
Same Tony. Same Jason. Both of ’em. Different team, mate. Or is that mates? Team-mates? Singular perhaps, team. Yeah, Team.
Be’s the cause.
Cry 'Havoc!'
I think that
a SB winning QB is more a reflection on the entire TEAM than it is on the QB. Heck, even Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, Brad Johnson, Jim Mcmahon, amd Mark Rypien won Superbowls, and Dan Marino never did.
What helps any QB more than anything in my book is a great Oline, and then next a RB that the Defense has to account for because every team wants to be “Balanced!”
Being able to keep the defense guessing or “honest” is the QB’s, and the Teams best friend. IMHO.
If the play works, never run it again. If it fails, keep running it.
First and goal at the one. Run it three times in a row, and then kick a field goal. Sound familiar?
Slip's showing
So run that by me again why Fouts’ squad has so many SB rings? Mario’s? Need more?
So, I’ll go ya one better, more up-the-ante there, Coach, is a “balanced” team ya want, not this Offense/Defense biased quibble folks get into. And where, just where does that pesky 3rd, them Special folks, fit in?
Ain’t eaxctly a devil’s advocate, more like will o’ the wisp.
Cry 'Havoc!'
Not saying
you cant do it other ways. There is almost always antidotal evidence to things contrary and for the exception.
I stll stand by my statement, but with humble admission that it is just my opinion and that there are always two sides to even the thinnest pancake.
Marino won “inspite” of a lot of things, but that is not saying he couldnt have done better with more help.
If the play works, never run it again. If it fails, keep running it.
First and goal at the one. Run it three times in a row, and then kick a field goal. Sound familiar?
About the "Balanced" statement....
What I mean by “Balanced” is to be able to keep the defense guessing by having a good enough running game to keep the defense from just loading up and pinning their ears back and killing the QB because they know your not able to run the ball.
If the play works, never run it again. If it fails, keep running it.
First and goal at the one. Run it three times in a row, and then kick a field goal. Sound familiar?
Understood what you meant...
… by “balanced”, its context and all the rest. ‘Twas merely a quick light comment indicating there’re other sides to the ball, to a team, that need just as much, perhaps more, to be “balanced” within the whole.
The whole Offense/Defense primacy debate, be it player, side of the ball, whatever, has long amused me. Interested and amused at the same time. And there’s ST sitting off to the side, the middle-child.
I get that you and others are talking in a more restrictive context in such comments, this one being offensive side related. Just keeping the big picture as the prime factor.
Cry 'Havoc!'
Agree whole heartedly
Could not agree more with what Coach Gary wrote. Tony Romo does not win or loose games, the Dallsa Cowboys do. Same for every other team out there. I do think Damarco Murray’s emergence has helped the team tremendously but to me the biggest factor for the team right now is the O-line. I don’t think this O-line is where it wants to be, or where it will be this time next season, but they are much better off than what they have been for the past few years. I have no explanation for what happened to the Cowboys last season, but the previous 3 years before that the O-line started seasons out playing pretty good but just got beat up & tired by season’s end. The play-off loss to the Giants a couple of season’s back was mostly on the O-line sprinkled with a couple of unexplainable drops from Crayton.
No way....Romo has always been great
Having a dependable back obviously helps him a bit, but the reason Romo is a great qb is because of his talent as an an extremely accurate passer and his jedi like elusiveness in the pocket.
What having a good running back does is allow Romo to hand off at the end of ball games when we get a lead and have the back finish games.
Romo is a great qb no matter who is lined up behind in the backfield.
In Romo we Trust
Yeah, yeah, we get it, Oh Blinded by the Light of Tony's Brillance and Greatness One
It’s Tony. All Tony. Nobody else, nothing else, he’s not part of a team, he IS the team. All by his lonesome. Only reason the other 10 go out on the field with him is to avoid the flag. Oh wait, that’s too MANY… – hmmm, guess that throws a monkey-wrench into this all-Tony-all-the-time nonsense.
You are gonna flog this one Tony pony you hit on to death. Hell, if he came to you in a vision, even in person, and told ya you were just plain wrong on this, on him even, you’d tell the man himself he was wrong. That it’s all him. Talk about being FoS.
Sure am glad he’s not as full of himself as you are on him.
Cry 'Havoc!'
Is the constant taunting necessary? What do you care if he worships Romo? At
least go after those who endlessly and mindlessly hate on him with the same vigor, then it would at least be fair.
Is the constant fellatio of Romo necessary?
The post does not say Romo sucks. It is not even critical of the guy. It says that the recent improved play (which was excellent to begin with) may be in part due to having a credible running threat to go along with Romo’s remarkable skills as a QB, and like clockwork, we get the Romo Fellaters chiming in with “NO ONE MAKES ROMO BETTER BECAUSE IT IS UNPOSSIBLE TO IMPROVE UPON THE SUPERCALIFRAGILISTICEXPEALIDOCIOUSNESS THAT IS THE AWESOMENSNESS OF TONY ROMO!!!!!”
Romo has played exceptionally well the last few weeks, even by his lofty standards. It is a fair question to ask why that is so.
Lifelong Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/
I would love to show you the finer points to a muay thai clinch whipped knee to the face seanrude
by matt575 on Nov 22, 2011 3:09 AM EST
You know what, Sean? Everyone knows Terry thinks Romo walks on water.
But you might want to re-read his post. He neither attacked the OP nor was rude about it, unlike you and tan. He just expressed an opinion, which, last I looked, everyone agreed was allowed on this board. Please don’t come at me shouting about oral sex just to prove how clever you are, okay? I don’t deserve it as a response to what I said.
I am not shouting at you about oral sex. Fellater is the term I use for those who throw around the term 'Hater' whenever someone is insufficient obsequious in their kowtowing before Romo
Read the Original Post. The guy does not attack Romo, doesn’t say he sucked before Murray showed up, nothing like that, and yet here come the Fellaters to say that the sun shines out of Romo’s ass, as if any light falling on Murray would somehow diminish the North Star that is Romo.
Fernie, I have no idea if you fall into the Fellater’s camp, and am not going to bother finding out either, but do you really believe that inquiring about the possible reasons for the team’s improved play is out of bounds if the answer may be something other than HOLY CRAP ROMO IS AWESOME?
Lifelong Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/
I would love to show you the finer points to a muay thai clinch whipped knee to the face seanrude
by matt575 on Nov 22, 2011 3:09 AM EST
That's funny. There must be other meanings for "fellater" than those involving
oral sex. You’re using about the most degrading terminology possible to describe someone whose opinion you disagree with. I’ll say it again, show me where Terry attacked the OP. He didn’t accuse the OP of attacking Romo. He thinks the sun shines out of Romo’s como se llama. SO WHAT? Disagree and move on. You don’t like Terry’s labels? Then why be a hypocrite and do the same thing?
I certainly could have been much more degrading, had I tried
I am not denying that fellatio is a term for oral sex; My point was that I was not shouting it at you specifically.
Would “Ass Kisser” have been less offensive to your tender sensibilities?
Terry does not address any of the points raised in the original post, instead coming in with his stock answer of ROMO IS AWESOME BECAUSE HE IS AWESOME. The odd thing is that if the subject is other than Romo, Terry is fairly insightful, but as soon as Romo gets anywhere near the picture, all objectivity is gone, and he goes in to Mormon Tabernacle Mode singing the praises of Romo. So yeah, if Terry is going to constantly question everyone who dares to rise with something less than the full choir singing the praises of his pal Romo, I am going to bust his balls for it.
By the way, Terry is a big boy, thick skinned and quite capable of defending himself, and does it quite often if he feels the need to. I hope you got a nice fat retainer to stand up for him.
Lifelong Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/
I would love to show you the finer points to a muay thai clinch whipped knee to the face seanrude
by matt575 on Nov 22, 2011 3:09 AM EST
No retainer. I'd even stand up for you if someone were that rude to you
on such a regular basis. I’m nice that way.
BTW, just out of curiosity, does tan have you on retainer? Seems
to me he’s as capable of defending himself, not that I attacked him in any fashion, as you say Terry is.
One, nope, no retainer, no need
Two, if you feel rudeness in my comment to Terry, examine your own predeliction to Romo defence and praising, then ask yourself if you’d feel the same if the comment was directed towards a Vick supporter regarding McCoy, or a Brees supporter regarding Sproles or a… – get it?
Three, I figure Terry’s capable of telling me himself if his feelings got hurt, if he feels picked on because of any comment or anything of the like.
And in case you haven’t clued on it yet, I treat blind idol worship of the individual, not merely Romo-related, in such ways. This cult of celebrity, sports-related or not, the deification of the indivudual, is a serious flaw in us as individuals ourselves and in our society as a whole. Additionally, Sean and I have had our differences of opinion in the Past, will likely in the Future, and I doubt either of us will whine or cry about it or need anyone else to do it for us.
So, you’re ok with Terry flogging the Tony pony to death, but someone naysaying doing such is wrong. Interesting.
Cry 'Havoc!'
One, nope, no retainer, no need
Two, if you feel rudeness in my comment to Terry, examine your own predeliction to Romo defence and praising, then ask yourself if you’d feel the same if the comment was directed towards a Vick supporter regarding McCoy, or a Brees supporter regarding Sproles or a… – get it?
Three, I figure Terry’s capable of telling me himself if his feelings got hurt, if he feels picked on because of any comment or anything of the like.
And in case you haven’t clued on it yet, I treat blind idol worship of the individual, not merely Romo-related, in such ways. This cult of celebrity, sports-related or not, the deification of the indivudual, is a serious flaw in us as individuals ourselves and in our society as a whole. Additionally, Sean and I have had our differences of opinion in the Past, will likely in the Future, and I doubt either of us will whine or cry about it or need anyone else to do it for us.
So, you’re ok with Terry flogging the Tony pony to death, but someone naysaying doing such is wrong. Interesting.
Cry 'Havoc!'
Actually, I don't get it. I'm talking about a personal attack.
Terry “flogging the Tony pony” does not necessarily involve telling anyone on this board that they’re full of **** for their opinion, which is what you did and what Terry did not. And actually, at times, when Terry has gotten personal, and I’ve been around, I’ve asked him to can it. I find it interesting that you can’t tell the difference between the person and the opinion. What I do get is that Terry always seems to be fair game. Most times, everyone, and that includes me, lets it go because he picks fights, and he can fight his own battles as you and Sean have pointed out. But this time it was so unprovoked, it bugged me.
I always thought of you as a fairly polite, reasonable poster, but I’ve noticed that your attacks on Terry have gotten more and more pointed and strident lately, and you don’t even wait for him to say something truly offensive. Like I said, I don’t get it.
Uhhh yeah, right...
First, I’ve said before I get a kick outta Terry, find amusement in the loyalty taken to farcical levels, even like what I know of the guy, the “person”, though, come on, “person”? In these internet comment exchanges? Give me a break. Personal attack? An even bigger one.
What, the Romodar, Terryfying, such things aren’t perceived as homages to his blind adoration of the guy? They’re “attacks”? When he’s being “called out”, chided actually not “called out”, to maybe let go of the joke that these Romo-love comments are and perhaps comment on how Tony fits into the team with his team-mates, that’s “attack”? Titling him “Blinded by hte Light”? Pony flogging?
Lighten up.
Cry 'Havoc!'
to be honest, idk what a personal attack on here is anymore
I am not contributing to this conversation between you and Tan, I just wanted to really say that I have no idea what constitutes a personal attack on here anymore
Bruce Carter+Sean Lee=BRUCE LEE!!!!
RDD=REAL DEAL DEMARCO!!!!
by Archie Barberio on Nov 29, 2011 2:27 PM CST up reply actions
Remember when I apologized to you for getting
personal that one time? I felt like I was criticizing you and not just disagreeing with your opinion, so I believed I was out of line. I think telling someone they are FoS is personal. But you know what? It also seems to revolve around who you’re treating that way. Terry is fair game, apparently, while others aren’t. I’m with you; it’s hard to tell.
BS
I’m FoS. Trouble is I admit it. So I don’t get bent outta shape if anyone thinks it, says it or “attacks” me. It’s ok, ‘cuz I know who and what I am and it doesn’t require external validation, vilification or verification, either good or bad. I handle that all just fine myself and to a more extreme, more accurate and more intense degree than any outside source will ever be capable of doing. Most especially on the grasping regrets and living with the responsibility for having brought them into being.
What some anonymous internet name has to say about it matters little. Might be an idea to adopt a similar attitude, though I’d not wish the behind-the-scenes for it on my worst enemy.
This’s leisurely entertainment, occasionally meaningful in a human empathic sharing, even in being-at-odds, sometimes lighthearted, sometimes not, sometimes even compassionate, but it’s not life and death.
So, you say “Terry is fair game, apparently, while others aren’t”, Fernie. Who exactly isn’t in your book? So I understand the double-standard that’s “supposed” to be applied, given that I consider anyone posting here or anywhere on the internet, standing up in public forum online or off, voicing an opinion, exercising free speech in the slightest manner “fair game”, myself first and foremost.
So, please, clue me in on the “rules”, as you see them. Maybe there’s wisdom there I’d se worthy of adopting.
Cry 'Havoc!'
Here you go:
This from community guidelines:
Personal attacks are verboten. Name-calling, stalking people only to belittle them, overly harsh criticisms, and similar actions are not tolerated. The rule should always be – argue the message, not the messenger. If you argue the content of someone’s post, you’re giving us all a contrary view-point, perhaps dropping knowledge on us along the way. If you argue the messenger, then you’re just trying to make yourself feel better by belittling your target or trying to get cheap laughs at their expense. It’s counter-productive, self-indulgent and pathetic. Don’t do it.
Now, you lighten up. I’m admitting I’m not perfect and have violated this, as I told Chia. All we can do is do our best. Do I think this rule, and it is a rule, is often violated? Yes. Do I think some people get rougher treatment than others? Yes. Should that happen? No. But it is what it is. If you think you’re fine, good for you. Carry on.
Ok then
I’d have to say this post is spittle out of context with the stats too. Now sb qb had obviously a good year his sb year and usually after too so a good win say 14+ points the run numbers will be higher than a close win or even a loss. So these stats can actually never work out the way you had tried to make them. To many factors involved.
by Sado44 on Nov 28, 2011 9:44 AM CST via mobile reply actions
i think youre making the point i was going to but ill elaborate
im not sure if i have read anywhere definitively, but are we sure 100+ yard rushing games lead to winning or is it winning that leads to 100+ yards rushing.
obviously games like against the rams had our running back gaining yards consistently throughout the game. But against the dolphins, 30% of murray’s yards came in the last 3 minutes of the game. (granted he only rushed for 87 yards, but we also weren’t leading the entire second half). I’d be interested into seeing more research into this.
I'm willing to bet Romo's career day against the Bills had something to do with Murray
"Our guys are gonna be good, and we know it. So that ain't talkin'. That's just the (bleepin') way it is." - Rob Ryan
"There is a wide range of activities between a drunken rape festival and playing hide & seek in the woods." - Seanrude
perhaps
rather than just looking at one back who goes over 100 yards, it’d be more helpful to look at the team’s overall rushing performance for that day. Especially in this day with multiple backs – if you’ve got 2 guys who go for 80 yards and a third who runs for 40, you’re missing a dominant run game because no one ran for 100 yards.
i think your original question is good but not sure if your stats tell the whole story.
Is Romo better because of Murray? No. He's a really good QB regardless of the
running game. Does he get more opportunities to show his stuff with a better running game? I believe so. If you have to account for a credible play action scenario, does that not make everyone think twice before dropping into coverage? It just makes the offense more complex.
I think this last game demonstrated the way a good passing game opens up the run game; that last drive worked because Romo completed those passes to Witten. Once that threat was established once again, things opened up for Murray to move the ball.
I can’t help but feel that it’s a symbiotic relationship, and it’s very difficult to say whether the chicken or the egg comes first. Take what the D is giving, make it work, and then use the rest of your arsenal to deliver the kill shot. (Was that imagery too dramatic and/or violent?)
BTW, I should clarify that when I say "no," I mean that I don't think Romo has suddenly
developed heretofore unknown abilities because of Murray. What I do think is that a better running game makes is possible for the offense to be two dimensional and for Garrett really to open up the playbook. That makes everything work better.
Àll defenses has its weaknesses
If you are balanced enough to be able to switch hit on a defense then your not left playing to there strength. Makes game planning and execution easier. Although even with the elite qbs a good run game means blown 4th quarter leads are very very rare and if it is blown most the time its not the qbs fault the blame is usually passed onto the coach or another unit. Which in the end makes your qb look that much better after a loss.
by Sado44 on Nov 28, 2011 3:32 PM CST via mobile reply actions
It's about offensive dimensions
If an offense can remain credible in multiple dimensions (i.e. running inside, running outside, passing over the top, passing down the seam, etc.), it keeps opposing defenses guessing and, in all likelihood, on their heels.
If, however, an offense cannot remain credible in these facets, they become more predictable. The fact of the matter is that, generally speaking, any good defense can overcommit and take away one element of your offense. If you cannot make that defense pay by being prolific in the other dimensions, you will likely succumb.
Unless you’re Green Bay.
So, I think DeMarco Murray deserves a ton of credit for THE OFFENSE’s performance. It’s not that Tony Romo is doing anything markedly different, but rather that he’s been afforded opportunities to be successful that were not there before Murray arrived on the scene. It shoudl be noted that he’s also not being asked as often to do things that put him at risk of failing.
Great post, SO.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
I agree with the dimensions part
its good having balance and more wrinkles to your offense
imagine having Miles and Fiammetta back too?
it would be a really balanced offense that has a big play capability down the field via the air attack
Bruce Carter+Sean Lee=BRUCE LEE!!!!
RDD=REAL DEAL DEMARCO!!!!
by Archie Barberio on Nov 28, 2011 6:50 PM CST up reply actions
Hey, guys.
I was thinking, We have had a split backfield for most of Tony’s games. We average over 100 yds/game rushing during his tenure, pretty sure. Tony’s drop may happen because we have fielded a pretty patchwork, sandlot offense during his tenure and adding a focal point may make us predictable. Maybe our defense sees a rushing game and takes a break. Or maybe Romo subscribes to my Rat theory and drops off if he is not leading…
Manning relies on his running game…
Rodgers is the man, but we can beat the Pack if our secondary is healthy.
What a great four weeks to be a Cowboys fan, huh? All the ups and downs, none of the losses… We are in great position. Our losses have been to quality opponents, good tiebreakers, Giants play the Pack next and have started thier slide. If the ’9ers did not have such a weak schedule I would be contemplating a bye-week…
I smell something... It smells like... hope. And BBQ.
by BlueNSilverBlood on Nov 29, 2011 12:17 AM CST up reply actions
That's the problem
Our losses have been to quality opponents. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
great fudging point man
all of our losses have been to good teams at least
Bruce Carter+Sean Lee=BRUCE LEE!!!!
RDD=REAL DEAL DEMARCO!!!!
by Archie Barberio on Nov 29, 2011 2:28 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, I totally agree,
but early season losses to good opponents are the easiest to swallow l-O …
I smell something... It smells like... hope. And BBQ.
by BlueNSilverBlood on Nov 29, 2011 8:50 PM CST up reply actions
where in the heck have you been?
Bruce Carter+Sean Lee=BRUCE LEE!!!!
RDD=REAL DEAL DEMARCO!!!!
by Archie Barberio on Nov 29, 2011 2:28 PM CST up reply actions
haha
I’m back in the states, Chiaman. Been bouncing around friends’ houses because I’m in school. Graduate in a few weeks, pretty stoked. Everything is blessed, for sure.
I’ve been missing all you BTBers, glad to be back.
I smell something... It smells like... hope. And BBQ.
by BlueNSilverBlood on Nov 29, 2011 8:49 PM CST up reply actions
Romo is the same
great player that he’s been since he became the starter. Although I’ll say he’s smarter.
But the great thing about Murray is that, now unlike the last few years, Romo doesnt have to do everything. He can hand the ball off and know that the job will be done. The offense is more balanced. He’s not having to throw the ball 45 times as he’s done before, more throws allows more chance to make a mistake. The offense doesnt ride solely on Romo’s arm anymore.
Romo has always been a great player, that can be extremely lethal. The combination of Murray makes him lethaler(?)
"Accept the challenges so that you can feel the exhilaration of victory." - General George S. Patton.
yes
thats kinda what I am leaning towards
for years Romo has had to do all of the work with a limited running attack, now he has it
its just good for everyone involved
Bruce Carter+Sean Lee=BRUCE LEE!!!!
RDD=REAL DEAL DEMARCO!!!!
by Archie Barberio on Nov 28, 2011 6:51 PM CST up reply actions
What did Terrell Davis do for Elway ?
Romo is good. Elway was far beyond good. Bellcow rb and bam. 2 rings. Having a bellcow back which so many of u opposed on this blog matters. All this rbc crap discombobulated the offense. The offense has rythym with a real rb.
Now if we ever got a real nt you all would see the same difference on d. Don’t tell me Rat is great and all that junk. Rat is a good player who would benefit even greater from a huge powerful nt.
Jerry is the end all in Dallas.
I would take a real pass rusher opposite Ware and a better secondary
if we had that, this team should win the Super Bowl, if they had those pieces with the ones they had now and they didnt win a super bowl i would just give up because thats all we really need
Bruce Carter+Sean Lee=BRUCE LEE!!!!
RDD=REAL DEAL DEMARCO!!!!
by Archie Barberio on Nov 28, 2011 9:39 PM CST up reply actions
Chis if we get a real nt and move Rat to full time de. There is your pass rusher.
Jerry is the end all in Dallas.
by football mensa on Nov 29, 2011 5:10 AM CST up reply actions
Chia not chis. LOL
Jerry is the end all in Dallas.
by football mensa on Nov 29, 2011 5:11 AM CST up reply actions
who is this Chis you speak of? lol
Bruce Carter+Sean Lee=BRUCE LEE!!!!
RDD=REAL DEAL DEMARCO!!!!
by Archie Barberio on Nov 29, 2011 2:30 PM CST up reply actions
you know
I have been back and forth on that issue (yes, my opinion changes on that) and I have no idea what to do there
personally, I kinda agree with drafting a NT and moving him to DE but I am going to be bashed to death for it and I really dont want to argue about it, its just my opinion
Bruce Carter+Sean Lee=BRUCE LEE!!!!
RDD=REAL DEAL DEMARCO!!!!
by Archie Barberio on Nov 29, 2011 2:30 PM CST up reply actions
Ah Chia I don't care who bashes me.
Personell wise all of us have misses. Fundamentally tho a bellcow does wonders for a good qb. All I ever saw posted was Garrett likes the rbc. We are better with rbc. Balh blah blah. All that crap is bunk. Posters on this site bashed away. Now look everyone is all over Murray’s nuts.
Same for a true nt. We draft Poe in the second round and you watch how big of a difference he makes on the d line. I am not so high on Tamau. When rat is one on one he is the mist disruptive d lineman we have. Free him and let him go.
Jerry is the end all in Dallas.
by football mensa on Nov 29, 2011 5:58 PM CST up reply actions
another way to think of it
is get Rat off the field on 1st and short yardage downs. He can still rush inside from NT/DT on 2 and 3 downs.
I think next year is our year
we get a better player than Spencer at OLB, add a ball hawk or cover corner to the secondary and replace Kosier at G with either a nice draft pick or free agent signing
then we come back with a healthy Fiammetta
Romo and the air attack paired with Murray and Fiammetta in the run game
Ware and another pass rusher, with upgrades in the secondary
this can be done in one draft and actually SPENDING some money in free agency at a few key spots
then we have all the pieces, if we couldnt win a super bowl then, I would give up because then this team is never going to win anything
they would have the QB, coaching and talent to win the super bowl, no excuses
Bruce Carter+Sean Lee=BRUCE LEE!!!!
RDD=REAL DEAL DEMARCO!!!!
by Archie Barberio on Nov 28, 2011 9:43 PM CST up reply actions
safetys really cant play the position anymore so i rather see a cover corner
the NFL has all but taken the Safety position out the game & unless you get sure fire E.Berry, Ed Reed or Troy Palamalu then never reach or overpay for one.
DL, LBs, CBs >Safeties
Every team has a great gameplan until they get Punched in the Mouth. Sean Lee is a welcomed addition at ILB & Kegabear's prediction about Spencer looks spot on so far.
Short memory?
How’d we do with poor Safety play last season?
And Elam is definitely not a ball hawking, cover corner type Safety. Yet, the secondary play is better this season. The NFL may have nearly eliminated the “enforcer type” Safeties. But, you still need that smart, tough individual that isn’t afraid to stick their nose in there against a 250lb+ TE or 230lb RB running at full gallop and can still hang in the same zip code with a WR.
Rabid and luvin' it
Balance and Risk
Romo makes Murray better and Murray makes Romo better.
A strong running game always helps a quarterback and it has certainly hepled Romo. He has played outstanding recently, and I believe it is because he can play with less risk and the team can still have major offensive success. There is a balance to the team now – a real threat to move the chains both running and throwing the ball. I don’t have the numbers, but we seem to be staying away from 3rd and long more now, and that helps every quarterback. On 3rd and 3 or 3rd and 4, we have a real threat to pick-up the first down by running. That is a huge help to the passing game.
The dual threat also helps the o-line because the defense can’t stack the line to stop the run and also has fewer opportunities to come hell-bent after the quarterback. It’s no coincidence that the vast improvement to the o-line happened as Murray and the running game came alive.
As we move into cold weather December, the ability to run the ball and stop the run will become even more important. As I look at how Dallas matches up with GB and NO, the ability to consistently and successfully run the ball will be paramount to winning.
wow...a comment from Louie without any Romo hate
Gotta write this one the calendar as I doubt we’ll ever see it again.
In Romo we Trust
yep
we seem to be staying away from 3rd and long more now, and that helps every quarterback. On 3rd and 3 or 3rd and 4, we have a real threat to pick-up the first down by running. That is a huge help to the passing game.
No stats to back it up here either, but I’m seeing the same thing.
Murray reminds me of what MB3 was supposed to be. Hes finishing off nearly every run. He gets tons of extra yardage after contact. Though hes clearly more explosive than Barber.
Garrett likely feels more free to call runs because he can have confidence that our back is going to find his way back to the line of scrimmage even if the blocking sucks (though the blocking has noticably improved)
+1
this teams starting to figure out who they are & dare i say there even getting hot at the right time!
Every team has a great gameplan until they get Punched in the Mouth. Sean Lee is a welcomed addition at ILB & Kegabear's prediction about Spencer looks spot on so far.
play faking to DeMarco and
play faking to Felix is much more effective and helps Romo, a run game which we now have will help the QB…any QB. Murray even makes the O-Line look better.
I'll tell you what though, nobody executes the fake in a play-action better than Romo...
…so it makes it that much more effective when we have a true threat that he’s faking to!
Same play calling, but the running part of it is actually working for a change. Remember
the Pats game? The run game actually works, and the Cowboys win.
There is so much off with this analysis.
- Why only look at those four QBs? Do Brady and Peyton no longer count as SB winning QBs?
- Why only games where one RB has 100 yards, and not the team as a whole? Is there any difference between when Bradshaw gets 100 yards on 20 carries versus Bradshaw with 75 yards on 15 carries and Jacobs 25 yards on 5 carries? The Pats, Giants, Packers, Saints, and Cowboys have all been mainly RB-by-committee in recent years.
- QB Rating is a terrible way to evaluate a QB’s performance because it’s a bad statistic. A QB that throws for ZERO yards or TDs but completes all of his passes will have a QB rating of 79. Use Yards Per Attempt (YPA), Net Yards Per Attempt (NYA, which includes sacks) or Adjusted Net Yards Per Attempt (ANYA, which includes TDs and Ints).
- Finally, no, Romo is not better because of Murray. Romo and the passing offense has been doing just as well as it has been for the past few years. The reason why we’re winning now is because the defense is playing better.
2011 – 7.3 NY/A, 7th Overall
2010 – 7.1 NY/A, 5th Overall if Romo had played enough to qualify
2009 – 7.3 NY/A, 6th Overall
2008 – 7.1 NY/A, 9th Overall
2007 – 7.4 NY/A, 3rd Overall
- Any Questions?
theres more factors to winning then the QBs rating lol
having Murray has elavated this teams play on offense & a good solid offense that can drive the ball 7, 8, 9 ,10 plays for a TD will help the defense.
Murray, Lee & Robinson are huge breakout players for this team. i think those players a huge reason Dallas has a chance to win it all once in the playoffs.
no team wants to see a healthy Dallas Cowboys in the playoffs this season. imo i think if someones going into Green Bay & knock off the Packers its going to be Dallas or the 49ers.
Every team has a great gameplan until they get Punched in the Mouth. Sean Lee is a welcomed addition at ILB & Kegabear's prediction about Spencer looks spot on so far.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- How Kyle Orton almost cost the Colts Andrew Luck
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
