How would you include experience in a multivariate model to estimate its independent (ceterus paribus) explaining power, in determining between choosing to play Romo or Dak, and how do you not confound that variable with your own personal opinion, where Romo's years of experience is aliased with your preference for Romo?
I think of a talented painter in his first year of serious study abroad. Then I think of that same painter ten years later. If he isn't noticably better he should have stayed home. I don't prefer Romo. I like this young team and the talent on hand, but I've never rooted for the Cowboys in my lifetime or any particular player on the team.
But then I never rooted for the Niners and I still think Joe Montana is the best qb the league has seen when it mattered most.
I consider Tony's first season as the full time qb (if with less talent than Dak has to work with in support). Then I look at Dak. And I know that experience matters, especially in response to a) pressure and b) responses to defensive schemes.
They both started off great.
Tony: 69.9% comp., 3705 yds, 8.5 avg., 34 tds, 9 ints, 113.2 rating.
Dak: 67.8% comp., 3667 yds, 8.0 avg., 23 tds, 4 ints, 104.9 rating.
Now Dak has big shoes to fill. Romo never had a year of starts where his qb rating wasn't in the 90s. He's had and seen a lot more football than the talented Dak and I think that matters when you're facing the best of your conference. I expect that has something to do with why no rookie qb has advanced to and won a Super Bowl.
My relief is palpable. :think: What's palpable mean, anyway?
