Clutch game (1 Viewer)

[bostonfred]

I really agree with a lot of Maurile's points. People, especially QBs, are labeled with clutch/choker labels over extremely small sample sizes.

I think the whole thing means that the QB position is given way too much credit for a team's success. I think anyone who doesn't think that Peyton Manning could have won all of the same Super Bowls that Brady did, had Manning had the same defense/team surrounding him, is wrong. I guess I lean more toward the QB who puts up great statistics and leads his team to wins throughout the regular season. Just like FF, it's about getting to the dance and then it's a crapshoot a lot of the time in post season head to head matches.

How is it that we're giving the quarterback too much credit for the team's success? When Manning has playoff games with numbers that are standards of deviation worse than his regular season numbers, it seems reasonable to look for a cause. It's not the 4 INTs against the Pats in 2003. It's the fact he only had 10 INTs the whole 2003 season, but had four when he ran into the Patriots. You could argue that the Patriots defense was just that good, but how many 4 INT games did the Patriots have that season?

In 2004, Manning had six games of 4 TDs or better in the regular season. When he put up a 4 TD game against Denver, it wasn't a huge surprise. When he led the Colts to three points against the Patriots, it was only a surprise to people who thought, wow, what a small but irrelevant sample size.

But it stands to reason that Manning's numbers will look worse in a loss. Well, here's Manning's numbers in each of his team's last twelve losses with him at QB:

yard td int

256 2 1

368 3 0

472 5 1

293 1 1

347 2 2

278 4 1

146 0 0

336 1 2

237 1 4

238 0 1

290 1 0

Take a look at those and tell me if you can spot the playoff losses. Hint: they were his 9th, 10th, and 11th worst individual games during that time.

Of course, it stands to reason that he would do worse against the Patriots. But wait, here are his statistics in losses to the Pats during the regular season: 256/2/1 and 278/4/1.

And this trend appears to continue back well before 2003, when Manning passed for a total of one touchdown in his first three playoff games on sub 50% passing for less than 190 yards per game.

It's easy to explain the numbers by saying, well, even Manning has an off day. It's harder when he has significantly more off days in the playoffs than in the regular season, his worst off days are during the playoffs. It's easy to explain the numbers by saying, well, even Manning has an off day against top teams. It's harder to explain those numbers when Manning has had very good games against those same top teams in the regular season.

 

[bostonfred]

Hey BF,

We agree most of the time, and I think your first paragraph is right on. The second paragraph consists of interest, but nonetheless unsupported, statements. Your gut tells you they're true; mine needs to see something before I'd believe it.

1) Difference between playoff games and regular season games -- I'm not sure people prepare or play significantly differently for strategic reasons.

Sure they do. First of all, people have more game film to study for playoff games, by virtue of the fact that it's later in the season, but also because, if things have gone well, they'll have had time to do scouting on likely playoff opponents. Second of all, it's impossible for everyone to give 100% every week. That's why teams come out flat during trap games, which has allowed Vegas to build all those lovely sportsbooks.

Of course, not every player on the team is going to fall for the trap game. I'm sure there are some highly motivated players who don't. But it's foolish to assume that all professional football players play all 16 games at maximum intensity.

Similarly, if a player gets nicked up in the regular season, the coach may be more likely to rest them than in a playoff game. Or to open up the playbook for something they've been saving for just this occasion.

There's a long list of things that could reasonably be expected to be different in a playoff game, and while that statement may not have predictive value (I don't know which coaches are going to bring out which trick plays in which playoff games or how well they'll work) it suggests that the specific case of a playoff game MAY BE predictable as a meaningful subset of the larger sample size.

2) You say that some players respond well to the pressure in different ways. I've heard it argued before that some players respond well to the pressure right up until the point when they don't respond well to the pressure. Basically, I need some sort of evidence that past data on how a player responds to pressure has predictive value. It wasn't too long ago that Bill Cowher would have been considered someone that didn't respond well to the pressure.

Maybe Cowher doesn't respond well to pressure, and the pressure from Bettis's retirement motivated them in a way that Cowher couldn't. Or maybe it was Kordell Stewart that didn't respond well to pressure. Or maybe that Roethlisberger does. Or maybe it's that Cowher had an 8-8 postseason record going into last year, with many of those losses by a touchdown or less, so the data set we had on him seemed less compelling than, for example, Manning, who has playoff loss numbers that are statndards of deviation worse than his regular season numbers.

Just because you can find an example of someone who experienced postseason success after getting labelled a choker, doesn't mean that there are no chokers.

3) Some players struggle more against playoff caliber teams than others -- I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I believe you're using playoff caliber as a proxy for "good", and that works just fine. Basically, it sounds like you're saying the following is fairly likely:

QB X vs. Good D: 200 yards, 2 TDs

QB X vs. Bad D: 300 yards, 3 TDs

QB Y vs. Good D: 100 yards, 1 TD

QB Y vs. Bad D: 400 yards, 4 TD

Let's assume that's what you're saying (hopefully you'll point out my error if I'm wrong). (snip)

Without any evidence though, I'm far from convinced that past games against great Ds is the better projecting tool than past games period.

Sorry. I was talking about players who struggle against specific playoff caliber Ds. Some guys have trouble with specific teams, like Favre with Dallas, or Manning with New England.

 

[H.K.]

The Colts had the #2 defense for points allowed last season, they almost went undefeated and had the #1 seed and homefield throughout the playoffs. Therefore, saying Manning hasn't had a good enough TEAM around him to win it all compared to Brady's Patriots is flawed.

The greatest players raise the level of their game at the most important moments, Brady has led his team to wins when it mattered most. So far Manning has not.

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

No one has more love and appreciation for Tom Brady than I do but I have to agree with djcolts earlier sentiments that this subject has been beaten to a pulp. Both Manning & Brady are terrific qbs and reasonable case can be made for both. I think you know which way I would go on this

There is no denying that the stars have aligned for Brady since he joined the NFL but those who think he is just "lucky" should remember that luck is a by-product of hard work and preparation. No one outworks or out prepares this guy, what he lacks in athletic ability he makes up for in determination and intelligence.

Manning is the best passer in the league and a tremedously talented qb who with the right quality of players around him is certainly more than capable of leading his team to a SB victory. However, I do feel his contract demands (greed) have and will continue to have a negative effect on the quality of players around him which will hurt his chances of ever winning a SB.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The Colts had the #2 defense for points allowed last season, they almost went undefeated and had the #1 seed and homefield throughout the playoffs. Therefore, saying Manning hasn't had a good enough TEAM around him to win it all compared to Brady's Patriots is flawed.

This is the first year that the Colts D was even average. They were great to start the year and faded towards the end. Overall they may have finished #2 in PA, but they were not the #2 defense heading into the playoffs. Not even close.

 

[yetiknight]

I was a Manning defender up until last year. Brady carried his offense all year while his defense played inconsistantly. Took his team to the playoffs, but lost on the road to a better TEAM. It was a complete role reversal for Brady.

On the other hand, Manning had the best TEAM in the league and still lost "at home" to the same defensive scheme that beat him the previous two seasons. His defense didn't play great, but gave him plenty of opportunity to win. Even the most unbelievable sequence of events in his favor couldn't produce a clutch moment for the future HOF quarterback.

People have argued for a long time that switching places with these two guys would get you this result. It doesn't need to be discussed anymore.

 

[slayer666]

Peyton Manning is the golden boy of the NFL. He will always have legions of fans standing in line to make excuses for him. Peyton likely had the best opportunity of his career to win a Super Bowl last season. The Colts had home field advantage throughout the playoffs and as a team couldn't get the job done. Now they have lost Edgerrin James and in reality Marvin Harrison will be gone in a season or two. The window of opportunity is closing in Indianapolis.

 

[H.K.]

The Colts had the #2 defense for points allowed last season, they almost went undefeated and had the #1 seed and homefield throughout the playoffs. Therefore, saying Manning hasn't had a good enough TEAM around him to win it all compared to Brady's Patriots is flawed.

This is the first year that the Colts D was even average. They were great to start the year and faded towards the end. Overall they may have finished #2 in PA, but they were not the #2 defense heading into the playoffs. Not even close.

:whoosh: These are facts:

For starters, in 2002 Indy had the #7 ranked Defense in Points allowed, so your first sentence is completely inaccurate.

For the course of 16 games last season only one team gave up fewer points than the Colts, so they were the #2 defense in points allowed heading into the playoffs. Your claim that they were not the # 2 defense in points allowed at the time of the playoffs is 100% subjective on your part and also 100% erroneous.

Now, if you are thinking of posting that the Colts defense wasn't statistically the #2 ranked unit based on some subset of games during the final weeks of the season (when they were resting their starters so those numbers are a not indicative of their best efforts anyway) that does not change the FACT that they were capable of playing extremely well based on personnel and coaching that enabled them to give up so few points during the course of the regular season.

Finally, I capitalized the word TEAM because Manning clearly had supporting talent to get the job done, but did not.

 

[SSOG]

Peyton Manning is the golden boy of the NFL. He will always have legions of fans standing in line to make excuses for him. Peyton likely had the best opportunity of his career to win a Super Bowl last season. The Colts had home field advantage throughout the playoffs and as a team couldn't get the job done. Now they have lost Edgerrin James and in reality Marvin Harrison will be gone in a season or two. The window of opportunity is closing in Indianapolis.

John Elway probably had the best opportunity of his career to win a Super Bowl title in 1996, too. How'd that work out for him?Look at the NCAA basketball tournament. Was George Mason *really* one of the top 4 teams in the country this year? Were they *really* better than UConn? If they played 7 games against UConn, would they *really* win 4?

This is the danger of the one-and-done tournament. It leaves itself far too open to random statistical variation... which adds excitement, but it also results in a lot of people reading this statistical noise and trying to claim that it's somehow relevant.

I ask again... if Adam Vinateri misses the kick in the Tuck Bowl, does it make Tom Brady any less clutch? Suddenly he goes from 11-1 in the playoffs to 8-2. Suddenly he's never won a superbowl when he didn't clearly have the best team in the league (14-2 both other SB years). What happens if Vinateri also misses the kick against Carolina, the game goes to overtime, and Steve Smith returns the opening kick for a TD? Now he's down to 7-3 with only one superbowl win and ZERO superbowl MVPs. Is he suddenly such a drastically worse QB, suddenly not a sure-fire HoFer? I'm not asking you to change a SINGLE PLAY by Tom Brady, let him be the exact same QB with the exact same production in the exact same situations, and just have Vinateri miss the kicks. Does the production of Adam Vinateri *REALLY* impact how "good" or "clutch" Tom Brady is?

 

[H.K.]

Does the production of Adam Vinateri *REALLY* impact how "good" or "clutch" Tom Brady is?

Its a chicken or the egg argument...Is Viniatieri considered clutch if Brady could not have put him in a position to actually get the opportunity to make those kicks?

 

[djcolts]

I was a Manning defender up until last year. Brady carried his offense all year while his defense played inconsistantly. Took his team to the playoffs, but lost on the road to a better TEAM. It was a complete role reversal for Brady.

On the other hand, Manning had the best TEAM in the league and still lost "at home" to the same defensive scheme that beat him the previous two seasons. His defense didn't play great, but gave him plenty of opportunity to win. Even the most unbelievable sequence of events in his favor couldn't produce a clutch moment for the future HOF quarterback.

People have argued for a long time that switching places with these two guys would get you this result. It doesn't need to be discussed anymore.

yeti explains perfectly why this question is over and done with.

 

[radballs]

Peyton Manning is the golden boy of the NFL. He will always have legions of fans standing in line to make excuses for him. Peyton likely had the best opportunity of his career to win a Super Bowl last season. The Colts had home field advantage throughout the playoffs and as a team couldn't get the job done. Now they have lost Edgerrin James and in reality Marvin Harrison will be gone in a season or two. The window of opportunity is closing in Indianapolis.

John Elway probably had the best opportunity of his career to win a Super Bowl title in 1996, too. How'd that work out for him?Look at the NCAA basketball tournament. Was George Mason *really* one of the top 4 teams in the country this year? Were they *really* better than UConn? If they played 7 games against UConn, would they *really* win 4?

This is the danger of the one-and-done tournament. It leaves itself far too open to random statistical variation... which adds excitement, but it also results in a lot of people reading this statistical noise and trying to claim that it's somehow relevant.

I ask again... if Adam Vinateri misses the kick in the Tuck Bowl, does it make Tom Brady any less clutch? Suddenly he goes from 11-1 in the playoffs to 8-2. Suddenly he's never won a superbowl when he didn't clearly have the best team in the league (14-2 both other SB years). What happens if Vinateri also misses the kick against Carolina, the game goes to overtime, and Steve Smith returns the opening kick for a TD? Now he's down to 7-3 with only one superbowl win and ZERO superbowl MVPs. Is he suddenly such a drastically worse QB, suddenly not a sure-fire HoFer? I'm not asking you to change a SINGLE PLAY by Tom Brady, let him be the exact same QB with the exact same production in the exact same situations, and just have Vinateri miss the kicks. Does the production of Adam Vinateri *REALLY* impact how "good" or "clutch" Tom Brady is?

 

[Mr. Peterson]

Peyton Manning is the golden boy of the NFL. He will always have legions of fans standing in line to make excuses for him. Peyton likely had the best opportunity of his career to win a Super Bowl last season. The Colts had home field advantage throughout the playoffs and as a team couldn't get the job done. Now they have lost Edgerrin James and in reality Marvin Harrison will be gone in a season or two. The window of opportunity is closing in Indianapolis.

Dont forget that Manning has had game winning drives where he controlled the field, went for it when told to punt, got his team down the field and then had somebody else lose the game for him. When your O-line and RB cant get the ball in the endzone a yard away, or kicker misses a fairly ruitine FG is that the QBs fault. Because what if Viniteri wasnt as good of the kicker he is and he missed a few more clutch FGs, then Brady's legacy is totally different.

 

[Noahs Troopers]

Brady with 81% of the vote? How can that be, Manning puts up big points for my fantasy team!

 

[slayer666]

Dont forget that Manning has had game winning drives where he controlled the field, went for it when told to punt, got his team down the field and then had somebody else lose the game for him.  When your O-line and RB cant get the ball in the endzone a yard away, or kicker misses a fairly ruitine FG is that the QBs fault. 

Maybe Tony Dungy could let Peyton Manning play on the offensive line, running back and kicker this year. He could hike the ball to himself, then hand the ball off to himself and without a doubt he would be able to scamper for that elusive yard down on the goal line. After finishing that feat he could kick the extra point. Problem solved in INDY.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

There's a difference between playoff games and regular season games. People prepare differently and play differently for strategic reasons, as well as simply responding to the pressure in different ways. Even if you believe that many players respond well to the pressure of a playoff game, or more specifically a Superbowl, or some other arbitrary mental hurdle, there are certainly players who don't.

Now we are getting somewhere: a testable theory.I submit that in any relevant statistical category -- passer rating, yards per attempt, adjusted yards per attempt, completion percentage, TD-INT ratio, etc. -- previous regular seasons performances (taken as a whole) will be a better predictor of (that is, will have a stronger positive correlation with) any particular playoff performance, on average, than will previous playoff performances. (For all QBs on average. Obviously we can hand-pick some for whom this won't be true, as is the case with pretty much anything.)

You disagree?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

For the course of 16 games last season only one team gave up fewer points than the Colts, so they were the #2 defense in points allowed heading into the playoffs. Your claim that they were not the # 2 defense in points allowed at the time of the playoffs is 100% subjective on your part and also 100% erroneous.

Yes, they were the #2 defense in PA. Good for them. If you want to hang your hat on PA alone, go right ahead. If you really want to think the Colts had the 2nd best defense in the entire NFL last year behind only Chicago, go right ahead.I'm not arguing that the Colts D allowed the 2nd fewest points in the NFL last year. I'm arguing that they didn't have anywhere near the 2nd best defense in the league last year. I'm sure you see the difference.

 

[djcolts]

Brady with 81% of the vote? How can that be, Manning puts up big points for my fantasy team!

Maybe you can put up a poll in the FFA to ask who's hotter - Rosie O'Donnell or Jessica Alba. It is about as interesting.

 

[FUBAR]

For the course of 16 games last season only one team gave up fewer points than the Colts, so they were the #2 defense in points allowed heading into the playoffs. Your claim that they were not the # 2 defense in points allowed at the time of the playoffs is 100% subjective on your part and also 100% erroneous.

Yes, they were the #2 defense in PA. Good for them. If you want to hang your hat on PA alone, go right ahead. If you really want to think the Colts had the 2nd best defense in the entire NFL last year behind only Chicago, go right ahead.I'm not arguing that the Colts D allowed the 2nd fewest points in the NFL last year. I'm arguing that they didn't have anywhere near the 2nd best defense in the league last year. I'm sure you see the difference.

Maybe you can explain the difference a bit more clearly.The worst stat in the NFL for evaluating a defense is yardage. I hope you aren't going by that.

What stat would you like to go by, if not scoring D? Point differential? SOS?

I'm not saying I'd take Indy's D over Pittsburgh, Denver or Carolina, so it wasn't the 2nd best IMO, but to say "nowhere near the 2nd"... I don't agree. Top 6-10 (my personal thought) is somewhere near #2.

 

[DonnyT33]

Im going to go ahead and say that Brady is the most overrated QB there is. He is good, but he is put in an easy system that works for him, and if everyone else on his team does their job right then Brady looks good. It bothers me how everyone praises Brady as this hall of fame QB when you have ten other players on the offense doing their jobs and giving Brady the time he needs to get rid of the ball. When any part of their system fails so does brady. And dont forget that defense who bails him out if that offense cant get going. So I think the poll should add Brady under the coaching of Belichick. Manning owns the field and pretty much runs his own offense with a less than mediocre deffense. If Manning was in the position that Brady was in it would be a different situation.

First Brady Is a HOF already. Now for the important thing. One is super cool ice in his veins controlled in pressure situations. The other is an emotional wreck head turning out of control mess in pressure situations. This is the meaning behind being a truly GREAT winning QB. A QB just has to be bale to control his emotions to perform in big game pressure situations. Brady is the best at it right now and one of the best ever at doing this. Manning simply is not yet. Done deal and the big difference between these two guys. I also disagree strongly that Manning would have done the same thing in Bradys situations and teams for this exact reason.

 

[DonnyT33]

The Colts had the #2 defense for points allowed last season, they almost went undefeated and had the #1 seed and homefield throughout the playoffs. Therefore, saying Manning hasn't had a good enough TEAM around him to win it all compared to Brady's Patriots is flawed.

This is the first year that the Colts D was even average. They were great to start the year and faded towards the end. Overall they may have finished #2 in PA, but they were not the #2 defense heading into the playoffs. Not even close.

And Manning choked in the big game vs Pitt. because he became an emotional out of control mess when the game was on the line. Tell me if Brady was the Colts QB for that game would the outcome have been different? Myself, I am 100% sure it would have been.

 

[DonnyT33]

I was a Manning defender up until last year. Brady carried his offense all year while his defense played inconsistantly. Took his team to the playoffs, but lost on the road to a better TEAM. It was a complete role reversal for Brady.

On the other hand, Manning had the best TEAM in the league and still lost "at home" to the same defensive scheme that beat him the previous two seasons. His defense didn't play great, but gave him plenty of opportunity to win. Even the most unbelievable sequence of events in his favor couldn't produce a clutch moment for the future HOF quarterback.

People have argued for a long time that switching places with these two guys would get you this result. It doesn't need to be discussed anymore.

Nail on head.

 

[DonnyT33]

Brady with 81% of the vote? How can that be, Manning puts up big points for my fantasy team!

Ok we get your point.

 

[Shark Attack]

What QB would you want with a big game on the line?

Peyton Manning [ 20 ] ** [20.00%]

Tom Brady [ 80 ] ** [80.00%]

I hope the 20 are all making a joke of this poll.

 

[djcolts]

What QB would you want with a big game on the line?

Peyton Manning [ 20 ] ** [20.00%]

Tom Brady [ 80 ] ** [80.00%]

I hope the 20 are all making a joke of this poll.

I'm sure they are. Maybe 2 of the 20 are serious.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

The worst stat in the NFL for evaluating a defense is yardage.

I hope you aren't going by that.

I'm not a fan of total yardage for the same reason I'm not a big fan of total points. I don't think they are telling a complete story. Of course, there's probably no single stat or even group of stats that could tell the complete story, but we can do better than just yardage or points.

What stat would you like to go by, if not scoring D? Point differential? SOS?

Of course, there's probably no single stat or even group of stats that could tell the complete story, but we can do better than just yardage or points.I think the biggest problem is trying to find a way to isolate the defense from the special teams and offense. Field position plays a big part and is all too often overlooked.

For example... assume that I have one of the best offenses and special teams units in the league.

That means I'm going to score a lot, which will keep the pressure on the opposing offense.

That means even when I don't score, I will put together a good drive, which puts the opposing team in poor field position.

That means that even when I have poor field position and don't put together a good drive, I'll still put the other team in worse field position than on average.

That means my defense will be less subjected to fatigue since they'll have more recovery time between drives and will spend less total minutes on the field.

Field position means a lot in football. If you have the ball on your own 1, who do you think is more likely to score next... you or the opposing team?

If I can consistently put the opposing team in a position where they are least likely to score next, that helps out my defense tremendously.

If it's an uphill battle just to get out of the shadow of your own endzone, that's going to reflect on the scoreboard.

All of those factors are going to make my defense look good on the statline. I think many will agree that it would make them look better on paper than they actually are.

It can make an average defense, look like a top 10 D. It can make a top 10 D look like a top 5 D.

Do you agree that the Colts offense was one of the best in the league and had the potential to make their defense look better on paper?

SOS should mean something too. For example... your team gave up 22 points on Sunday. Was that good or bad?

Most people will say it depends. Were they playing the Seahawks or the playing the Texans?

22 points is good against the Seahawks and bad against the Texans.

How much of a regular season test do you think the Colts D had last year?

As far as statistics that try to quantify how good a team is at a particular thing...

They can be really involved formulas like DVOA over at footballoutsiders, which thinks Indy had the 8th best defense last year, and 10th best weighted defense.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teamdef.php

And since 2002 was mentioned when they had "the 7th best defense". FO had them ranked 22nd.

They could be something less involved like what I started tracking a few years ago: firstdowns/touchdowns allowed per play. It seems reasonable to say that the more plays it takes the opposing offense to achieve a first down/touchdown, the better my defense is playing yes? It's measuring how well your defense allows the opposing offense to move the ball.

They were ranked 15th in that metric.

Then of course there's the "rank them" test. Just rank the top 10 defenses from 2005 without looking up any stats. Just write down the top 10 defenses. I don't think very many people are ranking Indy #2 or even top 5.

When you say to me that Indy was the 2nd best defense in the league, that means this to me:

Take all the defensive players from Indy and the defensive coaching staff and replace all the other teams defensive players/defensive coaching staff and they'd make every team's defense better except for one.

Not to me. HK is free to hang his hat on PA if he so desires.

I'm not saying I'd take Indy's D over Pittsburgh, Denver or Carolina, so it wasn't the 2nd best IMO, but to say "nowhere near the 2nd"... I don't agree. Top 6-10 (my personal thought) is somewhere near #2.

I disagree. Yes, the number 2 is close to the numbers 6 and 10 on the whole number line. That doesn't mean the performance of the #2 defense is comparable to the performance of the #6-#10 defense.

We're going from top 6% of the league to top 20-30% of the league. World of difference IMO.

I can make a FF comparison here. The difference between the #2 fantasy RB and the #6 fantasy RB is the difference between the #6 fantasy RB and the #16 fantasy RB.

 

[bostonfred]

There's a difference between playoff games and regular season games.  People prepare differently and play differently for strategic reasons, as well as simply responding to the pressure in different ways.  Even if you believe that many players respond well to the pressure of a playoff game, or more specifically a Superbowl, or some other arbitrary mental hurdle, there are certainly players who don't.

Now we are getting somewhere: a testable theory.I submit that in any relevant statistical category -- passer rating, yards per attempt, adjusted yards per attempt, completion percentage, TD-INT ratio, etc. -- previous regular seasons performances (taken as a whole) will be a better predictor of (that is, will have a stronger positive correlation with) any particular playoff performance, on average, than will previous playoff performances. (For all QBs on average. Obviously we can hand-pick some for whom this won't be true, as is the case with pretty much anything.)

You disagree?

Interesting approach. I don't want to determine whether all quarterbacks act differently in the playoffs. That's valuable, I suppose, but I think we can agree that different players react to pressure differently. If we don't know the number of "chokers" in the overall population, nor do we know the number of "clutch" QBs. That introduces a bias towards whichever subset of the population is greater. I think we could more accurately solve the question by looking at each QB in a vacuum - and not just for the supposed "chokers" or "clutch" QBs, but a broader sample - we might be able to see which is a more valid predictor of a given playoff game - the player's career-to-date statistics, or the player's career-to-date postseason statistics.

If it looks like X players are more predictable by their career to date numbers, but Y players are more predictable by their career to date playoff numbers, we'd have good data to work with. That might be more practical when trying to predict a playoff performance for a particular player.

 

[Soulfly]

how marino? mayne no rings, but dan the man was clutch. anyone?

 

[FUBAR]

I'm not saying I'd take Indy's D over Pittsburgh, Denver or Carolina, so it wasn't the 2nd best IMO, but to say "nowhere near the 2nd"... I don't agree. Top 6-10 (my personal thought) is somewhere near #2.

I disagree. Yes, the number 2 is close to the numbers 6 and 10 on the whole number line. That doesn't mean the performance of the #2 defense is comparable to the performance of the #6-#10 defense.

We're going from top 6% of the league to top 20-30% of the league. World of difference IMO.

I can make a FF comparison here. The difference between the #2 fantasy RB and the #6 fantasy RB is the difference between the #6 fantasy RB and the #16 fantasy RB.

World of difference? All I really care about in the end is how many points did the defense allow and 1st downs allowed. Just going by #'s, the #2 D allowed 15.4 PPG. the #6 allowed 16.8; granted, 1.4 points might make a difference of a win or two. That same 1.4 added to the #6 gives you the #10 D. Not a big difference. Going from #2 to #10 is a 2.8 point difference, add the 2.8 to the #10 D and you have an average defense, #18. I don't have the first down stats, those would be interesting.