Cosell Talks: “He’s a Winner” (1 Viewer)

[Faust]

Cosell Talks: “He’s a Winner”

by Greg Cosell

Recently on my weekly Thursday morning appearance with Ross Tucker on “The Morning Kickoff” on Sirius XM radio, Tucker raised an interesting point on Tom Brady, who is now heading into his 13th season in New England.

Tucker broke down Brady’s career into two separate parts:

1. Brady’s first five years as a starter. (He threw a grand total of three passes in his rookie season of 2000.)

2. Brady’s last five years — not including 2008, when he tore his ACL in the opening game of the season.

The CliffsNotes version of Tucker’s take is this: Brady has been a far better player over the last five years, yet he won all three of his Super Bowls in the first five.

I agree with Tucker. In fact, I don’t think the former statement is debatable at all. Yet, for those who believe that playoff success and Super Bowl championships are the best measuring stick of quarterback greatness, it’s a bit of an intellectual challenge.

Brady won his first 10 playoff games, including, of course, those three championships. And he only threw three interceptions in the process. Since then, he’s 6-6 in the playoffs with two Super Bowl losses. In those 12 games, he’s thrown 17 interceptions.

Consequently, we’re left with a pair of much larger questions about quarterback evaluation and judgment: Is Brady, celebrated as one of the great “winners” of all time after his third championship in 2004, no longer a winner? How does one reconcile Brady’s clear improvement over the last five years with his inability to replicate the phenomenal playoff success he enjoyed in his first five?

None of this is meant to disparage Brady, who is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time. Rather, it is designed to focus on a phrase that has become a big part of football lexicon over the years …

“He’s a winner.”

What exactly does that mean? Is it simply an “access to the result” verdict, without much thought given to the process?

Again, let’s relate it to Brady. Think back to his first Super Bowl victory against the St. Louis Rams. New England won that game with an Adam Vinatieri field goal on the final play. Two years later, Vinatieri essentially did the same thing against the Carolina Panthers in Super Bowl XXXVIII. For the sake of discussion, let’s say Vinatieri missed both of those kicks (each was more than 40 yards). Then the Rams and the Panthers, respectively, won the toss in overtime and the Patriots never got the ball back. Would Brady’s performance have been any less impressive in those games? Obviously not. What would be different is our collective perception of his performance. He would not have been acclaimed a “winner.”

How about last season’s AFC Championship Game? Joe Flacco made one of the best throws you’ll ever see in a critical, game-deciding situation: 27 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter, the Baltimore Ravens trailing Brady’s Patriots by three. We can debate forever whether it was a drop by Lee Evans or a great defensive play by Sterling Moore. That’s irrelevant. It was as good a throw as you will ever see in a pressure moment. It was reminiscent of Ben Roethlisberger’s touchdown pass to Santonio Holmes to win Super Bowl XLIII. The outcome of the game — two plays later, Billy Cundiff missed a 32-yard field goal — was not, in any way, a reflection of Flacco’s performance. You could easily argue that Flacco was brilliant on that final drive. The result did not change the process, only the perception of the process. How different would the public perception of Flacco be today if he was a Super Bowl quarterback? Would he be viewed as a “winner?”

I remember Peyton Manning talking about the winning touchdown drive in the AFC Championship Game against the Patriots back in 2007 when we interviewed him for our “America’s Game” series. To paraphrase, Manning said it was a great series of plays, executed extremely well in a very trying and tense circumstance (with the Super Bowl at stake). He then went on to add that if Brady had followed with a Patriots touchdown in the final 54 seconds, no one would have remembered the Colts drive, as special as it was in Manning’s mind. His outstanding play would have been viewed through the prism of “he’s not a winner.” His performance would not have been any different. Again, perception without context and understanding.

In 2011, one quarterback in particular fostered blind obedience by many observers to the phrase “he’s winner” without much thought as to why it was being said. Tim Tebow won seven of his first eight starts, a number of them in spectacular fashion with late-game heroics. Of course, Matt Prater made two 50-plus yard overtime field goals to defeat the Dolphins and Bears (and the Chicago win also featured a 59-yarder with eight seconds remaining in regulation).

Then came four losses in his last five games, during which Tebow, with the exception of the playoff win against Pittsburgh, played about as poorly as an NFL quarterback can play. In those four losses, he completed 39 percent of his passes. So the question must be asked: Was Tebow a “winner” in some games, but not others? Did he not practice “winning” in the weeks leading up to those four losses?

Let’s not focus on the specific quarterbacks I used as examples. If you do that, you are totally missing the point. My broader objective is to compel a re-thinking of the “winner” concept. When you drill down deeper, it’s really a term that has almost no meaning.

 

[LBH]

Brady is a much better QB but his defenses have not been as mature and tough as they were from the late 90s thru mid 2000s. Even with the defense not as good as the older Pats teams, they were a crazy Manning/Tyree play away from probably beating the Giants in 07, and a Welker drop from possibly holding off the Giants this past season.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

When you drill down deeper, it’s really a term that has almost no meaning

Nice to see an NFL "expert" say this. 90+% of NFL fans/experts still more than happy to ignore all statistics besides the win column, it's sad really.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Brady is a much better QB but his defenses have not been as mature and tough as they were from the late 90s thru mid 2000s. Even with the defense not as good as the older Pats teams, they were a crazy Manning/Tyree play away from probably beating the Giants in 07, and a Welker drop from possibly holding off the Giants this past season.

They were also a miracle kick in the snow and a kickoff out of bounds away from maybe only having one ring in the Brady/Belichick era. It goes both ways.

 

[Jason Wood]

I already liked Cosell. Now I may love him.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I already liked Cosell. Now I may love him.

Ditto.This should be mandatory reading for the people asking, 'is Eli better than Peyton?'

 

[squistion]

I have noticed Cosell is very linear in his thinking (certainly a good trait for an NFL analyst) and tends to be quite literal as far as characterizations of players go. I follow him on Twitter and he practically had a hissy fit a few months ago about people using the term "intangibles" as to why they like a player.

Although the term winner is subjective and is contextually driven by perception, the fact is that there are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others. But I am more of a right hemisphere guy, looking at the big picture - and I actually do think there is such a thing as intangibles (sorry Cosell).

Some players seem to me better than others in the closing minutes when a game is on the line. For instance if there are two minutes to go and my team is behind a TD, I can't think of a player I would rather have for my QB than Eli Manning. Eli is a better clutch player to me than most QBs. He seems to make more plays when it counts and I view that as a trait for someone I would call a winner. Yes, if two crucial passes were dropped, he wouldn't have two Super Bowl rings, but that said, his ability to move his team downfield when it really counts (while not making him a better QB than bro Peyton) arguably makes calling him a winner apropos.

 

[Herb]

This is awesome and true. The whole "you can't be great unless you've won a title" argument is just lazy. Does anyone think Aikman was a better QB than Marino? Football is a team sport and greatness cannot be measured by the amount of rings on a players fingers. So much more goes into a winning team than what you can quantify in wins and losses attached to a single player...

 

[GregR]

I have noticed Cosell is very linear in his thinking (certainly a good trait for an NFL analyst) and tends to be quite literal as far as characterizations of players go. I follow him on Twitter and he practically had a hissy fit a few months ago about people using the term "intangibles" as to why they like a player.

Although the term winner is subjective and is contextually driven by perception, the fact is that there are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others. But I am more of a right hemisphere guy, looking at the big picture - and I actually do think there is such a thing as intangibles (sorry Cosell).

Some players seem to me better than others in the closing minutes when a game is on the line. For instance if there are two minutes to go and my team is behind a TD, I can't think of a player I would rather have for my QB than Eli Manning. Eli is a better clutch player to me than most QBs. He seems to make more plays when it counts and I view that as a trait for someone I would call a winner. Yes, if two crucial passes were dropped, he wouldn't have two Super Bowl rings, but that said, his ability to move his team downfield when it really counts (while not making him a better QB than bro Peyton) arguably makes calling him a winner apropos.

What you said is an example of what Cosell is talking about, not a detraction or defense against it. "There are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others." Cosell is essentially saying one needs to dig deeper than just accepting a perception statement like that on face value, especially as it's a statement that seldom holds up to greater scrutiny. Why does he seem like more of a winner, and are those reasons ones we should feel comfortable basing an evaluation of a player on? Is it because he had some memorable wins with dramatic fourth quarters so they stand out in your memory? And if so, is that something that stands up on its own merits? If one of the Giants opponents in each of their Super Bowl runs had engineered a final play TD to beat the Giants and Eli never got the ball again that game, would your perception of Eli change despite his having played exactly the same in both versions of the game? If the answer is yes, that your evaluation of his play changes despite his play itself not changing, that suggests our method of evaluating is flawed.

 

[bucsbaby]

Last time I checked, football is a team sport. It seems reasonable to me that a QB can play better, but "win" fewer [playoff] games, since a QB cannot win games by himself. Also, as the above posts indicate, there is enough parity in the NFL, especially amongst playoff teams, that winning a playoff game -- let alone all of them to capture the title -- can come down to one play going either way.

 

[Marvelous]

I have noticed Cosell is very linear in his thinking (certainly a good trait for an NFL analyst) and tends to be quite literal as far as characterizations of players go. I follow him on Twitter and he practically had a hissy fit a few months ago about people using the term "intangibles" as to why they like a player.

Although the term winner is subjective and is contextually driven by perception, the fact is that there are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others. But I am more of a right hemisphere guy, looking at the big picture - and I actually do think there is such a thing as intangibles (sorry Cosell).

Some players seem to me better than others in the closing minutes when a game is on the line. For instance if there are two minutes to go and my team is behind a TD, I can't think of a player I would rather have for my QB than Eli Manning. Eli is a better clutch player to me than most QBs. He seems to make more plays when it counts and I view that as a trait for someone I would call a winner. Yes, if two crucial passes were dropped, he wouldn't have two Super Bowl rings, but that said, his ability to move his team downfield when it really counts (while not making him a better QB than bro Peyton) arguably makes calling him a winner apropos.

What you said is an example of what Cosell is talking about, not a detraction or defense against it. "There are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others." Cosell is essentially saying one needs to dig deeper than just accepting a perception statement like that on face value, especially as it's a statement that seldom holds up to greater scrutiny. Why does he seem like more of a winner, and are those reasons ones we should feel comfortable basing an evaluation of a player on? Is it because he had some memorable wins with dramatic fourth quarters so they stand out in your memory? And if so, is that something that stands up on its own merits? If one of the Giants opponents in each of their Super Bowl runs had engineered a final play TD to beat the Giants and Eli never got the ball again that game, would your perception of Eli change despite his having played exactly the same in both versions of the game? If the answer is yes, that your evaluation of his play changes despite his play itself not changing, that suggests our method of evaluating is flawed.

Even prior to last year, I noticed that Eli Manning has a knack for making big completions at crunch time. So even though his stats are not stellar, he comes up big when the game is on the line. In another thread, I compared this to Romo, who has decent stats, but frequently comes up short when the game is on the line.

 

[squistion]

I have noticed Cosell is very linear in his thinking (certainly a good trait for an NFL analyst) and tends to be quite literal as far as characterizations of players go. I follow him on Twitter and he practically had a hissy fit a few months ago about people using the term "intangibles" as to why they like a player.

Although the term winner is subjective and is contextually driven by perception, the fact is that there are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others. But I am more of a right hemisphere guy, looking at the big picture - and I actually do think there is such a thing as intangibles (sorry Cosell).

Some players seem to me better than others in the closing minutes when a game is on the line. For instance if there are two minutes to go and my team is behind a TD, I can't think of a player I would rather have for my QB than Eli Manning. Eli is a better clutch player to me than most QBs. He seems to make more plays when it counts and I view that as a trait for someone I would call a winner. Yes, if two crucial passes were dropped, he wouldn't have two Super Bowl rings, but that said, his ability to move his team downfield when it really counts (while not making him a better QB than bro Peyton) arguably makes calling him a winner apropos.

What you said is an example of what Cosell is talking about, not a detraction or defense against it. "There are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others." Cosell is essentially saying one needs to dig deeper than just accepting a perception statement like that on face value, especially as it's a statement that seldom holds up to greater scrutiny. Why does he seem like more of a winner, and are those reasons ones we should feel comfortable basing an evaluation of a player on? Is it because he had some memorable wins with dramatic fourth quarters so they stand out in your memory? And if so, is that something that stands up on its own merits? If one of the Giants opponents in each of their Super Bowl runs had engineered a final play TD to beat the Giants and Eli never got the ball again that game, would your perception of Eli change despite his having played exactly the same in both versions of the game? If the answer is yes, that your evaluation of his play changes despite his play itself not changing, that suggests our method of evaluating is flawed.

Even prior to last year, I noticed that Eli Manning has a knack for making big completions at crunch time. So even though his stats are not stellar, he comes up big when the game is on the line. In another thread, I compared this to Romo, who has decent stats, but frequently comes up short when the game is on the line.

I was going to respond to Greg saying essentially that, but you stated it better than I could.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

I have noticed Cosell is very linear in his thinking (certainly a good trait for an NFL analyst) and tends to be quite literal as far as characterizations of players go. I follow him on Twitter and he practically had a hissy fit a few months ago about people using the term "intangibles" as to why they like a player.

Although the term winner is subjective and is contextually driven by perception, the fact is that there are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others. But I am more of a right hemisphere guy, looking at the big picture - and I actually do think there is such a thing as intangibles (sorry Cosell).

Some players seem to me better than others in the closing minutes when a game is on the line. For instance if there are two minutes to go and my team is behind a TD, I can't think of a player I would rather have for my QB than Eli Manning. Eli is a better clutch player to me than most QBs. He seems to make more plays when it counts and I view that as a trait for someone I would call a winner. Yes, if two crucial passes were dropped, he wouldn't have two Super Bowl rings, but that said, his ability to move his team downfield when it really counts (while not making him a better QB than bro Peyton) arguably makes calling him a winner apropos.

What you said is an example of what Cosell is talking about, not a detraction or defense against it. "There are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others." Cosell is essentially saying one needs to dig deeper than just accepting a perception statement like that on face value, especially as it's a statement that seldom holds up to greater scrutiny. Why does he seem like more of a winner, and are those reasons ones we should feel comfortable basing an evaluation of a player on? Is it because he had some memorable wins with dramatic fourth quarters so they stand out in your memory? And if so, is that something that stands up on its own merits? If one of the Giants opponents in each of their Super Bowl runs had engineered a final play TD to beat the Giants and Eli never got the ball again that game, would your perception of Eli change despite his having played exactly the same in both versions of the game? If the answer is yes, that your evaluation of his play changes despite his play itself not changing, that suggests our method of evaluating is flawed.

Even prior to last year, I noticed that Eli Manning has a knack for making big completions at crunch time. So even though his stats are not stellar, he comes up big when the game is on the line. In another thread, I compared this to Romo, who has decent stats, but frequently comes up short when the game is on the line.

I was going to respond to Greg saying essentially that, but you stated it better than I could.

His response doesn't answer Greg Russell's question though. If Manning plays 100% identically to how he did in the 2 superbowls, but instead Tom Brady leads the Patriots to game winning TDs to end the game, do you think Eli's perception of clutchness (or even broader, his perception as a top end quarterback) remains unchanged?

 

[squistion]

I have noticed Cosell is very linear in his thinking (certainly a good trait for an NFL analyst) and tends to be quite literal as far as characterizations of players go. I follow him on Twitter and he practically had a hissy fit a few months ago about people using the term "intangibles" as to why they like a player.

Although the term winner is subjective and is contextually driven by perception, the fact is that there are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others. But I am more of a right hemisphere guy, looking at the big picture - and I actually do think there is such a thing as intangibles (sorry Cosell).

Some players seem to me better than others in the closing minutes when a game is on the line. For instance if there are two minutes to go and my team is behind a TD, I can't think of a player I would rather have for my QB than Eli Manning. Eli is a better clutch player to me than most QBs. He seems to make more plays when it counts and I view that as a trait for someone I would call a winner. Yes, if two crucial passes were dropped, he wouldn't have two Super Bowl rings, but that said, his ability to move his team downfield when it really counts (while not making him a better QB than bro Peyton) arguably makes calling him a winner apropos.

What you said is an example of what Cosell is talking about, not a detraction or defense against it. "There are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others." Cosell is essentially saying one needs to dig deeper than just accepting a perception statement like that on face value, especially as it's a statement that seldom holds up to greater scrutiny. Why does he seem like more of a winner, and are those reasons ones we should feel comfortable basing an evaluation of a player on? Is it because he had some memorable wins with dramatic fourth quarters so they stand out in your memory? And if so, is that something that stands up on its own merits? If one of the Giants opponents in each of their Super Bowl runs had engineered a final play TD to beat the Giants and Eli never got the ball again that game, would your perception of Eli change despite his having played exactly the same in both versions of the game? If the answer is yes, that your evaluation of his play changes despite his play itself not changing, that suggests our method of evaluating is flawed.

Even prior to last year, I noticed that Eli Manning has a knack for making big completions at crunch time. So even though his stats are not stellar, he comes up big when the game is on the line. In another thread, I compared this to Romo, who has decent stats, but frequently comes up short when the game is on the line.

I was going to respond to Greg saying essentially that, but you stated it better than I could.

His response doesn't answer Greg Russell's question though. If Manning plays 100% identically to how he did in the 2 superbowls, but instead Tom Brady leads the Patriots to game winning TDs to end the game, do you think Eli's perception of clutchness (or even broader, his perception as a top end quarterback) remains unchanged?

I thought his response did What I agreed with was that I also considered Eli a clutch player before and outside of the super bowls and would still consider him a winner in that respect. I don't want to hijack the thread but there are other QBs who never got close to a super bowl who I always felt comfortable with when they were behind the last two minutes of a game - in my estimation they were winners irrespective of their records. Does it impact how the average person sees winners versus losers? Of course - for instance, Dan Marino IMO does not get the respect he derserves because he never got a ring. Some people could say he is not considered among the winners, but I wouldn't.

 

[Marvelous]

I have noticed Cosell is very linear in his thinking (certainly a good trait for an NFL analyst) and tends to be quite literal as far as characterizations of players go. I follow him on Twitter and he practically had a hissy fit a few months ago about people using the term "intangibles" as to why they like a player.

Although the term winner is subjective and is contextually driven by perception, the fact is that there are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others. But I am more of a right hemisphere guy, looking at the big picture - and I actually do think there is such a thing as intangibles (sorry Cosell).

Some players seem to me better than others in the closing minutes when a game is on the line. For instance if there are two minutes to go and my team is behind a TD, I can't think of a player I would rather have for my QB than Eli Manning. Eli is a better clutch player to me than most QBs. He seems to make more plays when it counts and I view that as a trait for someone I would call a winner. Yes, if two crucial passes were dropped, he wouldn't have two Super Bowl rings, but that said, his ability to move his team downfield when it really counts (while not making him a better QB than bro Peyton) arguably makes calling him a winner apropos.

What you said is an example of what Cosell is talking about, not a detraction or defense against it. "There are some players that just seem more like a winner to me than others." Cosell is essentially saying one needs to dig deeper than just accepting a perception statement like that on face value, especially as it's a statement that seldom holds up to greater scrutiny. Why does he seem like more of a winner, and are those reasons ones we should feel comfortable basing an evaluation of a player on? Is it because he had some memorable wins with dramatic fourth quarters so they stand out in your memory? And if so, is that something that stands up on its own merits? If one of the Giants opponents in each of their Super Bowl runs had engineered a final play TD to beat the Giants and Eli never got the ball again that game, would your perception of Eli change despite his having played exactly the same in both versions of the game? If the answer is yes, that your evaluation of his play changes despite his play itself not changing, that suggests our method of evaluating is flawed.

Even prior to last year, I noticed that Eli Manning has a knack for making big completions at crunch time. So even though his stats are not stellar, he comes up big when the game is on the line. In another thread, I compared this to Romo, who has decent stats, but frequently comes up short when the game is on the line.

I was going to respond to Greg saying essentially that, but you stated it better than I could.

His response doesn't answer Greg Russell's question though. If Manning plays 100% identically to how he did in the 2 superbowls, but instead Tom Brady leads the Patriots to game winning TDs to end the game, do you think Eli's perception of clutchness (or even broader, his perception as a top end quarterback) remains unchanged?

I thought Eli Manning was a very good clutch performer even before last season. Then, he came up big repeatedly last season and during the Super Bowl, which, to Cosell's point, gets hime a lot more attention and reputation. But he has been doing it his entire career and I noticed it.There are probably many QBs where I have not noticed it, so the "one play" or "one game outcome" could change my mind. But Eli is not one of them.

Another QB that comes to mind is Ben Roethlisberger. If you want to back to the past, one QB who I think is incredibly underrated: Phil Simms. He always came up big against the Redskins every year.

 

[CalBear]

I thought Eli Manning was a very good clutch performer even before last season. Then, he came up big repeatedly last season and during the Super Bowl, which, to Cosell's point, gets hime a lot more attention and reputation. But he has been doing it his entire career and I noticed it.

Did you notice it when he went for 169 yards with 0 TDs and 2 INTs (40.7 rating) in his last playoff appearance before 2011, including throwing an interception in the fourth quarter? Or in 2010, did you notice he threw 4 INTs in week 16 with the playoffs on the line? The fact that you didn't notice those is called "confirmation bias."

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Did you notice it when he went for 169 yards with 0 TDs and 2 INTs (40.7 rating) in his last playoff appearance before 2011, including throwing an interception in the fourth quarter? Or in 2010, did you notice he threw 4 INTs in week 16 with the playoffs on the line? The fact that you didn't notice those is called "confirmation bias."

Thanks for saving me some work.Eli Manning is basically Matt Schaub with an elite organization and much better/deeper team around him. (Which is pretty good, but not great.)

 

[Donnybrook]

Brady is a much better QB but his defenses have not been as mature and tough as they were from the late 90s thru mid 2000s. Even with the defense not as good as the older Pats teams, they were a crazy Manning/Tyree play away from probably beating the Giants in 07, and a Welker drop from possibly holding off the Giants this past season.

It not at all contraversal for Cosell to say that QBs get most of the credit for team wins and most of the blame for team losses. It has been happenning since the game began.To say that Brady was one Welker drop away from winning the Super Bowl is to forget that he was one (Lee Evans) drop away from not even making it there. Brady's play in the AFC championship was weak. He even got away with a non called intentional grounding and threw a pick when the game was on the line. In the two weeks that followed, I could not stop hearing about how Brady was now considered the greatest of all time (despite his poor performance) mostly because the Patriots as a team won that game.

 

[identikit]

Brady is a much better QB but his defenses have not been as mature and tough as they were from the late 90s thru mid 2000s. Even with the defense not as good as the older Pats teams, they were a crazy Manning/Tyree play away from probably beating the Giants in 07, and a Welker drop from possibly holding off the Giants this past season.

It not at all contraversal for Cosell to say that QBs get most of the credit for team wins and most of the blame for team losses. It has been happenning since the game began.To say that Brady was one Welker drop away from winning the Super Bowl is to forget that he was one (Lee Evans) drop away from not even making it there. Brady's play in the AFC championship was weak. He even got away with a non called intentional grounding and threw a pick when the game was on the line. In the two weeks that followed, I could not stop hearing about how Brady was now considered the greatest of all time (despite his poor performance) mostly because the Patriots as a team won that game.

The safety Brady gave up in the last SB was pretty instrumental with who won as well.

 

[Marvelous]

Did you notice it when he went for 169 yards with 0 TDs and 2 INTs (40.7 rating) in his last playoff appearance before 2011, including throwing an interception in the fourth quarter? Or in 2010, did you notice he threw 4 INTs in week 16 with the playoffs on the line? The fact that you didn't notice those is called "confirmation bias."

Thanks for saving me some work.Eli Manning is basically Matt Schaub with an elite organization and much better/deeper team around him. (Which is pretty good, but not great.)

I haven't done a game by game analysis or anything like that. I just had an general impression prior to the 2011 season that Eli Manning had a number of good performances when the game was on the line. It could have been a misperception, but one I had none the less.

 

[kutta]

If Kurt Warner's defense hadn't blown 2 Superbowls for him, he would be considered one of the greatest "clutch" players of all time.

 

[squistion]

I thought Eli Manning was a very good clutch performer even before last season. Then, he came up big repeatedly last season and during the Super Bowl, which, to Cosell's point, gets hime a lot more attention and reputation. But he has been doing it his entire career and I noticed it.

Did you notice it when he went for 169 yards with 0 TDs and 2 INTs (40.7 rating) in his last playoff appearance before 2011, including throwing an interception in the fourth quarter? Or in 2010, did you notice he threw 4 INTs in week 16 with the playoffs on the line? The fact that you didn't notice those is called "confirmation bias."

Eli is tied for 15th all time in the category of NFL Career Comebacks Leaders with 21 4th quarter comebacks: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/comebacks_career.htm. I think that number would qualify for saying he arguably could be viewed as a very good clutch performer irrespective of a few bad games - and the 2 rings probably are an affirmation of that rather than confirmation bias.

 

[CalBear]

Eli is tied for 15th all time in the category of NFL Career Comebacks Leaders with 21 4th quarter comebacks: http://www.pro-footb...cks_career.htm. I think that number would qualify for saying he arguably could be viewed as a very good clutch performer irrespective of a few bad games - and the 2 rings probably are an affirmation of that rather than confirmation bias.

What is his ranking in terms of opportunities for 4th quarter comebacks?

 

[squistion]

Eli is tied for 15th all time in the category of NFL Career Comebacks Leaders with 21 4th quarter comebacks: http://www.pro-footb...cks_career.htm. I think that number would qualify for saying he arguably could be viewed as a very good clutch performer irrespective of a few bad games - and the 2 rings probably are an affirmation of that rather than confirmation bias.

What is his ranking in terms of opportunities for 4th quarter comebacks?

I don't see that as being relevant for one to view him as a very good clutch performer, which was what the point Marvelous was making. If you want to say that some QBs have more opportunities and do less with them, that is another discussion, but it doesn't take away from the argument that he can be considered a very good clutch performer.

 

[BaBastage]

I don't see that as being relevant for one to view him as a very good clutch performer, which was what the point Marvelous was making. If you want to say that some QBs have more opportunities and do less with them, that is another discussion, but it doesn't take away from the argument that he can be considered a very good clutch performer.

Actually, it has everything to do with it. Otherwise, winning the most 4th quarter comebacks becomes a matter of longevity, not effectiveness (clutchness).

 

[BaBastage]

...and, my personal peeve with using 4th quarter comebacks as a measure of clutch or greatness is: great quarterbacks shouldn't be behind in the first place

 

[CalBear]

Eli is tied for 15th all time in the category of NFL Career Comebacks Leaders with 21 4th quarter comebacks: http://www.pro-footb...cks_career.htm. I think that number would qualify for saying he arguably could be viewed as a very good clutch performer irrespective of a few bad games - and the 2 rings probably are an affirmation of that rather than confirmation bias.

What is his ranking in terms of opportunities for 4th quarter comebacks?

I don't see that as being relevant for one to view him as a very good clutch performer, which was what the point Marvelous was making. If you want to say that some QBs have more opportunities and do less with them, that is another discussion, but it doesn't take away from the argument that he can be considered a very good clutch performer.

Let's define a term here: A "clutch performer" is someone who is more likely than the average to perform above his usual level in a clutch situation. A 90% free-throw shooter who shoots 85% in clutch situations is not a clutch performer; he performs worse than his average. Someone who has five game winning drives in 20 opportunities is not a clutch performer compared to someone who has four game winning drives in eight opportunities; the number of successful drives isn't the determining factor, it's whether the player is more likely to be successful in those situations.So the number of opportunities for 4th quarter comebacks is absolutely necessary to assess the relevance of having a certain number of successes.

 

[GregR]

...and, my personal peeve with using 4th quarter comebacks as a measure of clutch or greatness is: great quarterbacks shouldn't be behind in the first place

I agree. Would someone take a stab at explaining the rationale for giving more weight to a QB's 4th quarter play than to his play in earlier quarters?

 

[squistion]

...and, my personal peeve with using 4th quarter comebacks as a measure of clutch or greatness is: great quarterbacks shouldn't be behind in the first place

I agree. Would someone take a stab at explaining the rationale for giving more weight to a QB's 4th quarter play than to his play in earlier quarters?

If it is such a meaningless statistic, as you and others imply - why do we keep hearing about it? If it really meant nothing, it wouldn't be talked about or tracked (or so one logically would think). To me, games are quite often decided in the 4th quarter and the best players are able to step up when it is really needed, when the game is on the line with the plays in that quarter. But then again, I am not as linear in my thinking as you are. If you can't see someone as a clutch player based on your number crunching, but I can, then we will have to agree to disagree - you can go with your stats, I will go with what I see.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If it such a meaningless statistic, as you and others imply - why do we keep hearing about it? If it really meant nothing, it wouldn't be talked about or tracked (or so one logically would think).

Because people are superstitious and look for easy explanations, and the mainstream sports media know they have to go lowest common denominator or move to channel 476.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Great article. I always thought Marino was a better quarterback than Montana, although it was very close and they were both great. But championships are somewhat random and arbitrary.

 

[CalBear]

If it such a meaningless statistic, as you and others imply - why do we keep hearing about it?

Because sportscasters are story tellers, and being able to call someone "clutch" or "a choker" adds to the story, whether it's true or not. They're not in the statistical analysis business, nor in the NFL personnel business for that matter.

 

[CalBear]

Great article. I always thought Marino was a better quarterback than Montana, although it was very close and they were both great. But championships are somewhat random and arbitrary.

In neither case are the numbers statistically significant, but if you want to build a case for Montana being clutch and Marino being a choker, the numbers are in favor of it. Montana performed well above his own very high level in the playoffs and Super Bowl, while Marino performed well below his. QB rating as one stat:Marino: 86.4 career, 77.1 playoffMontana: 92.3 career, 95.6 playoff

 

[Jeremy]

I actually think Eli Manning is another excellent example of what Cosell is saying. Before Tyree's miracle catch and his TD pass to Burress, Asante Samual let a relatively easy INT slip right through his fingers. One play gone the other way and we're talking about Eli Manning with the 1-1 SB record who is sometimes clutch rather than a QB generally considered to be a great 4th quarter QB. And I believe they scored all of 17 points in that game.

And I'm not picking on Eli. He's fantastic. But there are countless examples of a player's legacy changing greatly because another player did or did not make a play. I guess it's kind of a "the victor's write the history books" kind of thing.

 

[GregR]

...and, my personal peeve with using 4th quarter comebacks as a measure of clutch or greatness is: great quarterbacks shouldn't be behind in the first place

I agree. Would someone take a stab at explaining the rationale for giving more weight to a QB's 4th quarter play than to his play in earlier quarters?

If it is such a meaningless statistic, as you and others imply - why do we keep hearing about it? If it really meant nothing, it wouldn't be talked about or tracked (or so one logically would think). To me, games are quite often decided in the 4th quarter and the best players are able to step up when it is really needed, when the game is on the line with the plays in that quarter. But then again, I am not as linear in my thinking as you are. If you can't see someone as a clutch player based on your number crunching, but I can, then we will have to agree to disagree - you can go with your stats, I will go with what I see.

Rather than argue that frequency of mention makes it meaningful, why not just explain why it's meaningful? For example, I can explain that more passing yards tends to mean more total points, and more total points means more wins... so therefore more passing yards would be something meaningful in rating a QB and how much he helps you win.I don't see anything that supports that 14 points in the 4th quarter and 7 in the first contributes more to a team winning than 14 points in the 1st quarter and 7 in the 4th. I would even go so far as to argue the opposite as it is more advantageous for a defense to play with a lead than it is to play from behind.I also don't see anything that supports a 4th quarter comeback win being a better thing than a "led the entire 4th quarter" win. The latter is pretty clearly better since it's always better to be leading at any moment in the game than it is to be trailing in that same moment.Why is it people use 4th quarter comeback wins as a meaningful stat but we don't use 4th quarter always led wins? If some other QB has the same total wins in the same number of games as Eli, but fewer of those wins had to be via comeback, wouldn't that be an indication he did better? Or more accurately, that he and his team did better than Eli and Eli's team.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

...and, my personal peeve with using 4th quarter comebacks as a measure of clutch or greatness is: great quarterbacks shouldn't be behind in the first place

I agree. Would someone take a stab at explaining the rationale for giving more weight to a QB's 4th quarter play than to his play in earlier quarters?

Why do closers make 3 times as much as set up men in baseball?Certain situations are inherently more pressure packed than others. It's not to say that 4th Q play is more important than 2nd or 3rd Q play (I don't think that's the true argument behind a player's "clutchness") - it's just that in certain situations (i.e. in the moment when the game is on the line) some players push the "pressure" aside and perform at a top level, while others crumble under same.With all that said, overall, I completely agree with Cosell's overall premise - but certain guys do seem to perform better in big moments. Perhaps not surprisngly they're the players that generally are at the top of their games anyway (i.e. Brady, Jordan, Jeter, Montana, etc.)

 

[squistion]

...and, my personal peeve with using 4th quarter comebacks as a measure of clutch or greatness is: great quarterbacks shouldn't be behind in the first place

I agree. Would someone take a stab at explaining the rationale for giving more weight to a QB's 4th quarter play than to his play in earlier quarters?

Why do closers make 3 times as much as set up men in baseball?Certain situations are inherently more pressure packed than others. It's not to say that 4th Q play is more important than 2nd or 3rd Q play (I don't think that's the true argument behind a player's "clutchness") - it's just that in certain situations (i.e. in the moment when the game is on the line) some players push the "pressure" aside and perform at a top level, while others crumble under same.

With all that said, overall, I completely agree with Cosell's overall premise - but certain guys do seem to perform better in big moments. Perhaps not surprisngly they're the players that generally are at the top of their games anyway (i.e. Brady, Jordan, Jeter, Montana, etc.)

From MileHighReport.com - staffer Tim Lynch on clutch players:http://www.milehighreport.com/2012/4/18/2743066/some-clarification-is-in-order-what-does-clutch-mean

Elway lost, but was always considered clutch. Same with Montana. Stats will not be able to define clutch. It's an intangible. A person either has an intensely strong desire to win and the will to pull it off. You cannot quantify that, you can only witness it. Over time, of years, people realize this guy has it.

It's a psychological effect that one person can have on a group of people (even opposing players). When Elway had the ball late with the game on line, the opposing team believed he would do it. That is really dangerous. It almost becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Neil Smith's famous quote in 1997 to Elway after he joined the Broncos, "The same #### you did to me for 9 years, alright!?"

It should be (about the playoffs)... driving 87 yard in the Super Bowl for a TD pass to win the game with 13 seconds left is pretty clutch. aka, Joe Montana.

 

[jurb26]

...and, my personal peeve with using 4th quarter comebacks as a measure of clutch or greatness is: great quarterbacks shouldn't be behind in the first place

I agree. Would someone take a stab at explaining the rationale for giving more weight to a QB's 4th quarter play than to his play in earlier quarters?

If it is such a meaningless statistic, as you and others imply - why do we keep hearing about it? If it really meant nothing, it wouldn't be talked about or tracked (or so one logically would think). To me, games are quite often decided in the 4th quarter and the best players are able to step up when it is really needed, when the game is on the line with the plays in that quarter. But then again, I am not as linear in my thinking as you are. If you can't see someone as a clutch player based on your number crunching, but I can, then we will have to agree to disagree - you can go with your stats, I will go with what I see.

Rather than argue that frequency of mention makes it meaningful, why not just explain why it's meaningful? For example, I can explain that more passing yards tends to mean more total points, and more total points means more wins... so therefore more passing yards would be something meaningful in rating a QB and how much he helps you win.I don't see anything that supports that 14 points in the 4th quarter and 7 in the first contributes more to a team winning than 14 points in the 1st quarter and 7 in the 4th. I would even go so far as to argue the opposite as it is more advantageous for a defense to play with a lead than it is to play from behind.I also don't see anything that supports a 4th quarter comeback win being a better thing than a "led the entire 4th quarter" win. The latter is pretty clearly better since it's always better to be leading at any moment in the game than it is to be trailing in that same moment.Why is it people use 4th quarter comeback wins as a meaningful stat but we don't use 4th quarter always led wins? If some other QB has the same total wins in the same number of games as Eli, but fewer of those wins had to be via comeback, wouldn't that be an indication he did better? Or more accurately, that he and his team did better than Eli and Eli's team.

This conversation about 4th quarter performance and "clutch" performance is a very complex one. IMO, you either need what most people would probably consider a ridiculously mind numbing and complex statistical process to accurately and fairly asses all players or you can simply watch every game in it's entirety for every player in question. Clearly, the second is impossible.The biggest problem I see with how this stuff is debated now is that it's simply too difficult to place context to the emotional feel of "he's a winner" on one side and it's also too hard to place that same context into the stats that others are using to try and baseline things. For example, you say you can explain that more passing yards tends to mean more points and more points means more wins. This is not more a qualified statement than "he's a winner" IMO. Did a guy throw for more passing yards because he turned the ball over several times? No state is more telling for wins in football than turn over differential. Did a guy throw for less passing yards because his team scored 2 DST TDs that day and they simply didn't need too? There are a ton of circumstances that can lead to the result you are talking about - passing yards. Many of them would not be strong indicators of strong QB play. Many of them will. Now let's just look at turnovers for a brief second. A QB can not be held solely accountable for this stat because other players turn the ball over and he is depending on his defense to in turn create those turnovers. Of course, you could then argue that a defense that is playing ahead more often will in turn have more opportunity to create such turnovers. None the less, you can easily see how the debate quickly becomes complex and cloudy even just for you're one statement. To me, the reality of this is that the truth is somewhere in between what most are debating. I think that many of the so called "winners" get their "winning abilities" exaggerated in the scheme of what is in the end a team game. I agree that winning is somewhat arbitrary when it's broken down to a single player level in football. On the same token, guys who perhaps don't win but produce huge numbers also get placed on a pedestal unfairly vs. their teammates. There seems to be a perceived notion is that since this guy is able to produce so well it must be the team holding him back. Both of these last sentences can be broken down in much greater detail and in themselves be debated for years. In the end, one thing I'm certain of is that there is a psychology to playing sports, any sport. That psychology is the aspect in which it is nearly impossible to linearly evaluate and in the end I think that is why this debate will never go away. If you don't agree that there is a psychologic element then I'd say you have never played sports or played them in a truly competitive environment. Psychology is what causes you to get a funny butterflies in your stomach before a game. It's what causes some guys to throw up. It's the reason you see so many players walking into the stadium with headphones on and warming up with them on as well. It's the reason fans bit their nails during critical stages of the game. I could go on. Let's expand this concept of sports psychology to the most prominent example in Cosell's article, Tom Brady. Is it possible that Tom Brady's mental state has changed over the years? Did he perhaps have qualities during his 1st 5 seasons that he simply no longer has, or at the very least has grown away from over time? More simply put, has success changed his mental make up as a football player. I'd say a very strong case could be made to support this but this maybe isn't the place to discuss that.

 

[GregR]

I think it's an excellent place to discuss a situation like Brady. No one has asked for a "a ridiculously mind numbing and complex statistical process". I'm asking for the same kind of simple explanation that makes sense that you were able to give for turnovers.

Let me approach this from another standpoint. I recognize that players don't play the same every game. They have good days, and they have bad days. If we're going to talk about how good a player is I believe you look at all of those, you include best as you can other factors (surrounding cast, opposing teams, etc), and do the best you can to get an answer.

But what I see from the "he's a winner" segment is that a good performance in a drama-filled moment trumps everything to an unrealistic level. It seldom includes consideration that this was one of his good days as opposed to this is something imposed on the game by his will. Here's an example... Joe Montana was a great QB and played great in multiple SB winning postseasons. We hear about that all the time. Why do we never hear about how we need to factor the three straight years sandwiched between those SB wins where he was the opposite of clutch, with first round playoff exits and passer ratings of 65, 35, and 42? Or his 39.2 passer rating that ended the Chiefs 93 playoff run? 4 clutch games where he had no touchdowns, threw interceptions every game, and his completion percentages ranged from 55% to 39%.

When I look at Montana's playoffs as a whole, including the good and the bad, I see normal variation, good days and bad days, days when your opponent has your number and days when you have your opponents number. I view both the positive and negative performances through that lens.

I don't see that being done by people who turn to "he's a winner" argument, and their explanations for that take don't seem to make sense. Sure psychology is a factor in sports, and motivation and effort level are affected by such things. But it doesn't seem to be a consistent factor to the level the "clutchness" arguers want to make it when we look at real performances. When a new result matches our predetermined concept of clutchness then it means clutch is what causes such games to be won. But when it runs against our predetermined concept it is ignored unless it becomes such an obvious string that it's unavoidable confronting it.

Are we saying Joe Montana had great psychology for 3 years, lost his confidence for 3 years, regained it for a couple more years then lost it again? That seems far fetched to me. Even more so, I can go look at his seasons during those "clutch" years and find 4 INT stinkers and I can similarly go to his "non-clutch" years and find brilliant performances. But even if we're willing to accept that argument why is their argument "he's a winner" rather than "sometimes he's clutch and other times he's clearly not clutch"? It seems like once a player wins a Super Bowl he's labelled as clutch and it takes a string of failures with no return to success to even consider that maybe he isn't. The same with non-clutch to clutch... Peyton suddenly became clutch after a SB win that included a very dramatic game winning drive over Brady to get there. If Marino had won one I'm sure the same would have been said as him now there is an overly dramatic win to go along with his huge number of 4th quarter comebacks that only get mentioned for players who had such a dramatic win.

And I think that is the answer to my question. I think the majority of the "clutch" and "winner" topic is based on being caught up in the drama inherent in the moment. Tom Brady was immediately considered clutch for his first Super Bowl because it was hugely dramatic and they won. But offensive coordinator Charlie Weis said about that day that the offense only played well enough in that game to not loose.

If Vinatieri misses that field goal and the Rams get the ball back in the first OT possession and win, you know the same "clutch" label would not have been applied to Brady. Why not? He'd have played the exact same game, the only difference is the kicker would have missed the kick. If the performance stayed constant, but our evaluation changes, the only way that can happen is if our evaluation is based strongly on something else other than the performance.

And I believe that other thing is drama. In my experience it's very consistent that the more dramatic the moment the more the player gets labeled as clutch and the less dramatic the less likely. Not because the drama of the moment means only an above-human psyche can succeed there, but because some want to believe that is the case. A Brady drive to a spot on the field for a SB-winning FG - DRAMATIC. The same Brady drive to a spot on the field for a SB-losing missed FG? Not dramatic. For Brady anyway. Kurt Warner would suddenly become clutch even if they won on Marshal Faulk breaking some 90 yard run.

Whether it is a matter of getting caught up in the moment and wanting to make the moment even more special by imposing the requirement a normal person couldn't have accomplished it, or some other psychological motivation, I don't know. But it's the only factor that I see that consistently is present when "clutch" gets invoked. When Joe Montana has an ignominious playoff performance it isn't even included in some people's memories so long as he previously had a dramatic win to trump it.

When it's a player like Brady, who had a string of dramatic success only to turn into a string of dramatic failure so obvious it can't be ignored, or a player like Peyton who had a string of dramatic failure only to turn into dramatic success, it leaves the "clutch" arguers grasping for an explanation for it. It must be that his psyche changed. It's never considered that the previous success may have been normal variation combining talent plus good fortune rather than being an above-human "clutchness" psyche, and that a bad failure in a dramatic moment may include bad fortune and circumstances rather than being a loss of psychological fortitude. Because clutch is all about making the moment more dramatic, and such a reasoned look at the events doesn't do that.

 

[squistion]

Joe Montana was a great QB and played great in multiple SB winning postseasons. We hear about that all the time. Why do we never hear about how we need to factor the three straight years sandwiched between those SB wins where he was the opposite of clutch, with first round playoff exits and passer ratings of 65, 35, and 42? Or his 39.2 passer rating that ended the Chiefs 93 playoff run? 4 clutch games where he had no touchdowns, threw interceptions every game, and his completion percentages ranged from 55% to 39%.

When I look at Montana's playoffs as a whole, including the good and the bad, I see normal variation, good days and bad days, days when your opponent has your number and days when you have your opponents number. I view both the positive and negative performances through that lens.

When Joe Montana has an ignominious playoff performance it isn't even included in some people's memories so long as he previously had a dramatic win to trump it

Sorry, but I am increasingly finding it hard to take seriously your opinion when you are essentially arguing that Joe Montana (nicknamed Joe Cool for his remarkable success in clutch situations http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2007-07-23-no-1-joe-montana_N.htm) was overrated as a clutch player because statistically he had games or periods that he wasn't always clutch.And I find it somewhat disingenuous to bolster your argument by pointing to his years with the Chiefs as proof that he wasn't really that "clutch". He was clearly past his peak at age 37 when he went to KC and was 38 when he played his last game. I think pointing to the twilight of a players career when they have clearly declining skills due to age, doesn't really prove any point you are trying to make as far as their overall career is concerned.

Peyton suddenly became clutch after a SB win that included a very dramatic game winning drive over Brady to get there.

That seems revisionist history to me. At the time, people were not unanimously saying, "Boy were we wrong - Peyton really is clutch!" It was more like, "Well, he finally did it, long overdue, maybe he really isn't a choker. - but he was sure lucky to have been facing Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl."Contrary to your assertion I don't remember everyone suddenly putting Peyton in the clutch category and talking about him in the same breath as QBs historically we view as clutch. The general consensus was pretty much, "OK, maybe we were wrong, he proved he can win the big one, but let's wait and see if he can do it again."

 

[GregR]

Joe Montana was a great QB and played great in multiple SB winning postseasons. We hear about that all the time. Why do we never hear about how we need to factor the three straight years sandwiched between those SB wins where he was the opposite of clutch, with first round playoff exits and passer ratings of 65, 35, and 42? Or his 39.2 passer rating that ended the Chiefs 93 playoff run? 4 clutch games where he had no touchdowns, threw interceptions every game, and his completion percentages ranged from 55% to 39%.

When I look at Montana's playoffs as a whole, including the good and the bad, I see normal variation, good days and bad days, days when your opponent has your number and days when you have your opponents number. I view both the positive and negative performances through that lens.

When Joe Montana has an ignominious playoff performance it isn't even included in some people's memories so long as he previously had a dramatic win to trump it

Sorry, I am increasingly finding it hard to take seriously your opinion when you are essentially arguing that Joe Montana (nicknamed Joe Cool for his remarkable success in clutch situations http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2007-07-23-no-1-joe-montana_N.htm) was overrated as a clutch player because statistically he had games or periods that he wasn't always clutch.And I find it somewhat disingenuous to bolster your argument by pointing to his years with the Chiefs as proof that he wasn't really that "clutch". He was clearly past his peak at age 37 when he went to KC and was 38 when he played his last game. I think pointing to the twilight of a players career when they have clearly declining skills due to age, doesn't really prove any point you are trying to make as far as their overall career is concerned.

Peyton suddenly became clutch after a SB win that included a very dramatic game winning drive over Brady to get there.

That seems revisionist history to me. At the time, people were not unanimously saying, "Boy were we wrong - Peyton really is clutch!" It was more like, "Well, he finally did it, long overdue, maybe he really isn't a choker. - but he was sure lucky to have been facing Rex Grossman in the Super Bowl."Contrary to your assertion I don't remember everyone suddenly putting Peyton in the clutch category and talking about him in the same breath as QBs historically we view as clutch. The general consensus was pretty much, "OK, maybe we were wrong, he proved he can win the big one, but let's wait and see if he can do it again."

My post was not an attempt to divine the merits of Joe Montana as a QB. If you think it was you missed the point entirely. I was pointing out there is a lack of consistency and logic behind giving the "clutch" moniker or not, and gave as an example that some performances are completely ignored while others are completely magnified. You just agreed that Joe Montana "wasn't always clutch". Part of my point is that there is no critical thinking that goes into when a game should be counted towards "clutch" and how much. The only consistent factors I can see that guide that decision is level of drama and whether it agrees with preconceived notions or not.

It isn't even always tied to their performance. You don't need a complex statistical formula, but there should be common sense involved. An evaluation of Tom Brady's performance shouldn't hinge heavily on whether a kicker made a FG on the last play of the game when Brady is not even on the field for that play. His performance should be viewed identically. Yet it matters hugely when the topic is clutchness.

And incidentally, the comments about what happened with Peyton were based on specific threads that I still remember clearly, with people who going into his SB season had declared in numerous threads on the topic that Peyton was a choker and could never win a big game. I challenged one such long-time poster here at the time, asking if now that he sees Peyton can win big games whether his previous conclusion was based on small samples and had disregarded games where Peyton came up big yet his team lost (such as due to Edge fumbling on the goal line late against the Pats). The response I got was, "No, Peyton learned to be clutch."

Not much you can do. I just threw up my hands and walked away at that point.

 

[squistion]

And incidentally, the comments about what happened with Peyton were based on specific threads that I still remember clearly, with people who going into his SB season had declared in numerous threads on the topic that Peyton was a choker and could never win a big game. I challenged one such long-time poster here at the time, asking if now that he sees Peyton can win big games whether his previous conclusion was based on small samples and had disregarded games where Peyton came up big yet his team lost (such as due to Edge fumbling on the goal line late against the Pats). The response I got was, "No, Peyton learned to be clutch."

Hmmm...OK so there is at least one person in one thread who had declared he was a choker, then stated he learned to be clutch and in your view that reflected a change in the general perception and thereafter it was believed that he had permanently shed the choker label. I won't dispute you can't find threads to support this, but I don't share your view that everyone's opinion had changed.I dunno, perhaps that is what people were saying in this forum - but it seems to me that there were a few here that weren't quite ready yet to put him in the same category as Elway or Montana.Yes, before that, most people thought he was a choker and could not win the big game. Yes, most people who said that had to eat crow when he finally won the Super Bowl. But I clearly remember at that time, some here were of the opinion that the Super Bowl win had an outlier quality to it and was due more to the inadequacies of Rex Grossman than Peyton suddenly developing into a clutch player.And the fact is, in the long run that one year didn't permanently change people's perception. The jury is still out on this, because despite being an unquestioned future member of the HOF, Peyton still tends to get rattled and seems a bit off his game when it comes to the playoffs (see 2009 Super Bowl, while facing a 3rd & 5 with 3:24 left, the Tracy Porter interception).Now if he takes Denver to the Super Bowl in his remaining years with them, the perception could change to, "He tended to choke early in his career in the most important games, but that he shed that label by his two rings after the age of 30."

 

[CalBear]

Yes, before that, most people thought he was a choker and could not win the big game. Yes, most people who said that had to eat crow when he finally won the Super Bowl. But I clearly remember at that time, some here were of the opinion that the Super Bowl win had an outlier quality to it and was due more to the inadequacies of Rex Grossman than Peyton suddenly developing into a clutch player.

And the fact is, in the long run that one year didn't permanently change people's perception. The jury is still out on this, because despite being an unquestioned future member of the HOF, Peyton still tends to get rattled and seems a bit off his game when it comes to the playoffs (see 2009 Super Bowl, while facing a 3rd & 5 with 3:24 left, the Tracy Porter interception).

This is just more confirmation bias at work. Earlier you were touting Eli Manning as a clutch player because he's 15th on the all-time list in terms of fourth-quarter comebacks. Well, Peyton is second. Peyton is also second in terms of game-winning drives, where Eli is just 24th. You may be right that people's perception is that Peyton isn't clutch, but if people believe that they are simply wrong, and they stay wrong because they discard contradictory information.

 

[squistion]

Yes, before that, most people thought he was a choker and could not win the big game. Yes, most people who said that had to eat crow when he finally won the Super Bowl. But I clearly remember at that time, some here were of the opinion that the Super Bowl win had an outlier quality to it and was due more to the inadequacies of Rex Grossman than Peyton suddenly developing into a clutch player.

And the fact is, in the long run that one year didn't permanently change people's perception. The jury is still out on this, because despite being an unquestioned future member of the HOF, Peyton still tends to get rattled and seems a bit off his game when it comes to the playoffs (see 2009 Super Bowl, while facing a 3rd & 5 with 3:24 left, the Tracy Porter interception).

This is just more confirmation bias at work. Earlier you were touting Eli Manning as a clutch player because he's 15th on the all-time list in terms of fourth-quarter comebacks. Well, Peyton is second. Peyton is also second in terms of game-winning drives, where Eli is just 24th. You may be right that people's perception is that Peyton isn't clutch, but if people believe that they are simply wrong, and they stay wrong because they discard contradictory information.

Obviously I didn't properly state the point I was trying to make - the perception is that Peyton isn't clutch in big games, not that he can't be clutch in a lesser regular season game situation.It seems that in the important games the pressure gets to him more than it doesn't. And to say otherwise is to ignore his overall post-season record, which would be discarding contradictory information, possibly due to confirmation bias.

 

[Time Kibitzer]

Yes, before that, most people thought he was a choker and could not win the big game. Yes, most people who said that had to eat crow when he finally won the Super Bowl. But I clearly remember at that time, some here were of the opinion that the Super Bowl win had an outlier quality to it and was due more to the inadequacies of Rex Grossman than Peyton suddenly developing into a clutch player.

And the fact is, in the long run that one year didn't permanently change people's perception. The jury is still out on this, because despite being an unquestioned future member of the HOF, Peyton still tends to get rattled and seems a bit off his game when it comes to the playoffs (see 2009 Super Bowl, while facing a 3rd & 5 with 3:24 left, the Tracy Porter interception).

This is just more confirmation bias at work. Earlier you were touting Eli Manning as a clutch player because he's 15th on the all-time list in terms of fourth-quarter comebacks. Well, Peyton is second. Peyton is also second in terms of game-winning drives, where Eli is just 24th. You may be right that people's perception is that Peyton isn't clutch, but if people believe that they are simply wrong, and they stay wrong because they discard contradictory information.

Obviously I didn't properly state the point I was trying to make - the perception is that Peyton isn't clutch in big games, not that he can't be clutch in a lesser regular season game situation.It seems that in the important games the pressure gets to him more than it doesn't. And to say otherwise is to ignore his overall post-season record, which would be discarding contradictory information, possibly due to confirmation bias.

That's not exactly comparing apples to apples. Eli has been fortunate enough to be on a team with an outstanding defense, whereas Peyton has been unfortunate enough to be on a team that has been perennially among the worst in the league. When it comes to their actual play in the playoffs (which admittedly isn't the largest sample size), Peyton has the edge in CMP% and YPA, and Eli has the advantage in QB rating. Interestingly enough, Eli is 9th all time in playoff QB rating at 89.3, and Peyton is 10th all time at 88.4.

 

[CalBear]

Yes, before that, most people thought he was a choker and could not win the big game. Yes, most people who said that had to eat crow when he finally won the Super Bowl. But I clearly remember at that time, some here were of the opinion that the Super Bowl win had an outlier quality to it and was due more to the inadequacies of Rex Grossman than Peyton suddenly developing into a clutch player.

And the fact is, in the long run that one year didn't permanently change people's perception. The jury is still out on this, because despite being an unquestioned future member of the HOF, Peyton still tends to get rattled and seems a bit off his game when it comes to the playoffs (see 2009 Super Bowl, while facing a 3rd & 5 with 3:24 left, the Tracy Porter interception).

This is just more confirmation bias at work. Earlier you were touting Eli Manning as a clutch player because he's 15th on the all-time list in terms of fourth-quarter comebacks. Well, Peyton is second. Peyton is also second in terms of game-winning drives, where Eli is just 24th. You may be right that people's perception is that Peyton isn't clutch, but if people believe that they are simply wrong, and they stay wrong because they discard contradictory information.

Obviously I didn't properly state the point I was trying to make - the perception is that Peyton isn't clutch in big games, not that he can't be clutch in a lesser regular season game situation.

Yes, and the perception is wrong.

It seems that in the important games the pressure gets to him more than it doesn't. And to say otherwise is to ignore his overall post-season record, which would be discarding contradictory information, possibly due to confirmation bias.

The sample sizes are way too small for Peyton's post-season record to be statistically meaningful; he's only played in 19 games. And some of those games include record-breaking performances, two wins in conference championship games and a Super Bowl, so if you want to talk about "his overall post-season record," he's in the top 10 QBs of all time.

 

[jurb26]

Yes, before that, most people thought he was a choker and could not win the big game. Yes, most people who said that had to eat crow when he finally won the Super Bowl. But I clearly remember at that time, some here were of the opinion that the Super Bowl win had an outlier quality to it and was due more to the inadequacies of Rex Grossman than Peyton suddenly developing into a clutch player.

And the fact is, in the long run that one year didn't permanently change people's perception. The jury is still out on this, because despite being an unquestioned future member of the HOF, Peyton still tends to get rattled and seems a bit off his game when it comes to the playoffs (see 2009 Super Bowl, while facing a 3rd & 5 with 3:24 left, the Tracy Porter interception).

This is just more confirmation bias at work. Earlier you were touting Eli Manning as a clutch player because he's 15th on the all-time list in terms of fourth-quarter comebacks. Well, Peyton is second. Peyton is also second in terms of game-winning drives, where Eli is just 24th. You may be right that people's perception is that Peyton isn't clutch, but if people believe that they are simply wrong, and they stay wrong because they discard contradictory information.

Obviously I didn't properly state the point I was trying to make - the perception is that Peyton isn't clutch in big games, not that he can't be clutch in a lesser regular season game situation.

Yes, and the perception is wrong.

It seems that in the important games the pressure gets to him more than it doesn't. And to say otherwise is to ignore his overall post-season record, which would be discarding contradictory information, possibly due to confirmation bias.

The sample sizes are way too small for Peyton's post-season record to be statistically meaningful; he's only played in 19 games. And some of those games include record-breaking performances, two wins in conference championship games and a Super Bowl, so if you want to talk about "his overall post-season record," he's in the top 10 QBs of all time.

19 games seems like enough of a sample size to me. That's more than a full seasons worth of games. What would you consider a meaningful sample size in this context?

 

[squistion]

Yes, before that, most people thought he was a choker and could not win the big game. Yes, most people who said that had to eat crow when he finally won the Super Bowl. But I clearly remember at that time, some here were of the opinion that the Super Bowl win had an outlier quality to it and was due more to the inadequacies of Rex Grossman than Peyton suddenly developing into a clutch player.

And the fact is, in the long run that one year didn't permanently change people's perception. The jury is still out on this, because despite being an unquestioned future member of the HOF, Peyton still tends to get rattled and seems a bit off his game when it comes to the playoffs (see 2009 Super Bowl, while facing a 3rd & 5 with 3:24 left, the Tracy Porter interception).

This is just more confirmation bias at work. Earlier you were touting Eli Manning as a clutch player because he's 15th on the all-time list in terms of fourth-quarter comebacks. Well, Peyton is second. Peyton is also second in terms of game-winning drives, where Eli is just 24th. You may be right that people's perception is that Peyton isn't clutch, but if people believe that they are simply wrong, and they stay wrong because they discard contradictory information.

Obviously I didn't properly state the point I was trying to make - the perception is that Peyton isn't clutch in big games, not that he can't be clutch in a lesser regular season game situation.It seems that in the important games the pressure gets to him more than it doesn't. And to say otherwise is to ignore his overall post-season record, which would be discarding contradictory information, possibly due to confirmation bias.

That's not exactly comparing apples to apples. Eli has been fortunate enough to be on a team with an outstanding defense, whereas Peyton has been unfortunate enough to be on a team that has been perennially among the worst in the league. When it comes to their actual play in the playoffs (which admittedly isn't the largest sample size), Peyton has the edge in CMP% and YPA, and Eli has the advantage in QB rating. Interestingly enough, Eli is 9th all time in playoff QB rating at 89.3, and Peyton is 10th all time at 88.4.

My friend, most of this entire thread is comprised of not exactly comparing apples to apples. You have an intangible concept in which some of us see a player as "clutch" (perhaps we are more intuitive by nature). And then, in oppostion, you have the number crunchers (more linear thinkers) throwing out stats and figures which (while interesting) do not disprove that a player really has this intangible (which, of course, can't be quantified).Look, either you see someone as a clutch player or you don't. If you do, being hit repeatedly over the head with a bunch of factoids isn't going to change your opinion. By the same token, those who can't grasp the concept of a player having something intangible, will never be persuaded by anything less than some counter statistics one can come up with.

Overall it is an interesting topic, but the left hemisphere (more linear thinkers) and right hemisiphere (more intuitive by nature) people will never see the world the same way, and it is probably a waste of time to debate this subject.

 

[CalBear]

19 games seems like enough of a sample size to me. That's more than a full seasons worth of games. What would you consider a meaningful sample size in this context?

If someone came into the league, played 16 games as a rookie, won 8 and lost 8, had some game-winning drives in the wins, laid some stinkers in the losses, would you be ready to declare him either a choker or a clutch player? If someone flipped a coin 19 times and got 14 heads, would you be ready to declare him a great heads flipper?Peyton Manning actually has a better playoff QB rating than Tom Brady, so his actual performance in those games, as a QB, has been at least as good as Brady's.

 

[jurb26]

19 games seems like enough of a sample size to me. That's more than a full seasons worth of games. What would you consider a meaningful sample size in this context?

If someone came into the league, played 16 games as a rookie, won 8 and lost 8, had some game-winning drives in the wins, laid some stinkers in the losses, would you be ready to declare him either a choker or a clutch player? If someone flipped a coin 19 times and got 14 heads, would you be ready to declare him a great heads flipper?Peyton Manning actually has a better playoff QB rating than Tom Brady, so his actual performance in those games, as a QB, has been at least as good as Brady's.

Payton Manning wasn't a rookie in 16 of those games though. That's part of the reason I think it's enough. There are enough games spread out over a long enough duration of his career that we can get a decent picture of his playoff performance. I guess my point is that if Peyton's career and 19 playoffs games isn't enough for you to come up with a conclusion than it seems like nothing will. 19 playoff games is a lot for any QB. I'm not sure where it ranks all time, but I'm sure it's a great deal more than most. If we can't come up with a solid picture based on Peyton's career, then we're all just wasting our time even talking about it.