What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Defining Big Games (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game. It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.J
Thoughts?J
 
I agree. In all sports in this country, there's an all-or-nothinbg attitude that prevails - every team is a failure if they don't win it all. I hear things referred to as "The Buffalo Bills of X" or "The Atlanta Braves of Y" all the time and I just don't get it.Sure, you like to win it all, but being a fan of a team means you root for that team every week. My Sundays are MADE when the Steelers win and just crap when they lose. Someone like BGP who claims the Browns have the right approach because they constantly make coaching changes in search of that elusive Super Bowl title- while the Steelers are foolish to hold onto a guy like Cowher, who "never wins the big game"- is so far off base, it's almost unreal. Would you really rather go 5-11 every year and have given up on the season by October, or would you rather win 75% of the games and watch playoff football with a rooting interest alomst every single year?It's not ALL about the Super Bowl, guys. I've gone through 6-10 seasons and 15-1 seasons with the Steelers, in both of which they came up short of the ultimate prize. trust me, the 15-1 seasons are a LOT more fun, and I think any sane football fan would agree.

 
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
Thoughts?J
If the Packers had lost that Super Bowl to the Patriots, would we talk about Favre the way we now talk about Manning?
 
I agree EG.I was thinking this on the way to work this morning. The Bears defense is all of sudden pathetic to listen to the talking heads. All for one game against a very good offense.They go all season long giving up hardly any points and because they got beat soundly in their last game, their entire season is now suddenly a failure and their defense is weak. I don't get it.J

 
Sure, you like to win it all, but being a fan of a team means you root for that team every week. My Sundays are MADE when the Steelers win and just crap when they lose. Someone like BGP who claims the Browns have the right approach because they constantly make coaching changes in search of that elusive Super Bowl title- while the Steelers are foolish to hold onto a guy like Cowher, who "never wins the big game"- is so far off base, it's almost unreal. Would you really rather go 5-11 every year and have given up on the season by October, or would you rather win 75% of the games and watch playoff football with a rooting interest alomst every single year?
I think its a different philosophy. There are some fans who are happy to consistently win more than they lose even if it means never winning a championship. Other fans, like myself, who make winning championships more of a priority, would find such a scenario equally as frustrating as going 4-12 every season. And to perfectly reasonable about it all, I don't think either belief is wrong. They are just different.
 
Pursuant to this, and specific to Cowher :Cowher has 11 winning seasons, 10 playoff berths, and 8 division titles in 14 years and has never had fewer than 6 wins. He's had 2 6-win seasons and 1 seven win season, has never finished 8-8, and has won 10 or more games 9 times. He is currently 151-91-1 - a .624 winning percentage, including the postseason. He now has a winning playoff record as well.The reason I post all this? To illustrate that despite never having won a Super Bowl, the guy wins games. The Steelers are rarely out of the hunt, and I love that about the team. I never have to go through these 5, 10 year periods where the team is in the doldrums and is totally non-competitive. Every season starts with renrewed hope, regardless of what happened the year before. This is because Cowher continually gets the best out of the players he has.That counts for something in my book.

 
I think some people don't realize how difficult it is to win a SB. I remember during a Gibbs vs. Parcells argument, someone said, "Gibbs only has one more SB than Parcells." Only? If it's only one more, why doesn't Parcells just go get himself one more?

Winning the SB is much more than whether or not you win that one game in early February. Winning a SB is an extremely long process and takes more than any of us will ever know.

 
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
Thoughts?J
If the Packers had lost that Super Bowl to the Patriots, would we talk about Favre the way we now talk about Manning?
Probably...same with Elway...though he finished with two...had he left before that...does he even get mentioned in any top 10...much less top 5 of all time that people put him in...
 
Sure, you like to win it all, but being a fan of a team means you root for that team every week.  My Sundays are MADE when the Steelers win and just crap when they lose.  Someone like BGP who claims the Browns have the right approach because they constantly make coaching changes in search of that elusive Super Bowl title- while the Steelers are foolish to hold onto a guy like Cowher, who "never wins the big game"- is so far off base, it's almost unreal.  Would you really rather go 5-11 every year and have given up on the season by October, or would you rather win 75% of the games and watch playoff football with a rooting interest alomst every single year?
I think its a different philosophy. There are some fans who are happy to consistently win more than they lose even if it means never winning a championship. Other fans, like myself, who make winning championships more of a priority, would find such a scenario equally as frustrating as going 4-12 every season. And to perfectly reasonable about it all, I don't think either belief is wrong. They are just different.
The thing I don't get is that you evidently don't see coaching stability as any sort of boon towards achieving that ultimate goal. Changing coaches every few years, and as such changing the scheme, changing the leadership, changing the personnel, etc.. etc.. in my opinion has a deleterious effect on a team's chances to win. I have heard many NFL players say the same in interviews - it's ALWAYS better when you know your coach is THE guy and you can commit to playing for that coach, and within his system, without always wondering when the other shoe is going to drop.I also don't see how making the playoffs 10 times in 14 years doesn't give you a better chance to win it all than flipping coaches non-stop and making the playoffs maybe once or twice a decade. A lot has to go right for a team to win a Super Bowl and the more times you're at the dance, the more likely you are to have the breaks go your way.

 
A big game to me is plan and simple to define. It's any game in which your teams seasons can be ended by loosing or extened by winning. These games would include the SB, any and all playoff games and any game in which your team is in a win and in or loose and out to make the playoffs situation. I don't really see how or why people can make it any more complicated than that... but I guess we all have our opinions.

 
I asked this same question yesterday...

Got 2 responses. My thoughts are in it.

Big game thread

People use the term "big game" however they need to in order to support whatever argument they're trying to make.

 
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
Thoughts?J
If the Packers had lost that Super Bowl to the Patriots, would we talk about Favre the way we now talk about Manning?
Favre to Marino in that case. Peyton has not won a big game at any level at least those two would have won Conference Championship games.
 
A big game to me is plan and simple to define. It's any game in which your teams seasons can be ended by loosing or extened by winning. These games would include the SB, any and all playoff games and any game in which your team is in a win and in or loose and out to make the playoffs situation. I don't really see how or why people can make it any more complicated than that... but I guess we all have our opinions.
Hi Jurb,I don't really disagree with that but that's not how it's generally understood.

By that definition, Manning has won 3 big games for sure and other big games like the MNF win against PIT and the win over New England this year.

Same situation with Cowher.

The trick is the big game becomes a big game when you lose. If you win, it's not really that big of a game. At least that's the perception.

J

 
A big game to me is plan and simple to define. It's any game in which your teams seasons can be ended by loosing or extened by winning. These games would include the SB, any and all playoff games and any game in which your team is in a win and in or loose and out to make the playoffs situation. I don't really see how or why people can make it any more complicated than that... but I guess we all have our opinions.
Hi Jurb,I don't really disagree with that but that's not how it's generally understood.

By that definition, Manning has won 3 big games for sure and other big games like the MNF win against PIT and the win over New England this year.

Same situation with Cowher.

The trick is the big game becomes a big game when you lose. If you win, it's not really that big of a game. At least that's the perception.

J
I agree that a lot of people have the perception you speak of. I just don't argee with it personally. I think people try to make this far too complicated.
 
I think saying Manning CAN'T win the big game is very misleading and probably wrong. I like to say Manning does not have the ability to perform or win on a consistent basis on the big stage. I was very pleased to see where several Colts fans on this board openly admitted to no longer having their heads in the sand in regards to this issue. The guy just doesn't have "IT" when it comes to down to it.

 
A big game to me is plan and simple to define. It's any game in which your teams seasons can be ended by loosing or extened by winning. These games would include the SB, any and all playoff games and any game in which your team is in a win and in or loose and out to make the playoffs situation. I don't really see how or why people can make it any more complicated than that... but I guess we all have our opinions.
You're right about us all having our opinions. I'd throw in games that can clinch the division, clinch a first week bye, and clinch home field advantage.And I'll point out that Manning, Marino and Cowher have all won a few of those.

 
A big game to me is plan and simple to define.  It's any game in which your teams seasons can be ended by loosing or extened by winning.  These games would include the SB, any and all playoff games and any game in which your team is in a win and in or loose and out to make the playoffs situation.  I don't really see how or why people can make it any more complicated than that... but I guess we all have our opinions.
Hi Jurb,I don't really disagree with that but that's not how it's generally understood.

By that definition, Manning has won 3 big games for sure and other big games like the MNF win against PIT and the win over New England this year.

Same situation with Cowher.

The trick is the big game becomes a big game when you lose. If you win, it's not really that big of a game. At least that's the perception.

J
:goodposting: Minimize the successes...maximize the failures...happens all the time.

 
I would also like to point out that ther is a very distinct difference between THE big game and A big game. ;)

 
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
Thoughts?J
If the Packers had lost that Super Bowl to the Patriots, would we talk about Favre the way we now talk about Manning?
Favre to Marino in that case. Peyton has not won a big game at any level at least those two would have won Conference Championship games.
At any level...again depending on how you define big games...College...sure he could not beat Florida...but in his playing time at UT...Bama had owned the Vols for years...whipped up on Rival Bama many times...he also won an SEC Championship game....3-1 in bowl games...

And you cannot just say "he" could not beat florida...hell one year he threw for 492 yards and 4 TDs...had a hell of a game and they still lost...certainly not because he or the offense was not doing something right...

 
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
Thoughts?J
If the Packers had lost that Super Bowl to the Patriots, would we talk about Favre the way we now talk about Manning?
Favre to Marino in that case. Peyton has not won a big game at any level at least those two would have won Conference Championship games.
At any level...again depending on how you define big games...College...sure he could not beat Florida...but in his playing time at UT...Bama had owned the Vols for years...whipped up on Rival Bama many times...he also won an SEC Championship game....3-1 in bowl games...

And you cannot just say "he" could not beat florida...hell one year he threw for 492 yards and 4 TDs...had a hell of a game and they still lost...certainly not because he or the offense was not doing something right...
I will concede this. Peyton Manning is the best QB the Citrus Bowl has ever seen. :thumbup:
 
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
Thoughts?J
If the Packers had lost that Super Bowl to the Patriots, would we talk about Favre the way we now talk about Manning?
Favre to Marino in that case. Peyton has not won a big game at any level at least those two would have won Conference Championship games.
At any level...again depending on how you define big games...College...sure he could not beat Florida...but in his playing time at UT...Bama had owned the Vols for years...whipped up on Rival Bama many times...he also won an SEC Championship game....3-1 in bowl games...

And you cannot just say "he" could not beat florida...hell one year he threw for 492 yards and 4 TDs...had a hell of a game and they still lost...certainly not because he or the offense was not doing something right...
I will concede this. Peyton Manning is the best QB the Citrus Bowl has ever seen. :thumbup:
He was also...or should I say Tennessee during his time at QB were...26-4 in the SEC...Id say he won some big games there to post that record in that conference.
 
JoeYou seem to have settled on the "It's only a big game if he loses" defense to the accusation that someone can't win big games. I think that's just semantics. Do you think there are specific things that a player or coach needs to do to win a playoff game? Do you think they are different from the things that they need to do to win a regular season game?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
J
If the Packers had lost that Super Bowl to the Patriots, would we talk about Favre the way we now talk about Manning?
Favre to Marino in that case. Peyton has not won a big game at any level at least those two would have won Conference Championship games.
At any level...again depending on how you define big games...College...sure he could not beat Florida...but in his playing time at UT...Bama had owned the Vols for years...whipped up on Rival Bama many times...he also won an SEC Championship game....3-1 in bowl games...

And you cannot just say "he" could not beat florida...hell one year he threw for 492 yards and 4 TDs...had a hell of a game and they still lost...certainly not because he or the offense was not doing something right...
I will concede this. Peyton Manning is the best QB the Citrus Bowl has ever seen. :thumbup:
He was also...or should I say Tennessee during his time at QB were...26-4 in the SEC...Id say he won some big games there to post that record in that conference.
Yes, but playing at UT, his BIGGEST games were the ones vs. Florida. They were bigger than any SECC game or bowl game. College is set up differently than the NFL in that the last game of the season in college is not always the biggest/most important of a teams season. A Vol win vs Florida means more than it does some Big 10 school they don't care about.Go ask any OSU/Michigan fan what they would rather have, a win vs. each other or a win in the Old El Paso made in San Antonio Alamo Bowl.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, but playing at UT, his BIGGEST games were the ones vs. Florida. They were bigger than any SECC game or bowl game. College is set up differently than the NFL in that the last game of the season in college is not always the biggest/most important of a teams season. A Vol win vs Florida means more than it does some Big 10 school they don't care about.

Go ask any OSU/Michigan fan what they would rather have, a win vs. each other or a win in the Old El Paso made in San Antonio Alamo Bowl.
Bama is right there with the Florida rivalry..especially given the ineptitude the Vols had for a long stretch against Bama there before Peyton got there.But yes...while Spurrier was there Florida become the bigger game.

 
Joe

You seem to have settled on the "It's only a big game if he loses" defense to the accusation that someone can't win big games. I think that's just semantics.

Do you think there are specific things that a player or coach needs to do to win a playoff game? Do you think they are different from the things that they need to do to win a regular season game?
Hi fred,No, I don't really think a playoff game requires anything more different than any other "big game".

In other words, I don't think Manning had to do anything more Sunday to win than he did on Monday Night Football against Pittsburgh.

I don't think Tom Brady does things differently in the playoffs than he does in any other big regular season game. Sure, he probably ups the intensity in the AFC Championship game over what he'd do for Cleveland, but that's just natural.

But I don't think Brady against Indy in the regular season requires anything significantly different than Brady agaisnt Denver Saturday. Playing a great team is playing a great team in my opinion. Doesn't really matter whether it's December or January.

J

 
He was also...or should I say Tennessee during his time at QB were...26-4 in the SEC...Id say he won some big games there to post that record in that conference.
Hi sho,But that's what I'm saying. Those wins over Alabama (which were huge wins) are not big wins when he couldn't beat Florida. The Alabama game would have definitely been a big game if he'd lost. Then it would be another, "can't win the big game". But when he won, it was just another SEC game. That's just the perception you have to deal with.

J

 
Last edited by a moderator:
He was also...or should I say Tennessee during his time at QB were...26-4 in the SEC...Id say he won some big games there to post that record in that conference.
Hi sho,But that's what I'm saying. Those wins over Alabama (which were huge wins) are not big wins when he couldn't beat Florida. The Alabama game would have definitely been a big game if he'd lost. Then it would be another, "can't win the big game". But when he won, it was just another SEC game. That's just the perception you have to deal with.

J
And that is just the ridiculousness of the assertion...especially given the team nature of the sport.
 
Joe

You seem to have settled on the "It's only a big game if he loses" defense to the accusation that someone can't win big games.  I think that's just semantics. 

Do you think there are specific things that a player or coach needs to do to win a playoff game?  Do you think they are different from the things that they need to do to win a regular season game?
Hi fred,No, I don't really think a playoff game requires anything more different than any other "big game".

In other words, I don't think Manning had to do anything more Sunday to win than he did on Monday Night Football against Pittsburgh.

I don't think Tom Brady does things differently in the playoffs than he does in any other big regular season game. Sure, he probably ups the intensity in the AFC Championship game over what he'd do for Cleveland, but that's just natural.

But I don't think Brady against Indy in the regular season requires anything significantly different than Brady agaisnt Denver Saturday. Playing a great team is playing a great team in my opinion. Doesn't really matter whether it's December or January.

J
I think this is where we disagree. I think there are specific tasks that take on a much greater performance when this game is one and done. In a regular season game, you play the game in a way that will win more games on average. In a postseason game, you play the game in a way that will maximize your chances of winning this game.

In a regular season game, you don't overuse your best player because you need to save him for next week. In a postseason game, you throw 15 passes to Steve Smith or Deion Branch until they show they can't stop him, then do the same thing next week and pray he doesn't get hurt. You don't forget all about Marvin Harrison.

In a regular season game, maybe you punt on 4th and 2 because you don't want your team to get embarrassed by a blowout. You don't do that in the playoffs.

In a regular season game, you can get away with audibling at the line because teams haven't had the luxury of spending the last four weeks preparing for this specific game. In a postseason game, teams have studied your audibles and are prepared to counter them.

In a regular season game, gambling on a throw to the endzone before you move your team into comfortable field goal range might be OK, because if you lose, it's only one game, but if you win, it sends a statement. In a playoff game, that was a costly mistake.

There are countless decisions in a football game, and if you want to maximize your chances of winning one game, you have to adjust. I don't think Manning or Dungy do a very good job at making those adjustments, and I think that has a lot to do with why they "can't win the big game".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe

You seem to have settled on the "It's only a big game if he loses" defense to the accusation that someone can't win big games.  I think that's just semantics. 

Do you think there are specific things that a player or coach needs to do to win a playoff game?  Do you think they are different from the things that they need to do to win a regular season game?
Hi fred,No, I don't really think a playoff game requires anything more different than any other "big game".

In other words, I don't think Manning had to do anything more Sunday to win than he did on Monday Night Football against Pittsburgh.

I don't think Tom Brady does things differently in the playoffs than he does in any other big regular season game. Sure, he probably ups the intensity in the AFC Championship game over what he'd do for Cleveland, but that's just natural.

But I don't think Brady against Indy in the regular season requires anything significantly different than Brady agaisnt Denver Saturday. Playing a great team is playing a great team in my opinion. Doesn't really matter whether it's December or January.

J
I think this is where we disagree. I think there are specific tasks that take on a much greater performance when this game is one and done. In a regular season game, you play the game in a way that will win more games on average. In a postseason game, you play the game in a way that will maximize your chances of winning this game.

In a regular season game, you don't overuse your best player because you need to save him for next week. In a postseason game, you throw 15 passes to Steve Smith or Deion Branch until they show they can't stop him, then do the same thing next week and pray he doesn't get hurt. You don't forget all about Marvin Harrison.

In a regular season game, maybe you punt on 4th and 2 because you don't want your team to get embarrassed by a blowout. You don't do that in the playoffs.

In a regular season game, you can get away with audibling at the line because teams haven't had the luxury of spending the last four weeks preparing for this specific game. In a postseason game, teams have studied your audibles and are prepared to counter them.

In a regular season game, gambling on a throw to the endzone before you move your team into comfortable field goal range might be OK, because if you lose, it's only one game, but if you win, it sends a statement. In a playoff game, that was a costly mistake.

There are countless decisions in a football game, and if you want to maximize your chances of winning one game, you have to adjust. I don't think Manning or Dungy do a very good job at making those adjustments, and I think that has a lot to do with why they "can't win the big game".
Hi fred,That's cool. We just disagree there. I think short of playing with an injury that you might not play with in a regular season game, the players go at the big regular season games in the same way as they do the playoffs.

I really don't think Brady did a lot different Saturday than he did against Indy earlier in the year. I think he gave both everything he had. I think if Deion Branch was open 15 times against Indy, he gets 15 passes thrown to him. Same as a game in January. That's the big difference between the NFL and MLB or the NBA. With so few games, every single one is huge.

J

 
Hi fred,

That's cool. We just disagree there. I think short of playing with an injury that you might not play with in a regular season game, the players go at the big regular season games in the same way as they do the playoffs.

I really don't think Brady did a lot different Saturday than he did against Indy earlier in the year. I think he gave both everything he had. I think if Deion Branch was open 15 times against Indy, he gets 15 passes thrown to him. Same as a game in January. That's the big difference between the NFL and MLB or the NBA. With so few games, every single one is huge.

J
People react idfferently to pressure, it's only human nature. The playoffs and must win games add pressure that simply cannot be matched by regualr season games. It the realization that the results are final. I don't care how proffesional you are or you think the players are, they are only human. Pressure and anxiety effects people in different ways. This is one of the many reasons why the playoffs are unique. Do you really think that these players look at every game the same, playoffs and regular season alike?
 
Hi fred,

That's cool. We just disagree there. I think short of playing with an injury that you might not play with in a regular season game, the players go at the big regular season games in the same way as they do the playoffs.

I really don't think Brady did a lot different Saturday than he did against Indy earlier in the year. I think he gave both everything he had. I think if Deion Branch was open 15 times against Indy, he gets 15 passes thrown to him. Same as a game in January.  That's the big difference between the NFL and MLB or the NBA. With so few games, every single one is huge. 

J
People react idfferently to pressure, it's only human nature. The playoffs and must win games add pressure that simply cannot be matched by regualr season games. It the realization that the results are final. I don't care how proffesional you are or you think the players are, they are only human. Pressure and anxiety effects people in different ways. This is one of the many reasons why the playoffs are unique. Do you really think that these players look at every game the same, playoffs and regular season alike?
Another important point.
 
He was also...or should I say Tennessee during his time at QB were...26-4 in the SEC...Id say he won some big games there to post that record in that conference.
So Tennessee with Manning at QB never lost to an SEC team other than Florida? He swept Alabama, Auburn, Georgia and LSU? That's pretty impressive.
 
Games with a lot on the line are by definition "big games." All playoff games are "big games."I think choking has more to with losing when you "should" win. For Indy, playing at home with a great D and a really talented offense, and even some beneficial calls, they should win that game. Losing that game really creates a "choker" reputation IMO than losing on the road at NE. As for Cowher, you should not lose the AFC championship at home. losing to SD was a bad loss. I wouldn't knock him at all if they lost at Den next week. I think it took some good "big game" coaching to get this far.SBs are a great accomplishment, but i will say that some degree of luck is often involved. Where would NE be w/o the tuck rule, or that snowstorm, or getting to play when the weather was as cold as possible.

 
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
Thoughts?J
If the Packers had lost that Super Bowl to the Patriots, would we talk about Favre the way we now talk about Manning?
no..didn't he come back the following year and lose to Denver? at least he's played in two SB's, while manning has played in zilcho!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi fred,

That's cool. We just disagree there. I think short of playing with an injury that you might not play with in a regular season game, the players go at the big regular season games in the same way as they do the playoffs.

I really don't think Brady did a lot different Saturday than he did against Indy earlier in the year. I think he gave both everything he had. I think if Deion Branch was open 15 times against Indy, he gets 15 passes thrown to him. Same as a game in January.  That's the big difference between the NFL and MLB or the NBA. With so few games, every single one is huge. 

J
People react idfferently to pressure, it's only human nature. The playoffs and must win games add pressure that simply cannot be matched by regualr season games. It the realization that the results are final. I don't care how proffesional you are or you think the players are, they are only human. Pressure and anxiety effects people in different ways. This is one of the many reasons why the playoffs are unique. Do you really think that these players look at every game the same, playoffs and regular season alike?
Another important point.
Agreed. There's so much extra pressure in playoff games because a team must win or go home. The relentless focus of the media on each playoff game also adds to the pressure, especially as the postseason moves along. All the players on a team feel the pressure to some degree or another, but QB's (and coaches) play a role as the team's leaders. I know I've seen plenty of clips over the years of players talking about how they once they got in the huddle they just knew Elway ("The Drive") or Montana (Super Bowl XXIII) or Starr (The "Ice Bowl") or Unitas (1958 Title Game), was going to find a way to get it done. I don't know if Colts players can feel that same kind of confidence in Manning after the successive failures. I also don't know if responding to pressure means a player is raising the level of his game at a key moment, or that the player is good at continuing to play at his normal high level while others start to get tight. So many Super Bowls have been blowouts and I don't think it can be solely because of talent disparity in each of those games. When things start to go wrong in a Super Bowl, the pressure becomes overwhelming and teams collapse quickly once their situation isn't quickly reversed. Think about how many great NFL comebacks we've all seen over the years, and then think about how no team has ever come back from more than 10 points down to win a Super Bowl. The pressure really becomes a huge factor as the games get bigger. All that said, even guys with earned reputations for big game performances have failed when they had opportunities to get it done (Unitas, Elway, Montana, Favre, now Brady). It's still a team game as well. If Wayne reels in Manning's throw in the end zone (it was right on the money) are we having this conversation? Wouldn't we be talking about how Peyton responded in the 4th quarter when his back was to the wall? Montana's final drive in Super Bowl XXIII turned out to be his greatest moment. However, his team was a huge favorite and his defense did their job in holding the Bengals to 9 points (plus a kick return TD), yet with two minutes to go, the Niners were in serious jeopardy of losing in one of the biggest upsets in NFL history. All we remember now is the final drive.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
Thoughts?J
If the Packers had lost that Super Bowl to the Patriots, would we talk about Favre the way we now talk about Manning?
Favre to Marino in that case. Peyton has not won a big game at any level at least those two would have won Conference Championship games.
:goodposting: a big game is ANY playoff game ...

Kinda hard to show Manning respect when he plays in the AFC South ,where they are 20-4 since realignment.

not hard to do vs Jax,houston, Tenn..

 
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
Thoughts?J
The answer is really easy.A big game is any game that someone who "can't win the big game" loses.

 
I spun this off from another thread where apalmer was asking Cowher not winning a big game.

Hi apalmer,

Realistic answer and how things are perceived by most folks is this in my opinion: Winning a big game is basically winning the Super Bowl.

Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.

It's not really fair but lots of things aren't really fair. But it's reality. And I can deal with that.

J
Thoughts?J
Jumping in here late and haven't read the thread [yet] so excuse me if I'm repeating points already made.1) Winning a "big game" is indeed the Super Bowl in many cases

2) But winning a "big game" can also be any game where the coach/team/QB is PERCEIVED to be an underdog.

For example...Andy Reid got mad props from most pundits after the Eagles first two playoff seasons under his watch.

In 2000, the Eagles finished 11-5, beat the Bucs in a playoff game and lost to the Giants [who won the division] in the 2nd round on route to NY getting to the Bowl. Fans, pundits, etc...praised Reid and the team for winning even the one playoff game.

In 2001, the Eagles won the division at 11-5, won TWO playoff games and made the NFC Championship game, losing by 5 points to the Rams who were heavy, heavy favorites going into that Super Bowl. Again, kudos were showered on he and the team for doing a great job, being a team on the rise, and Reid being a great young NFL mind.

But then came 2002-2003...when the Eagles were favorites to get to the SB and fell short. With each passing year came more and more people saying, "Reid can WIN THE BIG GAME." Meanwhile the guy was winning divisions, winning playoff games, but losing a home playoff game where they were favored. Weren't the divisional games BIG GAMES? I would say :yes: , others would say :no: apparently.

The same rules apply right now for John Fox. People are bandying his name about like he's the 2nd coming. While I think he's a very good young coach, let's not forget that in two of his four seasons the team finished 7-9. And his two winning seasons were 11-5. By Fox going into Chicago this year and winning he's "capable of winning a big game."

But fast forward two years, if Fox and the Panthers are the 1 seed in 2006 and 2007 but fail to make the Bowl, won't he then be a guy who "can't win the big game?"

It's expectations, which makes the semantics of "big game" silly from the start.

 
1) Winning a "big game" is indeed the Super Bowl in many cases

2) But winning a "big game" can also be any game where the coach/team/QB is PERCEIVED to be an underdog.
You see, #1 is THE big game. #2 is A big game. ;)
 
So what you are saying is that Payton has not played in a big game yet? So that means he cant even win the little game nice. What a chump QB he is.

 
1) Winning a "big game" is indeed the Super Bowl in many cases

2) But winning a "big game" can also be any game where the coach/team/QB is PERCEIVED to be an underdog.
You see, #1 is THE big game. #2 is A big game. ;)
Agreed...but there's only one SB winner each year.Classic example of this is Elway. Guy was the poster boy for "can't win THE big game" until he WON THE BIG GAME in consecutive seasons. So now the revisionist history is, "Well he never won anything without Terrell Davis." :lmao:

Right, and Troy Aikman never won without Emmitt Smith and Erik Williams and Michael Irvin and Jay Novacek

...and Terry Bradshaw never won without...etc...etc...

 
1) Winning a "big game" is indeed the Super Bowl in many cases

2) But winning a "big game" can also be any game where the coach/team/QB is PERCEIVED to be an underdog.
You see, #1 is THE big game. #2 is A big game. ;)
Agreed...but there's only one SB winner each year.Classic example of this is Elway. Guy was the poster boy for "can't win THE big game" until he WON THE BIG GAME in consecutive seasons. So now the revisionist history is, "Well he never won anything without Terrell Davis." :lmao:

Right, and Troy Aikman never won without Emmitt Smith and Erik Williams and Michael Irvin and Jay Novacek

...and Terry Bradshaw never won without...etc...etc...
:thumbup: Good point.
 
Hi fred,

That's cool. We just disagree there. I think short of playing with an injury that you might not play with in a regular season game, the players go at the big regular season games in the same way as they do the playoffs.

I really don't think Brady did a lot different Saturday than he did against Indy earlier in the year. I think he gave both everything he had. I think if Deion Branch was open 15 times against Indy, he gets 15 passes thrown to him. Same as a game in January.  That's the big difference between the NFL and MLB or the NBA. With so few games, every single one is huge. 

J
People react idfferently to pressure, it's only human nature. The playoffs and must win games add pressure that simply cannot be matched by regualr season games. It the realization that the results are final. I don't care how proffesional you are or you think the players are, they are only human. Pressure and anxiety effects people in different ways. This is one of the many reasons why the playoffs are unique. Do you really think that these players look at every game the same, playoffs and regular season alike?
Hi Jurb,It's my opinion that people are not understanding pressure and how it affects these pro athletes. Sure they're people and human but it's also their job. Guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have been performing before crowds of 100,000 + people since they got out of high school.

I really don't think these guys play much different in the playoffs than they do in a big Monday Night Football game against a top team. Just my opinion.

J

 
Losing a big game is any regular season game with a lot of hype (especially Monday Night Football) or any post season game that would lead to the Super Bowl. Winning one of these games does not count as a big game.
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but at least it comes right out and says what most people seem to think about Manning.To me, a big game is a big game. You can't say it's a big game if you lose, but just another game if you win. But that seems to be the frustrating assumption for the Manning haters -- "Peyton Manning always loses the big game, and a big game is defined as any game that Peyton Manning loses".You can see how it works -- when he lost in the first round, people nodded and said he can't win the big game. But when he won in the playoffs, it wasn't "big" anymore. It was a big game whenever he'd lose to the Pats, except when he won -- then it was just another game. Follow the line of thought and it's clear that he'll never win a big game, by definition, until he wins the Super Bowl. Which is fine, I guess, except that you have to apply it to everyone. By this logic, Joe Montana was only 4-7 in big games (not even counting any regular season games he lost). And that just sounds silly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi Jurb,

It's my opinion that people are not understanding pressure and how it affects these pro athletes. Sure they're people and human but it's also their job. Guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have been performing before crowds of 100,000 + people since they got out of high school.

I really don't think these guys play much different in the playoffs than they do in a big Monday Night Football game against a top team. Just my opinion.

J
I agree that there are some people who react the way you describe. But I don't think that's true of every person. Let's just run through these facts (feel free to dispute any of them if you think I'm wrong):1) Performing under pressure is more difficult than performing without pressure. For example, I think I could kick a 45 yard field goal if I practiced, but if it were for a million dollars on national TV, I would say my odds were significantly worse.

2) It is possible to improve at performing under pressure. For example, I used to hate public speaking, but now I teach for a living.

3) There are degrees of ability to performing under pressure. For example, even though I talk for a living now, I was nervous and my voice shook a little when I delivered a best man's speech at my best friend's wedding.

4) Some people - even if it's not you - perceive a difference between the importance of a playoff game and the importance of a regular season Monday night game.

5) It's possible to be exceptionally good at one skill (in this case, throwing a football) but just be above average at another, complementary skill (in this case, handling pressure).

If you agree with all five statements, then your argument (which basically amounts to, professional football players can't choke) must be incorrect.

 
To me, a big game is a big game. You can't say it's a big game if you lose, but just another game if you win. But that seems to be the frustrating assumption for the Manning haters -- "Peyton Manning always loses the big game, and a big game is defined as any game that Peyton Manning loses".

You can see how it works -- when he lost in the first round, people nodded and said he can't win the big game. But when he won in the playoffs, it wasn't "big" anymore. It was a big game whenever he'd lose to the Pats, except when he won -- then it was just another game. Follow the line of thought and it's clear that he'll never win a big game, by definition, until he wins the Super Bowl.
I think this is just semantic argument. Let me put this out there - I believe that a team quarterbacked by Manning can win big games. I just think it is significantly less likely that a team quarterbacked by Manning can win a big game, because I think he has significant problems with pressure, and does not know how to do a lot of the things necessary to win. Maybe Manning's better when he gets out to an early lead, like he did in all three of his playoff wins? Maybe the way to beat the Colts is to get out to an early lead then blitz him and force Manning to make mistakes?

 
Hi Jurb,

It's my opinion that people are not understanding pressure and how it affects these pro athletes. Sure they're people and human but it's also their job. Guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning have been performing before crowds of 100,000 + people since they got out of high school.

I really don't think these guys play much different in the playoffs than they do in a big Monday Night Football game against a top team. Just my opinion.

J
I agree that there are some people who react the way you describe. But I don't think that's true of every person. Let's just run through these facts (feel free to dispute any of them if you think I'm wrong):1) Performing under pressure is more difficult than performing without pressure. For example, I think I could kick a 45 yard field goal if I practiced, but if it were for a million dollars on national TV, I would say my odds were significantly worse.

2) It is possible to improve at performing under pressure. For example, I used to hate public speaking, but now I teach for a living.

3) There are degrees of ability to performing under pressure. For example, even though I talk for a living now, I was nervous and my voice shook a little when I delivered a best man's speech at my best friend's wedding.

4) Some people - even if it's not you - perceive a difference between the importance of a playoff game and the importance of a regular season Monday night game.

5) It's possible to be exceptionally good at one skill (in this case, throwing a football) but just be above average at another, complementary skill (in this case, handling pressure).

If you agree with all five statements, then your argument (which basically amounts to, professional football players can't choke) must be incorrect.
Hi Fred,I'm sorry but you're missing what I'm saying. I said, "I really don't think these guys play much different in the playoffs than they do in a big Monday Night Football game against a top team. Just my opinion."

That's nowhere near close to "professional football players can't choke".

J

 
Maybe Manning's better when he gets out to an early lead, like he did in all three of his playoff wins? Maybe the way to beat the Colts is to get out to an early lead then blitz him and force Manning to make mistakes?
Hi fred,I'd ask: What QB is not better when he gets out to an early lead? What team doesn't think the way to beat any team is to get out to an early lead, pressure the QB and force him into mistakes?

J

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top