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!

Has Brady become Manning? (1 Viewer)

Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.
:wall: statistical facts are, by definition, quantifiable. Show me the metric where Manning fades late. It's gotta be out there somewhere, so many folks are convinced it's God's honest truth. Maybe find his passer rating in the 4th quarter in the playoffs. Show me the y/a in critical games. Find something verifiable...don't just say that its a statistical fact that cannot be quantified.
Read the post and figure out what people are saying before you make a silly retort. I never said it's a "statistical fact that cannot be quantified". Its a statistical fact that his QB rating is about 7 points lower in the playoffs than the regular season. The term "choker" can't be quantified, which is what I said.
It is a fact that his passer rating is lower in the post-season than the regular season (I'm not sure 7 points is statistically significant, given the questionable letitimacy of passer rating, but whatever). However, Brady suffers from a similar reduction, as do most QB's with a sufficient sample size. however, not all QB's are labeled "choker".Therefore, you need to clearly define what "choker" means.If it can't be quantified, it doesn't exist.
Most QB's do? That's false. Choker is just something people say. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion where we "quantify" what a choker is. It's a fake label we put on people. If you want to say it doesn't exist, go for it. I honestly don't care.
that's false? I'd like to see you back that up. We had this very discussion in the other thread. i showed you four QB's who played between 1999 and 2012 with at least 16 career playoff games. 3 out of 4 had a reduction in passer rating between regular season and playoffs, with only one increase - an increase of 0.3, which, I think we can agree is negligible.so that's my data. If you would like to go into historical trends to dispute this, go for it.as far as the second bit, if you agree its' a fake label, then why perpetuate it? Why bother posting something you know is fake?
 
Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.
:wall: statistical facts are, by definition, quantifiable. Show me the metric where Manning fades late. It's gotta be out there somewhere, so many folks are convinced it's God's honest truth. Maybe find his passer rating in the 4th quarter in the playoffs. Show me the y/a in critical games. Find something verifiable...don't just say that its a statistical fact that cannot be quantified.
Read the post and figure out what people are saying before you make a silly retort. I never said it's a "statistical fact that cannot be quantified". Its a statistical fact that his QB rating is about 7 points lower in the playoffs than the regular season. The term "choker" can't be quantified, which is what I said.
It is a fact that his passer rating is lower in the post-season than the regular season (I'm not sure 7 points is statistically significant, given the questionable letitimacy of passer rating, but whatever). However, Brady suffers from a similar reduction, as do most QB's with a sufficient sample size. however, not all QB's are labeled "choker".Therefore, you need to clearly define what "choker" means.If it can't be quantified, it doesn't exist.
Most QB's do? That's false. Choker is just something people say. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion where we "quantify" what a choker is. It's a fake label we put on people. If you want to say it doesn't exist, go for it. I honestly don't care.
that's false? I'd like to see you back that up. We had this very discussion in the other thread. i showed you four QB's who played between 1999 and 2012 with at least 16 career playoff games. 3 out of 4 had a reduction in passer rating between regular season and playoffs, with only one increase - an increase of 0.3, which, I think we can agree is negligible.so that's my data. If you would like to go into historical trends to dispute this, go for it.as far as the second bit, if you agree its' a fake label, then why perpetuate it? Why bother posting something you know is fake?
It's fake in the same way saying someone is "clutch" "awesome" or "terrible". They are not statistical labels. That doesn't mean we don't all use them.Also, I don't agree that we have to see a certain level of games before we can judge someone. Eli, Brees, Rodgers..These guys don't count under your scenario. I don't think their stats are going to fall off a cliff over the next decade in the playoffs.
 
Where have I said that "just shouldn't happen"? QB's change. Brady looks to me like he's "pressing" out there right now. I have no way to "quantify" him pressing. It's just how he looks. He looked that way against the Giants last year, and definitely against Baltimore. I have no idea why.

Elway earned the "choker" label earlier in his career by putting up huge duds in the super bowl. That doesn't mean he was destined to "always" be a choker. But he did choke in the super bowl. Yes, he redeemed himself at the end of his career, and that's great for him.

Michael Jordan didn't earn the "clutch" nickname by accident. He dominated in the NBA playoffs and especially in the finals. My main argument over the past few days is simple: Peyton isn't at his best in the playoffs. That's undeniable and has led many to conclude he's a choker. You may laugh at that nickname, and you may think it's ridiculous. But you can't deny that his game takes a step back when the playoffs roll around.
Michael Jordan was 9/18 on game winning shots in the playoffs. 50%. Michael Jordan's career field goal percentage? 50%. The game before he made that game winning shot against Utah in game 6 of the '98 championship he missed a game winning shot as time expired in game 5.

From everything we've ever heard about the myth of clutch vs. choker it's just something you have or you don't. I've never heard someone try to describe it as some skill that is learned/forgotten like you're implying. LeBron was a monster in the finals last year. He didn't suddenly "learn" how to be clutch any more than Elway learned it or Brady forgot it. The statistics just became more complete and the sample size larger. For instance, Tom Brady's career statistics are much better in week 11 than week 15.

Tom Brady career stats in week 11: 21td 0int 8.22ypa

Tom Brady career stats in week 15: 16td 9int 6.52ypa

Is Tom Brady a better quarterback in week 11 than week 15? Does he elevate his game and rise to a new level of play in week 11, while getting scared and press in week 15? No, he doesn't, it's just statistical variance (and before you retort with weather as an excuse, his week 14 and week 16 stats are much better than week 15 as well). Why is Brady such a choker in week 15?

Overall, I don't doubt that there is some small semblance of nerves involved at times but that is way overblown and those nerves don't suddenly develop or disappear out of thin air for the same player.

 
Who you are in the regular season is who you are in the postseason, minus a little because the quality of competition is higher. Any time it looks like someone is the exception, odds are that's just sample size screwing with your brain.
Bart Starr is an exception. 10 game post season sample size. 9-1 record.

Regular season career QB rating of 80.5. Post season career QB rating 104.8.

Regular season TD-INT ratio: a little over 1:1. Post season career TD-INT ratio: 5:1.
Sample sizes. How many QBs have there been in history, 500? 1000? With that many data points, it's a virtual certainty that one of them will put up values that anomalous over a 10 game sample. You can say "what are the odds Bart Starr would outperform by that much purely based on chance?", and the odds would be extremely low. If you ask "what are the odds SOMEONE would outperform by that much purely based on chance?", the odds would be substantially higher. That someone just happened to be Bart Starr. I've yet to see anything to convince me that anyone has any sort of magical "choke" or "clutch" skill, even guys like Montana or Schottenheimer. Montana was a phenomenal QB. The odds of him performing phenomenally over a 20 game sample are actually pretty decent. Schottenheimer has a putrid playoff record, but if you give 1000 guys some coins and tell them to flip them, someone's going to get 5 heads and 13 tails, it's just a question of who. I don't think either of these guys possessed/lacked any special ability. I think if you gave Schotty another 18 playoff games, he'd probably go .500 in them. I think if you gave Montana another 20 playoff games, he'd probably perform close to, but below, his regular season average.

Jim Plunkett, over an identical sample size to Starr (10 games), put together an 8-2 record and saw his QB rating jump by 14 points over his regular season average. JIM PLUNKETT!!! Like I said, with as many players as have played QB over the years, it's a near-statistical-certainty that a couple of them are going to have eye-popping postseason performances owing strictly to random chance rather than inherent "clutch" ability. Unless you think that Jim Plunkett has more magical clutchness than Joe Montana, Steve Young, John Elway, Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Johnny Unitas, or any others of the all-time greats.
This is right on the money, and something that has been frustrating me for years.I expect to hear people going on and on about "clutch" vs "choker" on talk radio shows where they need something to fill 4 hours a day for each show, but here on a fantasy football forum where we live and bathe in statistics as math it surprises me that people choose to ignore their most basic principles when it comes to this discussion.
Maybe its because some of us don't live and breathe statistics. We report what we see. It's easy to pontificate about what would happen if you flipped 1000 coins, but in reality that's irrelevant. What happens is what happens.QB's are judged by championships. I didn't start it. You didn't start it. It's been going on for years.

Manning has earned the "choker" label rightly or wrongly, but he's stuck with it. Marino will always wear the label of "never won a championship". Is it fair? Not completely. It's life.

Brady played like garbage the other night. I'm sure some Brady supporters (of which I almost always am) could pull some stats out and show why he really wasn't that bad. But anyone with eyes knows he stunk it up in big situations against the Ravens. Manning has made a habit out of that for many years.

Are defenses tougher? Obviously. But lunatic decisions like the one Brady made at the end of the half, the across-the-field INT from Manning...these are not clutch decisions.

Fortunately for Brady he has 3 championships to fall back on. But unfortunately for him, those 3 are tainted in the eyes of many because of Spygate (not me). It would do his legacy a lot of good to cash in one of these years. But in reality, Brady has become Manning. A regular season statistical machine, and a little nervous and jumpy at big spots in the playoffs.
This I agree with. But not for your reasons. It's like everything everyone else has posted on this in multiple threads has gone in one ear and out the other."In reality", both Brady and Manning are all time greats. "In reality", neither is a "choker". There's your reality.

 
There were 11 QB's this year that played in the regular season and the playoffs (I'm not going to consider Ponder/Webb here). I took these 11 QB's and found their average game in the regular season (to control for different number of games), and found they averaged a QB rating of 94.1.These same 11 QB's, on a per-game basis, averaged a QB rating of 86.9 in the playoffs, a reduction of 7.1 per game.That's about the same difference between Manning and Brady's reduction in passer rating between regular season and playoffs. weird.edit to show work:regular season per game

Code:
comp	att	yards	td	int	ratingbrady	25.1	39.8	301.7	2.1	0.5	98.7manning	25.0	36.4	289.9	2.3	0.7	105.7dalton	20.6	33.0	229.3	1.7	1.0	87.4shaub	21.9	34.0	250.5	1.4	0.8	90.7luck	21.2	39.2	273.4	1.4	1.1	76.5flacco	19.8	33.2	238.6	1.4	0.6	87.7RGIII	17.2	26.2	213.3	1.3	0.3	102.4Rodgers	23.2	34.5	268.4	2.4	0.5	108.0Ryan	26.4	38.4	294.9	2.0	0.9	99.1Kaperni	19.7	31.6	194.4	1.0	0.7	80.9Wilson	16.8	26.2	207.9	1.7	0.7	100.0average 21.5	33.9	251.1	1.7	0.7	94.1
post-season per game:
Code:
brady	27.0	47.0	332.0	2.0	1.0	84.7manning	28.0	43.0	290.0	3.0	2.0	88.3dalton	14.0	30.0	127.0	0.0	1.0	44.7shaub	31.5	44.5	302.5	1.0	1.0	87.5luck	28.0	54.0	288.0	0.0	1.0	59.8flacco	17.0	31.0	284.3	2.7	0.0	114.7RGIII	10.0	19.0	84.0	2.0	1.0	77.5Rodgers	24.5	36.0	265.5	1.5	0.5	97.6Ryan	27.0	38.5	323.0	3.0	1.5	105.2Kaperni	16.5	26.0	248.0	1.5	0.5	105.9Wilson	19.5	31.0	286.0	1.5	0.5	102.4average 22.1	36.4	257.3	1.7	0.9	86.9
eta 2: 6 out of 11 dropped their passer rating by 10 points or more. Kapernick and Flacco both significantly increased their passer rating, and the remaining three were virtually unchanged.eta 3: fixed bottom row to be averages instead of totals. ratings are unchanged.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.
:wall: statistical facts are, by definition, quantifiable. Show me the metric where Manning fades late. It's gotta be out there somewhere, so many folks are convinced it's God's honest truth. Maybe find his passer rating in the 4th quarter in the playoffs. Show me the y/a in critical games. Find something verifiable...don't just say that its a statistical fact that cannot be quantified.
Read the post and figure out what people are saying before you make a silly retort. I never said it's a "statistical fact that cannot be quantified". Its a statistical fact that his QB rating is about 7 points lower in the playoffs than the regular season. The term "choker" can't be quantified, which is what I said.
It is a fact that his passer rating is lower in the post-season than the regular season (I'm not sure 7 points is statistically significant, given the questionable letitimacy of passer rating, but whatever). However, Brady suffers from a similar reduction, as do most QB's with a sufficient sample size. however, not all QB's are labeled "choker".Therefore, you need to clearly define what "choker" means.If it can't be quantified, it doesn't exist.
Most QB's do? That's false. Choker is just something people say. I'm not going to get into a long drawn out discussion where we "quantify" what a choker is. It's a fake label we put on people. If you want to say it doesn't exist, go for it. I honestly don't care.
that's false? I'd like to see you back that up. We had this very discussion in the other thread. i showed you four QB's who played between 1999 and 2012 with at least 16 career playoff games. 3 out of 4 had a reduction in passer rating between regular season and playoffs, with only one increase - an increase of 0.3, which, I think we can agree is negligible.so that's my data. If you would like to go into historical trends to dispute this, go for it.as far as the second bit, if you agree its' a fake label, then why perpetuate it? Why bother posting something you know is fake?
It's fake in the same way saying someone is "clutch" "awesome" or "terrible". They are not statistical labels. That doesn't mean we don't all use them.Also, I don't agree that we have to see a certain level of games before we can judge someone. Eli, Brees, Rodgers..These guys don't count under your scenario. I don't think their stats are going to fall off a cliff over the next decade in the playoffs.
There was a time when Brady was 10-0 in the playoffs. no one thought he would fall of the cliff back then either. He's gone 7-7 since then.
 
Maybe its because some of us don't live and breathe statistics. We report what we see. It's easy to pontificate about what would happen if you flipped 1000 coins, but in reality that's irrelevant. What happens is what happens.
Nobody is arguing what happened, or that people should be judged by strange counterfactuals. When people consider Schottenheimer for the HoF, nobody's going to consider what his career would have looked like if not for The Drive and The Fumble. When Brady is discussed, nobody will muse about how many SBMVPs he'd have if his kicker were Vanderjagt instead of Vinatieri. When Vinatieri is up, nobody will care that Morton was a much better kicker, or that Akers had more playoff game-winners. Not should they. We aren't arguing about what DID happen. We're arguing about what it MEANS. Manning has the record for postseason losses. Brady has the record for wins. What does it mean? Well, for one, it DOESN'T mean Brady has been a better postseason QB. It doesn't mean that we should expect Brady to outperform Manning in the postseason going forward. And we can use statistics to illustrate that. So Rodgers and Brees have over performed in the playoffs, while Brady and Manning have underperformed. That's true from a descriptive standpoint, but what does it mean from a predictive standpoint. Does it mean they're better "postseason QBs", as if games in the postseason are fundamentally different from those in the regular season? Does it mean a magical football pixie appeared to them in a dream and sprinkled them with sparkly clutch-dust, while football gremlins snuck into Manning or Brady's bedrooms and coated them with choke-goop? And the goblins go on strike during the regular season, which is how Manning owns the career comeback record? And the goblins just got lost those two times Manning erased double digit deficits in the AFCCG? Are these the same football pixies that sprinkled Montana, and Starr, and...Plunkett, and Delhomme, and Sanchez, and Flacco?Or is it that over a long enough timeline, we should expect all QBs to perform as well in the postseason as they did in the regular season against playoff teams? Is it that small samples will obscure that simple truth in the short run, but not in the long run? Is it that "great regular season QBs who suck in the postseason" (Manning) will always be expected to outperform "great postseason QBs who suck in the regular season" (Flacco, Sanchez) going forward? Because, personally, my money's on the explanation that doesn't involve pixies, goblins, chokers, clutch performers, or any other figments of our imagination. If I created a list of the 10 greatest QBs of all time, and the 10 QBs who I'd want leading my team for one regular season game, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team for one Super Bowl, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team when down 7 with 2 minutes to go, and the 10 QBs I'd want leading my team when I'm a big favorite, and the 10 QBs I'd like leading my team when I'm a huge underdog... all of those lists would be identical. The best QBs are the best QBs in all situations, even if they produce wildly varied results over a tiny sample size. It's no coincidence that "chokers" like Marino, Manning, and Elway (who was 8-7 in the playoffs before his last two years) also are the career leaders in 4th quarter comebacks- because great QBs are great QBs and lowering your estimation of them based on ridiculous sample sizes is stupid.
:thumbup: Post of the year.
Seconded. Great post SSOG.
:yes: as usual
 
There were 11 QB's this year that played in the regular season and the playoffs (I'm not going to consider Ponder/Webb here). I took these 11 QB's and found their average game in the regular season (to control for different number of games), and found they averaged a QB rating of 94.1.These same 11 QB's, on a per-game basis, averaged a QB rating of 86.9 in the playoffs, a reduction of 7.1 per game.That's about the same difference between Manning and Brady's reduction in passer rating between regular season and playoffs. weird.edit to show work:regular season per game

Code:
comp	att	yards	td	int	ratingbrady	25.1	39.8	301.7	2.1	0.5	98.7manning	25.0	36.4	289.9	2.3	0.7	105.7dalton	20.6	33.0	229.3	1.7	1.0	87.4shaub	21.9	34.0	250.5	1.4	0.8	90.7luck	21.2	39.2	273.4	1.4	1.1	76.5flacco	19.8	33.2	238.6	1.4	0.6	87.7RGIII	17.2	26.2	213.3	1.3	0.3	102.4Rodgers	23.2	34.5	268.4	2.4	0.5	108.0Ryan	26.4	38.4	294.9	2.0	0.9	99.1Kaperni	19.7	31.6	194.4	1.0	0.7	80.9Wilson	16.8	26.2	207.9	1.7	0.7	100.0total	21.5	33.9	251.1	1.7	0.7	94.1
post-season per game:
Code:
brady	27.0	47.0	332.0	2.0	1.0	84.7manning	28.0	43.0	290.0	3.0	2.0	88.3dalton	14.0	30.0	127.0	0.0	1.0	44.7shaub	31.5	44.5	302.5	1.0	1.0	87.5luck	28.0	54.0	288.0	0.0	1.0	59.8flacco	17.0	31.0	284.3	2.7	0.0	114.7RGIII	10.0	19.0	84.0	2.0	1.0	77.5Rodgers	24.5	36.0	265.5	1.5	0.5	97.6Ryan	27.0	38.5	323.0	3.0	1.5	105.2Kaperni	16.5	26.0	248.0	1.5	0.5	105.9Wilson	19.5	31.0	286.0	1.5	0.5	102.4total	243.0	400.0	2830.3	18.2	10.0	86.9
eta 2: 6 out of 11 dropped their passer rating by 10 points or more. Kapernick and Flacco both significantly increased their passer rating, and the remaining three were virtually unchanged.
Where are you getting these stats? Aaron Rodgers career rating is 104.9 and his career playoff rating is 103.6. Still makes your point, but to a much less degree than your above stats indicate.
 
There were 11 QB's this year that played in the regular season and the playoffs (I'm not going to consider Ponder/Webb here). I took these 11 QB's and found their average game in the regular season (to control for different number of games), and found they averaged a QB rating of 94.1.These same 11 QB's, on a per-game basis, averaged a QB rating of 86.9 in the playoffs, a reduction of 7.1 per game.That's about the same difference between Manning and Brady's reduction in passer rating between regular season and playoffs. weird.edit to show work:regular season per game

Code:
comp	att	yards	td	int	ratingbrady	25.1	39.8	301.7	2.1	0.5	98.7manning	25.0	36.4	289.9	2.3	0.7	105.7dalton	20.6	33.0	229.3	1.7	1.0	87.4shaub	21.9	34.0	250.5	1.4	0.8	90.7luck	21.2	39.2	273.4	1.4	1.1	76.5flacco	19.8	33.2	238.6	1.4	0.6	87.7RGIII	17.2	26.2	213.3	1.3	0.3	102.4Rodgers	23.2	34.5	268.4	2.4	0.5	108.0Ryan	26.4	38.4	294.9	2.0	0.9	99.1Kaperni	19.7	31.6	194.4	1.0	0.7	80.9Wilson	16.8	26.2	207.9	1.7	0.7	100.0total	21.5	33.9	251.1	1.7	0.7	94.1
post-season per game:
Code:
brady	27.0	47.0	332.0	2.0	1.0	84.7manning	28.0	43.0	290.0	3.0	2.0	88.3dalton	14.0	30.0	127.0	0.0	1.0	44.7shaub	31.5	44.5	302.5	1.0	1.0	87.5luck	28.0	54.0	288.0	0.0	1.0	59.8flacco	17.0	31.0	284.3	2.7	0.0	114.7RGIII	10.0	19.0	84.0	2.0	1.0	77.5Rodgers	24.5	36.0	265.5	1.5	0.5	97.6Ryan	27.0	38.5	323.0	3.0	1.5	105.2Kaperni	16.5	26.0	248.0	1.5	0.5	105.9Wilson	19.5	31.0	286.0	1.5	0.5	102.4total	243.0	400.0	2830.3	18.2	10.0	86.9
eta 2: 6 out of 11 dropped their passer rating by 10 points or more. Kapernick and Flacco both significantly increased their passer rating, and the remaining three were virtually unchanged.
Where are you getting these stats? Aaron Rodgers career rating is 104.9 and his career playoff rating is 103.6. Still makes your point, but to a much less degree than your above stats indicate.
these are not career stats, these are only for 2012. 2012 regular season vs 2012 post-season.
 
Where have I said that "just shouldn't happen"? QB's change. Brady looks to me like he's "pressing" out there right now. I have no way to "quantify" him pressing. It's just how he looks. He looked that way against the Giants last year, and definitely against Baltimore. I have no idea why.

Elway earned the "choker" label earlier in his career by putting up huge duds in the super bowl. That doesn't mean he was destined to "always" be a choker. But he did choke in the super bowl. Yes, he redeemed himself at the end of his career, and that's great for him.

Michael Jordan didn't earn the "clutch" nickname by accident. He dominated in the NBA playoffs and especially in the finals. My main argument over the past few days is simple: Peyton isn't at his best in the playoffs. That's undeniable and has led many to conclude he's a choker. You may laugh at that nickname, and you may think it's ridiculous. But you can't deny that his game takes a step back when the playoffs roll around.
Michael Jordan was 9/18 on game winning shots in the playoffs. 50%. Michael Jordan's career field goal percentage? 50%. The game before he made that game winning shot against Utah in game 6 of the '98 championship he missed a game winning shot as time expired in game 5.

From everything we've ever heard about the myth of clutch vs. choker it's just something you have or you don't. I've never heard someone try to describe it as some skill that is learned/forgotten like you're implying. LeBron was a monster in the finals last year. He didn't suddenly "learn" how to be clutch any more than Elway learned it or Brady forgot it. The statistics just became more complete and the sample size larger. For instance, Tom Brady's career statistics are much better in week 11 than week 15.

Tom Brady career stats in week 11: 21td 0int 8.22ypa

Tom Brady career stats in week 15: 16td 9int 6.52ypa

Is Tom Brady a better quarterback in week 11 than week 15? Does he elevate his game and rise to a new level of play in week 11, while getting scared and press in week 15? No, he doesn't, it's just statistical variance (and before you retort with weather as an excuse, his week 14 and week 16 stats are much better than week 15 as well). Why is Brady such a choker in week 15?

Overall, I don't doubt that there is some small semblance of nerves involved at times but that is way overblown and those nerves don't suddenly develop or disappear out of thin air for the same player.
I don't have anything to say about week 11 vs week 15. There is no real difference in stakes in the two weeks. I like your point about MJ, and I think that shows that at times we perhaps create drama in the "made" shots and forget the missed shots.The point I made stands though. Jordan dominated in the finals. Lebron took a lot of heat for absolutely scorching the league two years ago and then falling apart in the finals. He got the "choker" label. Did he stop "choking" last year? My answer is yes. He learned how to play in the big spots.

To a degree, I think Peyton had a major problem with big games early in his career. He overcame that to a degree, although he really wasn't all that good in the year he won a super bowl.

I actually think he's been much better in the playoffs in recent years, as perhaps maturity has settled him down.

I also totally agree that if Rahim Moore hadn't made such a bonehead play, things would be completely different.

But in the end, the ball went in Manning's hands, and he threw the game away. He has to take blame for that horrible mistake if he's going to get credit when things go good.

 
There were 11 QB's this year that played in the regular season and the playoffs (I'm not going to consider Ponder/Webb here). I took these 11 QB's and found their average game in the regular season (to control for different number of games), and found they averaged a QB rating of 94.1.These same 11 QB's, on a per-game basis, averaged a QB rating of 86.9 in the playoffs, a reduction of 7.1 per game.That's about the same difference between Manning and Brady's reduction in passer rating between regular season and playoffs. weird.edit to show work:regular season per game

Code:
comp	att	yards	td	int	ratingbrady	25.1	39.8	301.7	2.1	0.5	98.7manning	25.0	36.4	289.9	2.3	0.7	105.7dalton	20.6	33.0	229.3	1.7	1.0	87.4shaub	21.9	34.0	250.5	1.4	0.8	90.7luck	21.2	39.2	273.4	1.4	1.1	76.5flacco	19.8	33.2	238.6	1.4	0.6	87.7RGIII	17.2	26.2	213.3	1.3	0.3	102.4Rodgers	23.2	34.5	268.4	2.4	0.5	108.0Ryan	26.4	38.4	294.9	2.0	0.9	99.1Kaperni	19.7	31.6	194.4	1.0	0.7	80.9Wilson	16.8	26.2	207.9	1.7	0.7	100.0total	21.5	33.9	251.1	1.7	0.7	94.1
post-season per game:
Code:
brady	27.0	47.0	332.0	2.0	1.0	84.7manning	28.0	43.0	290.0	3.0	2.0	88.3dalton	14.0	30.0	127.0	0.0	1.0	44.7shaub	31.5	44.5	302.5	1.0	1.0	87.5luck	28.0	54.0	288.0	0.0	1.0	59.8flacco	17.0	31.0	284.3	2.7	0.0	114.7RGIII	10.0	19.0	84.0	2.0	1.0	77.5Rodgers	24.5	36.0	265.5	1.5	0.5	97.6Ryan	27.0	38.5	323.0	3.0	1.5	105.2Kaperni	16.5	26.0	248.0	1.5	0.5	105.9Wilson	19.5	31.0	286.0	1.5	0.5	102.4total	243.0	400.0	2830.3	18.2	10.0	86.9
eta 2: 6 out of 11 dropped their passer rating by 10 points or more. Kapernick and Flacco both significantly increased their passer rating, and the remaining three were virtually unchanged.
Where are you getting these stats? Aaron Rodgers career rating is 104.9 and his career playoff rating is 103.6. Still makes your point, but to a much less degree than your above stats indicate.
these are not career stats, these are only for 2012. 2012 regular season vs 2012 post-season.
My fault sorry about that.Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
 
There was a time when Brady was 10-0 in the playoffs. no one thought he would fall of the cliff back then either. He's gone 7-7 since then.
I'm just curious. Is 7-7 considered "falling off a cliff?" There are plenty of QBs that wish they could have had that playoff record.For ha-ha's, I looked up the playoff records of QBs from the past 10 years or so . . .Peyton 9-11Ryan 1-4Romo 1-3Rivers 3-4Brees 5-4McNabb 9-7Vick 2-4Hasselbeck 3-6Bledsoe 3-3 (and another win in a game when Brady got hurt)Collins 3-4Delhomme 5-3Favre 13-11Sanchez 4-2Here were the guys that clearly won more than they lost.Big Ben 10-4Eli 8-3 (but 1 and done in 3 seasons)Flacco (will be either 9-4 or 8-5)Rodgers 6-3Warner 9-4It looks like that last group is the exception and not the rule.
 
There was a time when Brady was 10-0 in the playoffs. no one thought he would fall of the cliff back then either. He's gone 7-7 since then.
I'm just curious. Is 7-7 considered "falling off a cliff?" There are plenty of QBs that wish they could have had that playoff record.For ha-ha's, I looked up the playoff records of QBs from the past 10 years or so . . .Peyton 9-11Ryan 1-4Romo 1-3Rivers 3-4Brees 5-4McNabb 9-7Vick 2-4Hasselbeck 3-6Bledsoe 3-3 (and another win in a game when Brady got hurt)Collins 3-4Delhomme 5-3Favre 13-11Sanchez 4-2Here were the guys that clearly won more than they lost.Big Ben 10-4Eli 8-3 (but 1 and done in 3 seasons)Flacco (will be either 9-4 or 8-5)Rodgers 6-3Warner 9-4It looks like that last group is the exception and not the rule.
only when compared to the perceived invincibility of 10-0. IMO, this is more of a function of small sample size. When you get to 16+ games, things have a way of evening out.Again - this should not be considered a mark on Brady. It's a testament to him and his Patriot teams to have so many playoff games under their belts to start with.
 
Again - this should not be considered a mark on Brady. It's a testament to him and his Patriot teams to have so many playoff games under their belts to start with.
With the chance that Brady was going to another SB this year (which obviously didn't happen), there was some discussion as to which would be considered a greater accomplishment:Going 4-0 in Super Bowls or going 4-2 in Super Bowls. Many will say 4-0, but in my mind I might side with 4-2, as getting to 6 Super Bowls is a feat in itself.Maybe someday that question will come up again for Brady . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lebron took a lot of heat for absolutely scorching the league two years ago and then falling apart in the finals. He got the "choker" label. Did he stop "choking" last year? My answer is yes. He learned how to play in the big spots.
MJ didn't make a final or win a title until he was 28. Lebron made three finals by that age, and won his first championship when he was still younger than MJ in 1991.Why couldn't Jordan get his team to the finals in any of his first six seasons? Was he a choker?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lebron took a lot of heat for absolutely scorching the league two years ago and then falling apart in the finals. He got the "choker" label. Did he stop "choking" last year? My answer is yes. He learned how to play in the big spots.
MJ didn't make a final or win a title until he was 28. Lebron made three finals by that age, and won his first championship when he was still younger than MJ in 1991.Why couldn't Jordan get his team to the finals in any of his first six seasons? Was he a choker?
His team sucked
 
Again - this should not be considered a mark on Brady. It's a testament to him and his Patriot teams to have so many playoff games under their belts to start with.
With the chance that Brady was going to another SB this year (which obviously didn't happen), there was some discussion as to which would be considered a greater accomplishment:Going 4-0 in Super Bowls or going 4-2 in Super Bowls. Many will say 4-0, but in my mind I might side with 4-2, as getting to 6 Super Bowls is a feat in itself.Maybe someday that question will come up again fir Brady . . .
I think it will. The young defense will gel this off-season. I think the loss of Gronk hurt Brady pretty bad too. I think Brady has one more super bowl left in him, but you never know. Last year could have been it. Still a fantastic career.
 
Lebron took a lot of heat for absolutely scorching the league two years ago and then falling apart in the finals. He got the "choker" label. Did he stop "choking" last year? My answer is yes. He learned how to play in the big spots.
MJ didn't make a final or win a title until he was 28. Lebron made three finals by that age, and won his first championship when he was still younger than MJ in 1991.Why couldn't Jordan get his team to the finals in any of his first six seasons? Was he a choker?
His team sucked
Exactly.
 
Lebron took a lot of heat for absolutely scorching the league two years ago and then falling apart in the finals. He got the "choker" label. Did he stop "choking" last year? My answer is yes. He learned how to play in the big spots.
MJ didn't make a final or win a title until he was 28. Lebron made three finals by that age, and won his first championship when he was still younger than MJ in 1991.Why couldn't Jordan get his team to the finals in any of his first six seasons? Was he a choker?
His team sucked
Exactly.
MJ still was awesome though.
 
Lebron took a lot of heat for absolutely scorching the league two years ago and then falling apart in the finals. He got the "choker" label. Did he stop "choking" last year? My answer is yes. He learned how to play in the big spots.
MJ didn't make a final or win a title until he was 28. Lebron made three finals by that age, and won his first championship when he was still younger than MJ in 1991.Why couldn't Jordan get his team to the finals in any of his first six seasons? Was he a choker?
Coming up with what defines a clutch performance or a choke is obviously subjective, but without a baseline to consider it's nearly impossible to review.Since you mentioned basketball, my son recently scored his team's final 12 points of a game to lead a late rally and got fouled shooting a three pointer that would have tied the game at the buzzer. He made the first two free throws but the last on rimmed out. Is that a choke? Is that a clutch performance? Neither?Over the next week, he made two buzzer beaters to send games to overtime, but they ended up losing both times, scoring 20 points in each game? Choke? Clutch performance? Neither?My point being, in all three examples the team lost. Do you have to win to have a clutch performance? If you don't win, did you automatically choke?
 
Coming up with what defines a clutch performance or a choke is obviously subjective
Agree completely. And people a lot smarter than me have tried to look at that, with all of them (as far as I know) finding there's no such thing as clutch and choke.I was mostly just pointing out that if MJ wasn't a choker for failing to win titles on a team where he comprises 20% of the starters and played both offense and defense, it's really sort of silly to judge QBs on the basis of Super Bowls when they're one of 11 offensive players (even if the have an outsized effect on the game) and don't see the field on defense.
 
As for why Brady has been less successful in the post season of late, I heard an interesting discussion about this on talk radio, and one of the contributing factors was that games were being called differently in the post season in the regular season. Defenses were doing to the Pats what the Pats defensive backs used to do to their opponents. Lots and lots of contact at the line and even going downfield.With guys being hampered to get off the line or timing routes disrupted, that has played into the Pats looking lost at times in the postseason. That was one of the reasons given for NE not being as dominant as they were in the regular season, and one that makes some sense when you consider the Pats passing game is mostly passed on finesse and timing routes.

 
Coming up with what defines a clutch performance or a choke is obviously subjective
Agree completely. And people a lot smarter than me have tried to look at that, with all of them (as far as I know) finding there's no such thing as clutch and choke.I was mostly just pointing out that if MJ wasn't a choker for failing to win titles on a team where he comprises 20% of the starters and played both offense and defense, it's really sort of silly to judge QBs on the basis of Super Bowls when they're one of 11 offensive players (even if the have an outsized effect on the game) and don't see the field on defense.
I've been posting for 15 years that QBs get too much credit for winning and too much blame for losing. But that is unlikely to change, and Brady is just another example.
 
Lebron took a lot of heat for absolutely scorching the league two years ago and then falling apart in the finals. He got the "choker" label. Did he stop "choking" last year? My answer is yes. He learned how to play in the big spots.
MJ didn't make a final or win a title until he was 28. Lebron made three finals by that age, and won his first championship when he was still younger than MJ in 1991.Why couldn't Jordan get his team to the finals in any of his first six seasons? Was he a choker?
Because he was a ballhog who didn't make his teammates better, that's what they said until 1991.
 
I wouldn't have identical lists. I think it's ridiculous to think that there is no such thing as "choking" or "clutch performers". The fact that you are putting those two categories in there with "pixies and goblins" is completely ridiculous. There are some who step there game up in big situations and some who don't quite play as well.Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.
But "clutch" and "choke" ARE in the same category as pixies and goblins, at least at the NFL level. They're figments of our collective imagination, fairy tails, stories mankind has summoned out of a desire to explain and it's dissatisfaction with the idea of random chance driving results. All of this is easily demonstrable. The guys in the sabermetric community have been looking at it in baseball for decades and they always come back with the same answer- there's no such thing as "clutch" or "choke". Lest you think baseball is fundamentally different from football, that those adjectives are meaningless when it comes to hitting a small ball with a long, narrow wooden cylinder, but magically meaningful when it comes to hurling an oblong ball down a grassy field... well, read this.The gist- Neil took Vegas spreads and estimated how many games a QB should have won, then compared against how many he actually won. QBs that overperform are the guys we would consider "clutch"- guys like Flacco, Eli, Sanchez, and Brady. Guys that underperform are "chokers"- your Peytons, Ryans, Marinos, etc. The money quote comes from the last paragraphs. Basically, Neil found that the correlation between "clutchness" prior to age 27 and after age 27 IS NEGATIVE. In other words, the more "clutch" you are early in your career, the more likely you are to be a choker late in your career. This is not just Brady, either- plenty of other QBs have trod this path, too. And then the really damning part is when Neil compares "clutchness" in even numbered years to clutchness in odd numbered years. He gets a correlation of 0.05- which is essentially zero. In other words, there is NO CORRELATION WHATSOEVER between how clutch a QB is in even years to how clutch he is in odd years. What more proof do you need that "clutch" is just a made-up adjective we apply to players with absolutely no predictive value whatsoever? It's totally random. Besides, I have a major problem with the idea that guys like Peyton Manning and Matt Ryan struggle in big situations. What's the proposed mechanism, here? Are we assuming that the pressure gets to them and causes them to choke? Because it's not like playoff games are the only pressure cookers in the NFL. Peyton Manning is the NFL's career leader in comeback wins. Matt Ryan is the NFL's career leader in comeback percentage. You don't think 4th quarter comebacks are nerve-wracking? Are we to believe that Manning and Ryan really thrive under pressure, until that pressure reaches a certain very precise level (which correlates to playoffs), and then they go from the clutchest guys in the league to bumbling buffoons (except for all the times they don't)? Really, I'd stick with the "magic pixies" explanation- it sounds far more plausible.
Where have I said that "just shouldn't happen"? QB's change. Brady looks to me like he's "pressing" out there right now. I have no way to "quantify" him pressing. It's just how he looks. He looked that way against the Giants last year, and definitely against Baltimore. I have no idea why.Elway earned the "choker" label earlier in his career by putting up huge duds in the super bowl. That doesn't mean he was destined to "always" be a choker. But he did choke in the super bowl. Yes, he redeemed himself at the end of his career, and that's great for him. Michael Jordan didn't earn the "clutch" nickname by accident. He dominated in the NBA playoffs and especially in the finals. My main argument over the past few days is simple: Peyton isn't at his best in the playoffs. That's undeniable and has led many to conclude he's a choker. You may laugh at that nickname, and you may think it's ridiculous. But you can't deny that his game takes a step back when the playoffs roll around.
Funny you mention His Airness. Easy to forget it now, but after he lost in the first round his first three seasons, then got beaten by the Pistons in each of the next 3 seasons, Jordan was once seen as a choker who couldn't win the big one. Much like Manning with his 0-3 playoff start and his inability to get past the Pats after that. Again, this should all demonstrate how stupid "clutch" and "choker" really are. Elway and Jordan were chokers, until they weren't. Favre and Brady were clutch, until they weren't. The lack of consistency really illustrates that NO ONE is clutch or a choker, we just like applying arbitrary (and meaningless) labels to people based on their most recent body of work.Any adjective that applies to someone until it doesn't anymore is a useless adjective that does not describe anything real or meaningful.
 
I wouldn't have identical lists. I think it's ridiculous to think that there is no such thing as "choking" or "clutch performers". The fact that you are putting those two categories in there with "pixies and goblins" is completely ridiculous.

There are some who step there game up in big situations and some who don't quite play as well.

Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.
But "clutch" and "choke" ARE in the same category as pixies and goblins, at least at the NFL level. They're figments of our collective imagination, fairy tails, stories mankind has summoned out of a desire to explain and it's dissatisfaction with the idea of random chance driving results. All of this is easily demonstrable. The guys in the sabermetric community have been looking at it in baseball for decades and they always come back with the same answer- there's no such thing as "clutch" or "choke". Lest you think baseball is fundamentally different from football, that those adjectives are meaningless when it comes to hitting a small ball with a long, narrow wooden cylinder, but magically meaningful when it comes to hurling an oblong ball down a grassy field... well, read this.The gist- Neil took Vegas spreads and estimated how many games a QB should have won, then compared against how many he actually won. QBs that overperform are the guys we would consider "clutch"- guys like Flacco, Eli, Sanchez, and Brady. Guys that underperform are "chokers"- your Peytons, Ryans, Marinos, etc. The money quote comes from the last paragraphs. Basically, Neil found that the correlation between "clutchness" prior to age 27 and after age 27 IS NEGATIVE. In other words, the more "clutch" you are early in your career, the more likely you are to be a choker late in your career. This is not just Brady, either- plenty of other QBs have trod this path, too. And then the really damning part is when Neil compares "clutchness" in even numbered years to clutchness in odd numbered years. He gets a correlation of 0.05- which is essentially zero. In other words, there is NO CORRELATION WHATSOEVER between how clutch a QB is in even years to how clutch he is in odd years. What more proof do you need that "clutch" is just a made-up adjective we apply to players with absolutely no predictive value whatsoever? It's totally random.

Besides, I have a major problem with the idea that guys like Peyton Manning and Matt Ryan struggle in big situations. What's the proposed mechanism, here? Are we assuming that the pressure gets to them and causes them to choke? Because it's not like playoff games are the only pressure cookers in the NFL. Peyton Manning is the NFL's career leader in comeback wins. Matt Ryan is the NFL's career leader in comeback percentage. You don't think 4th quarter comebacks are nerve-wracking? Are we to believe that Manning and Ryan really thrive under pressure, until that pressure reaches a certain very precise level (which correlates to playoffs), and then they go from the clutchest guys in the league to bumbling buffoons (except for all the times they don't)? Really, I'd stick with the "magic pixies" explanation- it sounds far more plausible.

Where have I said that "just shouldn't happen"? QB's change. Brady looks to me like he's "pressing" out there right now. I have no way to "quantify" him pressing. It's just how he looks. He looked that way against the Giants last year, and definitely against Baltimore. I have no idea why.

Elway earned the "choker" label earlier in his career by putting up huge duds in the super bowl. That doesn't mean he was destined to "always" be a choker. But he did choke in the super bowl. Yes, he redeemed himself at the end of his career, and that's great for him.

Michael Jordan didn't earn the "clutch" nickname by accident. He dominated in the NBA playoffs and especially in the finals. My main argument over the past few days is simple: Peyton isn't at his best in the playoffs. That's undeniable and has led many to conclude he's a choker. You may laugh at that nickname, and you may think it's ridiculous. But you can't deny that his game takes a step back when the playoffs roll around.
Funny you mention His Airness. Easy to forget it now, but after he lost in the first round his first three seasons, then got beaten by the Pistons in each of the next 3 seasons, Jordan was once seen as a choker who couldn't win the big one. Much like Manning with his 0-3 playoff start and his inability to get past the Pats after that. Again, this should all demonstrate how stupid "clutch" and "choker" really are. Elway and Jordan were chokers, until they weren't. Favre and Brady were clutch, until they weren't. The lack of consistency really illustrates that NO ONE is clutch or a choker, we just like applying arbitrary (and meaningless) labels to people based on their most recent body of work.

Any adjective that applies to someone until it doesn't anymore is a useless adjective that does not describe anything real or meaningful.
:goodposting: SSOG doing work in here.

As a general rule, if you find yourself on the same side of a sports argument as Skip Bayless you should reconsider your position. And nobody blathers on about "chokers" and "clutch players" like Skip Bayless.

 
Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.
:wall: statistical facts are, by definition, quantifiable. Show me the metric where Manning fades late. It's gotta be out there somewhere, so many folks are convinced it's God's honest truth. Maybe find his passer rating in the 4th quarter in the playoffs. Show me the y/a in critical games. Find something verifiable...don't just say that its a statistical fact that cannot be quantified.
Read the post and figure out what people are saying before you make a silly retort. I never said it's a "statistical fact that cannot be quantified". Its a statistical fact that his QB rating is about 7 points lower in the playoffs than the regular season. The term "choker" can't be quantified, which is what I said.
passer rating is always going to be the metric that makes manning look the worst compared to his peers since it doesnt take into account the one thing that manning is undeniably the GOAT at which is avoiding sacks.
 
Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.
:wall: statistical facts are, by definition, quantifiable. Show me the metric where Manning fades late. It's gotta be out there somewhere, so many folks are convinced it's God's honest truth. Maybe find his passer rating in the 4th quarter in the playoffs. Show me the y/a in critical games. Find something verifiable...don't just say that its a statistical fact that cannot be quantified.
Read the post and figure out what people are saying before you make a silly retort. I never said it's a "statistical fact that cannot be quantified". Its a statistical fact that his QB rating is about 7 points lower in the playoffs than the regular season. The term "choker" can't be quantified, which is what I said.
passer rating is always going to be the metric that makes manning look the worst compared to his peers since it doesnt take into account the one thing that manning is undeniably the GOAT at which is avoiding sacks.
Quality point. Peyton Manning is 20th all time in Y/A, but 1st all time in NY/A (which subtracts sack yardage from passing yardage and adds sacks to pass attempts). A small part of that is because some old-timers don't have sack data, and therefore don't have NY/A figures (example: Otto Graham), but Peyton still leaps 10-15 spots (depending on how you want to count guys who only had sack data for part of their careers) when you include sacks.
 
SSOG doing work in here.As a general rule, if you find yourself on the same side of a sports argument as Skip Bayless you should reconsider your position. And nobody blathers on about "chokers" and "clutch players" like Skip Bayless.
I have disdain for anyone using the "choker" label in general. But to be fair, I had disdain for shader well before he used it.
 
lets review2006 plays well vs the Jetsplays very poorly vs the Chargers and benefits from a very lucky fumbled interception. 27/51 for 280/2/3Pats blow a 21-6 lead to the Colts. Brady has a chance but throws a pick on the final drive. 21/34 for 232/1/1. 2007, the record breaking yearBrady plays amazing vs the Jags.Putrid performance vs the Chargers going 22/33 for 209/2/3and ofc the Super Bowl loss to the Giants as 12.5 pt favorites.20093.5pt faves vs the Ravens and Brady puts up a putrid 154/2/3 game.20109pt faves vs the Jets and Brady again underperforms in the loss and is outplayed by Sanchez.20113pt faves in the Super Bowl and Brady puts up an uninspired 276/2/1 including failing to take advantage of a clutch drive to seal it marked by missing a wide open Welker.
It'd be interesting to see how many games Brady has lost as a heavy favorite vs Manning in that same scenario. I don't recall Manning blowing any games as a 9 point favorite, especially not twice.9 point favorites at home no less. Ooof.
ahh this year verus the ravens for one.
 
I wouldn't have identical lists. I think it's ridiculous to think that there is no such thing as "choking" or "clutch performers". The fact that you are putting those two categories in there with "pixies and goblins" is completely ridiculous. There are some who step there game up in big situations and some who don't quite play as well.Peyton is clearly one who doesn't quite get things done at the same level in the playoffs. It's statistical fact. Are we too harsh in labeling Peyton a choker? Maybe so. But that's a term that can't be quantified. I've seen enough big Peyton mistakes in big games to feel secure in saying he often chokes in big playoff games. If you disagree, fine. I don't care anymore. I guess us "dummies" will call Peyton a choker, and you smart stat nerds can use fake coin tosses to make you feel better about his joke of a post-season resume.
But "clutch" and "choke" ARE in the same category as pixies and goblins, at least at the NFL level. They're figments of our collective imagination, fairy tails, stories mankind has summoned out of a desire to explain and it's dissatisfaction with the idea of random chance driving results. All of this is easily demonstrable. The guys in the sabermetric community have been looking at it in baseball for decades and they always come back with the same answer- there's no such thing as "clutch" or "choke". Lest you think baseball is fundamentally different from football, that those adjectives are meaningless when it comes to hitting a small ball with a long, narrow wooden cylinder, but magically meaningful when it comes to hurling an oblong ball down a grassy field... well, read this.The gist- Neil took Vegas spreads and estimated how many games a QB should have won, then compared against how many he actually won. QBs that overperform are the guys we would consider "clutch"- guys like Flacco, Eli, Sanchez, and Brady. Guys that underperform are "chokers"- your Peytons, Ryans, Marinos, etc. The money quote comes from the last paragraphs. Basically, Neil found that the correlation between "clutchness" prior to age 27 and after age 27 IS NEGATIVE. In other words, the more "clutch" you are early in your career, the more likely you are to be a choker late in your career. This is not just Brady, either- plenty of other QBs have trod this path, too. And then the really damning part is when Neil compares "clutchness" in even numbered years to clutchness in odd numbered years. He gets a correlation of 0.05- which is essentially zero. In other words, there is NO CORRELATION WHATSOEVER between how clutch a QB is in even years to how clutch he is in odd years. What more proof do you need that "clutch" is just a made-up adjective we apply to players with absolutely no predictive value whatsoever? It's totally random. Besides, I have a major problem with the idea that guys like Peyton Manning and Matt Ryan struggle in big situations. What's the proposed mechanism, here? Are we assuming that the pressure gets to them and causes them to choke? Because it's not like playoff games are the only pressure cookers in the NFL. Peyton Manning is the NFL's career leader in comeback wins. Matt Ryan is the NFL's career leader in comeback percentage. You don't think 4th quarter comebacks are nerve-wracking? Are we to believe that Manning and Ryan really thrive under pressure, until that pressure reaches a certain very precise level (which correlates to playoffs), and then they go from the clutchest guys in the league to bumbling buffoons (except for all the times they don't)? Really, I'd stick with the "magic pixies" explanation- it sounds far more plausible.
Where have I said that "just shouldn't happen"? QB's change. Brady looks to me like he's "pressing" out there right now. I have no way to "quantify" him pressing. It's just how he looks. He looked that way against the Giants last year, and definitely against Baltimore. I have no idea why.Elway earned the "choker" label earlier in his career by putting up huge duds in the super bowl. That doesn't mean he was destined to "always" be a choker. But he did choke in the super bowl. Yes, he redeemed himself at the end of his career, and that's great for him. Michael Jordan didn't earn the "clutch" nickname by accident. He dominated in the NBA playoffs and especially in the finals. My main argument over the past few days is simple: Peyton isn't at his best in the playoffs. That's undeniable and has led many to conclude he's a choker. You may laugh at that nickname, and you may think it's ridiculous. But you can't deny that his game takes a step back when the playoffs roll around.
Funny you mention His Airness. Easy to forget it now, but after he lost in the first round his first three seasons, then got beaten by the Pistons in each of the next 3 seasons, Jordan was once seen as a choker who couldn't win the big one. Much like Manning with his 0-3 playoff start and his inability to get past the Pats after that. Again, this should all demonstrate how stupid "clutch" and "choker" really are. Elway and Jordan were chokers, until they weren't. Favre and Brady were clutch, until they weren't. The lack of consistency really illustrates that NO ONE is clutch or a choker, we just like applying arbitrary (and meaningless) labels to people based on their most recent body of work.Any adjective that applies to someone until it doesn't anymore is a useless adjective that does not describe anything real or meaningful.
This guy gets it.I used my 'Post of the year' comment on a prior SSOG post. This one is runner-up though.:subscribe:
 
Lebron took a lot of heat for absolutely scorching the league two years ago and then falling apart in the finals. He got the "choker" label. Did he stop "choking" last year? My answer is yes. He learned how to play in the big spots.
MJ didn't make a final or win a title until he was 28. Lebron made three finals by that age, and won his first championship when he was still younger than MJ in 1991.Why couldn't Jordan get his team to the finals in any of his first six seasons? Was he a choker?
Maybe it was because Lebron had 3 more seasons in the league by the time he was 28. Lets also look at the talent level of the NBA and free agency, teams that drafted well kept their players back then, and there were less players in the league so more talent on every team. Plus the Bulls had to go through a lot better teams then the Cavaliers and Heat have had to go though.
 
'Maurile Tremblay said:
You beat me to it. I was just coming in here to post that.
So Brady's career peaked and he's on the downslide, and Eli's the most clutch guy you could have. Sounds exactly like what I posted earlier.
I am sorry that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen. So basically it says the Patriots would be better off in the playoffs since 2009 with Sanchez, Eason, and Dilfer.
 
So the Patriots won 3 super bowls with a great defense and run game. Brady proved to be an exceptional game manager that orchestrated some big drives to help. Since then, Belichick has made him the focal point of the entire team, installing a pass first game plan and surrounding him with relevant talent. The results have been spectacular, mvp worthy and record breaking during the regular season. But Brady has performed poorly in the playoffs causing his teams have fallen very short of expectations. Does anyone else see the similarities to Manning?
Ya, I've always seen the similarities..........they are both GREAT QB's. They will go down as the two best in their era. By the way, when you are asking of similarities to Manning, you phrase it as a negative. Having similarities to Manning is one of the best things you could say about another QB.
 
In regard to the title, I'd say Brady has become Donovan McNabb. Consistently making it to Conference Championships or Super Bowls, but unable to win them. And ironically, the body swap seems to have taken place right after the Patriots beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl. :tinfoilhat:

 
In regard to the title, I'd say Brady has become Donovan McNabb. Consistently making it to Conference Championships or Super Bowls, but unable to win them. And ironically, the body swap seems to have taken place right after the Patriots beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl. :tinfoilhat:
For me Greg, Brady will never be McNabb because Brady has won 3 Super Bowls AND he's gone to all of those divisional games. You can't just take parts of Brady's career and throw out others. McNabb's entire career was him getting deep into the playoffs and losing, that's not the legacy of Tom Brady now nor will he ever be remembered for that. He's won 3SB's and more playoff games than any other QB in NFL history, that doesn't remind me of Donovan McNabb. Maybe like some of the other NFL greats like Joe Montana, Brett Farve, and Peyton Manning who won SB's earlier in their career, but later went to the playoffs but couldn't win it again like they did earlier.
 
'Maurile Tremblay said:
You beat me to it. I was just coming in here to post that.
So Brady's career peaked and he's on the downslide, and Eli's the most clutch guy you could have. Sounds exactly like what I posted earlier.
I am sorry that has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen. So basically it says the Patriots would be better off in the playoffs since 2009 with Sanchez, Eason, and Dilfer.
No, it's not saying that. It's saying that those guys better fit the arbitrary (and meaningless) definition of "clutch" (i.e. they step up and overperform in the playoffs), and then thoroughly demonstrates how arbitrary and meaningless the idea of clutch really is (as if it weren't immediately obvious when guys like Sanchez topped the charts). It's saying that the Patriots have underperformed since 2007, and Eason/Sanchez/Dilfer's teams over performed. Putting Dilfer on those Pats wouldn't turn them from underperformers to overperformers, because the whole idea of "clutch" is nonsense voodoo that only appears meaningful if you insist on crediting QBs for wins and losses. It's an attempt to take a description of what happened in the past and apply it to future considerations as if it holds any predictive value. It doesn't.
 
How many championships would Jordan have in one and done playoff rounds, compared to best of seven?
1991 - lost game one of the finals1992 - lost game one of the second round1993 - lost game one of the conference finals1996 - NBA Champion1997 - NBA Champion1998 - lost game one of the finalsGoing to one and done drops Jordan from six titles to two. Obviously he's not as clutch as we thought he was.
 
Brady hasn't been very good or at least consistently good in the playoffs lately. Still, if Gronk doesn't get hurt or Welker brings in a ball last year, he has another ring, and nobody is talking about this.Brady is on the decline, I think there's very little question about that. They can doze through the regular season because the Patriots are too good at gameplanning, and Brady is extremely good at executing, and they have quite a bit of talent. But when the tough teams come around in the playoffs, it becomes an iffy proposition.

 
Brady hasn't been very good or at least consistently good in the playoffs lately. Still, if Gronk doesn't get hurt or Welker brings in a ball last year, he has another ring, and nobody is talking about this.Brady is on the decline, I think there's very little question about that. They can doze through the regular season because the Patriots are too good at gameplanning, and Brady is extremely good at executing, and they have quite a bit of talent. But when the tough teams come around in the playoffs, it becomes an iffy proposition.
If, by extension, you are suggesting that Brady has become human and plays like almost every other QB in the league than I agree with you. Going 10-0 to start his career was the anomally. Going 7-7 since is much closer to thenorm. I already posted the post-season records of a bunch of recent QBs.Playing the what if game, a play or two different and Brady could have been 5-0 in SBs (and for that matter could have been in another in 2006) and people would hail him as the greatest QB ever. But those handful of plays went the other direction and because of that he's been in decline?I think what changed the most is that in the SB winning years, Brady was not the whole team. Other guys stepped up and allowed Brady to be average to good to win. Nowadays, if Brady doesn't play lights out, it's hard for NE to win. Sure, they can still win (look at last year's AFCC game), but that was more the exception.We've seen other great QBs where a greater burden of the load fall on the QB that had aissues in the playoffs (Peyton, Marino). Brady just set the bar high by winning so often so early.
 
Choking
In sports, a "choke" is the failure of an athlete or an athletic team to win a game or tournament when the player or team had been strongly favored to win or had squandered a large lead in the late stages of the event. Someone who chokes may be known as a "choker" or, more derisively, as a "choke artist." Choking in sport can be considered a form of analysis paralysis. The opposite of choking is to be clutch. A clutch player or team rises to the occasion under pressure rather than collapsing or falling apart.Explanation for why choking happensTwo dominant theories have emerged from the research; explicit monitoring, and distraction theory.[edit]Explicit monitoring theoryThe explicit monitoring theory provides an explanation for athlete’s under-performance at the precise moment they need to be at their best. Beilock and Carr suggest that “pressure raises self-consciousness and anxiety about performing correctly, which increases the attention paid to skill processes and their step-by-step control. Attention to execution at this step-by-step level is thought to disrupt well-learned or proceduralized performances.”[1][edit]Distraction theoryDistraction theory was first suggested by Wine [2] to explain under-performance in performance pressure situations. Distraction theorists argue that pressure creates a dual task situation which draws attention away from the task at hand. Attention is then focused towards irrelevant stimuli such as worries, social expectations, and anxiety [3] Wine first tested his hypothesis with academic tests but it has since been applied to athletics.Research has found that distraction theory is supported in situations where working memory is used to analyze and make decisions quickly.[4] Short term memory is used to maintain relevant stimuli and block irrelevant information as it relates to the task at hand.[5][edit]Examples of choking in sports[edit]CricketThe South African national Cricket team has been a frequent choker at the ICC Cricket World Cup. Despite being consistently one of the best-performing nations at one-day international cricket since its return from isolation, the Proteas have never progressed beyond the semi-final stage at the World Cup, nor even won a game during the knock-out stage of the tournament.[6] Adding to the reputation is the bizarre manner in which three of their World Cup eliminations arose:In 1992, a two-over rain delay at the end of their semi-final saw their target of 22 runs from 13 balls reduced to the unattainable 21 runs from 1 ball, after the application of the controversial "maximum scoring overs" rain rule.In the 1999 Super Six Stage, Herschelle Gibbs dropped eventual centurion Steve Waugh in the first innings, then a shambolic run-out in the semi-final ended South Africa's second innings against Australia with the scores tied; Australia progressed on the basis of its superior run rate through the tournament.In the Proteas' final game of 2003's group stage (which was effectively a knock-out match, as they had to win to progress to the super six), South Africa tied the rain-affected game against Sri Lanka which they could have won, after they misinterpreted their Duckworth-Lewis rain rule tables shortly before the match was called off.South Africa's less bizarre World Cup chokes included upset losses against the West Indies in 1996 and New Zealand in 2011,[7] after both times finishing at the top of their group in the Group Stage (unbeaten in the case of 1996), then succumbing to the fourth-placed team from the other pool in the quarter final.[edit]American footballUse of the term "choke" in this context is most frequently encountered in the United States, and appears to be of relatively recent origin, not becoming reasonably widespread until well into the 1960s. Since then, NFL teams popularly labeled chokers have included, the Jim Kelly-led Buffalo Bills in the 1990s for their four straight Super Bowl losses, and the Tony Romo-led Dallas Cowboys in the late 2000s and early 2010, 2011, 2012 for losing multiple playoff implication games to eventual NFC East Champions.In 2007, the New England Patriots finished their regular season with 16 straight wins and went onto the playoffs. They eventually reached Super Bowl XLII and lost to the New York Giants 17-14, coming out with a 18-1 record.In a Wild Card playoff matchup between the Buffalo Bills and the Houston Oilers On January 3, 1993, the Oilers blew a 32-point lead to lose in overtime, the largest in a playoff game in NFL history. This game is known to this day as The Comeback, or locally in Houston as The Choke.[8]Choking is also used for individual errors, e.g. a quarterback throwing an interception, a receiver dropping a crucial pass, or a kicker missing a field goal attempt.[edit]Association footballIn the 1990 World Cup, Stuart Pearce and Chris Waddle missed penalties in the semi-final against Germany. In Euro 1996, the hosts England faced the same fate, losing to Germany in the semi-finals, with Gareth Southgate missing. In Euro 2004, David Beckham and Darius Vassell missed, sending England out in the quarter-finals against Portugal.At the end of the 1994 FIFA World Cup, Italy faced Brazil in the final, which ended 0–0 after extra time; Roberto Baggio took Italy's last penalty in the resulting shoot-out, but his kick went over the cross-bar and the Brazilians won the title.The Netherlands national football team has a negative reputation for having the most number of being World Cup runner ups (3; in 1974, in 1978, and in 2010.)The premier European competition, the UEFA Champions League, has a number of well-known chokes:In the 2005 final, AC Milan lost on penalties having led 3-0 at half-time. The match was dubbed the "Miracle of Istanbul", with Liverpool scoring three goals in six minutes to draw level. Andriy Shevchenko saw his decisive penalty kick saved by Jerzy Dudek to settle the match.In the 2008 final, John Terry missed a decisive spot-kick for Chelsea, slipping on the wet grass when a scored penalty would have won the cup. Manchester United went on to win the shootout, and a European Double for the season.In the 2012 final, Arjen Robben missed a spot-kick for Bayern Munich in extra time, leading to Chelsea winning the match on penalties.[edit]Auto RacingWhile Mario Andretti and Michael Andretti are considered to be two of the best open wheel race car drivers of all time, they've combined for only one Indianapolis 500 victory, Mario's 1969 win in his career. The so-called Andretti curse seemed to strike the drivers on races where they dominated, leading the most laps and clearly having the best car, until a late race wreck or mechanical failure would prevent them from winning.During the 2011 Indianapolis 500, rookie J.R. Hildebrand held a substantial lead on the final lap, but caught a lapped car and attempted to pass the car on the outside. He hit the wall on the exit of turn four and coasted to the line, but not before being passed by Dan Wheldon.[edit]BasketballThere have been a number of players who have had great expectations placed on them at the collegiate and professional level in basketball. Some have come up short by missing free throws at the end of championship games. Others have failed to exit the first round of the Playoffs, year after year, even though they were expected to do better. But basketball offers many chances for redemption, except in the case of players who have since retired.[edit]BaseballThe University of Mississippi (aka "Ole Miss Rebels") baseball team has gone 0-6 in NCAA Super Regional games at home after winning the first game in three different best-of-three series. [1] During the 2012 NCAA baseball regionals, the Rebels were 2-0 and one win from advancing to the Super Regionals, but lost two straight games to TCU and failed to advance. In reference to the University of Mississippi baseball team's 40-year absence from the College World Series, OMAHA has also been coined an acronym for "Ole Miss At Home Again". [2] [3]1964 Phillie Phold, from a 6 1⁄2-game lead on the Cincinnati Reds with 12 games remaining in the season, Philadelphia collapsed in a 10-game losing streak (the first seven played at home). The crucial series came when the now second-place Phillies traveled to St. Louis to play the Cardinals after their losing home stand. They dropped the first game of the series to Bob Gibson by a 5–1 score, their eighth loss in a row, dropping them to third place. The Cardinals would sweep the three-game set and assume first place for good. The "Phold," as it is known, is one of the most notable collapses in sports history.In 1978, the Yankees were 14 1⁄2 games behind rival Red Sox in July, and on September 10, after completing a 4-game sweep of the Red Sox (known as "The Boston Massacre"), the Yankees tied for the divisional lead. The Yankees ultimately overtook the Red Sox with the help of Bucky Dent's 7th inning three-run home run in a sudden death post regular season game played at Fenway Park on October 2, 1978. However, in 1990, the Red Sox got revenge when Dent was fired as manager of the Yankees in front of Red Sox fans.In the 2004 ALCS, the Yankees led the Red Sox 3-0 and were ahead in the final inning of the fourth game, but ultimately lost the series in seven games. This was the first such comeback in the history of Major League Baseball (and only third overall in North American team sports).In 2007, the New York Mets held a 7 game lead in the National League East division with 17 games to play over rival Philadelphia Phillies on September 12. The Mets proceeded to go 5-12 in their last 17 games which enabled the Phillies to win the division on the last day of the regular season. This lead is currently the largest lead blown that late in the season for a team that missed the playoffs in baseball.In 2011, both the Red Sox (9 games) and Atlanta Braves (8 1⁄2 games) had significant leads in their respective Wild Card races during the first week of September. Both teams proceeded to lose their leads over the final 3 1⁄2 weeks of the season, culminating in both of their eliminations in the final game of the season. The Braves capped their slide by losing in the 13th inning to the Philadelphia Phillies (allowing the St. Louis Cardinals, who had won earlier in the evening, to win the National League wild card, who later went on to win the World Series), and the Red Sox followed suit about 30 minutes later by blowing a 3-2, 9th inning lead against the last place Baltimore Orioles (allowing the Tampa Bay Rays, who won their game about 5 minutes after the Red Sox' loss in Game 162 became final) to win the American League wild card). The Red Sox' lead is the largest September lead ever blown by a team that missed the playoffs in baseball.The next year, the Texas Rangers blew a 5 game lead over the Oakland A's on September 24, and had the best record in the American League. The Rangers would lose 7 of their last 9 games, ultimately giving the Oakland A's the AL West title. On October 05, 2012, the Rangers faced against the Baltimore Orioles in the Wild Card game. The Rangers would later lose 5-1.[edit]Ice hockeyIn the NHL, choking is a common term during the playoffs, the term has been commonly used to teams who have fallen victim of a "three-game deficit comeback", in which a team who has a 3-0 series lead, then loses the next 4 to lose the entire series. It has occurred 3 times, most recently in the 2010 Stanley Cup Playoffs, when the Boston Bruins gave up a 3-0 series lead in the Eastern Conference semifinals and then gave up a 3-0 lead in Game 7, losing both Game 7 and the series to the Philadelphia Flyers, 4-3. Prior to that, the Pittsburgh Penguins gave up a 3-0 lead in the quarterfinal round to the New York Islanders in the 1975 Stanley Cup playoffs to lose 4-3, and in the 1942 Stanley Cup Finals, when the Detroit Red Wings lost a 3-0 lead to the Toronto Maple Leafs.[edit]Rugby UnionThe team most widely regarded as chokers in world rugby are New Zealand. Ever since winning the first Rugby World Cup in 1987, the All Blacks have always been seen as favourites to win the Rugby World Cup. However, they have a long-established history of choking. This began in 1991 where David Campese's individual brilliance ended the All Blacks reign in the semi-final. In 1995 they lost the World Cup final narrowly in extra time to South Africa.New Zealand's most famous choke came in 1999, where New Zealand gave up a 24-10 half time lead to concede 33 points and go on to lose 43-31 against rank outsiders France. 2003 saw them eliminated by Trans-Tasman rivals Australia thanks to a Stirling Mortlock interception try, with a final score of 22-10. In 2007 France once again knocked them out, this time at the quarter-finals with a score of 20-18The All Blacks finally dropped their "choker" tag at the 2011 Rugby World Cup, staged in New Zealand. After winning all their pool matches, New Zealand beat Argentina in the quarter finals and Australia in the semi finals to set up a World Cup final against old rivals France. A typically tense and tightly-fought encounter ended in New Zealand edging France 8-7, thus ending their 24-year World Cup drought.[edit]GolfJean van de Velde only needed a double-bogey 6 to win the 1999 British Open. Instead he scored a triple-bogey 7 on the 18th hole and entered a play-off which he lost.[9]Rory McIlroy led the 2011 Masters Tournament from the start of the tournament until midway through the final round, but ended up falling out of the top ten at the tournament. One journalist has stated that the 2011 tournament at Augusta will be remembered more for the collapse of McIlroy on the final nine holes of the final round than it will be for who won the tournament.[10]Kyle Stanley choked away a 3 shot lead on the par 5 18th to lose his grip on the 2012 Farmers Open. However, he was redeemed weeks later to win the 2012 Phoenix Open in a come from behind victory. [11][edit]TennisAt the 2004 French Open, Guillermo Coria played Gastón Gaudio in the final. Coria lead 2 sets to 0, easily beating him, and lost the next two sets. Coria was within a point of winning twice in the fifth set, and he collapsed to eventually lose, 0-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-1, 8-6.In the 1993 Wimbledon final, Steffi Graf played Jana Novotná. After Novotná lost the first set, she won 10 of the last 12 games, leading 4-1, serving at 40-30. She hit the worst 2 serves of her career, and went on to eventually lose 7-6, 1-6, 6-4.[edit]National Rugby LeagueThe National Rugby League (NRL - Australia) has seen many chokes in its history but since the competition re-united in 1998 after the ARL and Super League War, the Parramatta Eels have been serial offenders.The Eels led the Canterbury-Bankstown Bulldogs 18-2 with ten minutes remaining in the second preliminary final of 1998, but lost this game in extra time. In the first preliminary final of 1999, the Eels were leading the Melbourne Storm 16-6 at half-time, and lost 18-16. In 2001 the Eels lost the Grand Final to the Andrew Johns-led Newcastle Knights. In 2005, the Eels were the minor premiers and lost the second preliminary final to the North Queensland Cowboys 29-0.[edit]Australian Football LeagueThe Colliwobbles: Between 1959 and 1989, the Collingwood Football Club, which was the league's most successful club to that point (13 premierships, while the next-best had only 10), lost all eight Grand Finals it appeared in, many of which they were favoured to win. Rival fans jocularly claim that the losses are caused by a fictional disease called "the Colliwobbles", a term still used today. Most notable among the losses were the 1966, when the St Kilda Football Club won the only premiership in its long and unsuccessful history, 1970, when Collingwood blew a 44-point half-time lead against Carlton to lose by ten points.Port Adelaide's consecutive finals failures (2001–2003): Port Adelaide was the best-performing team over this period, finished third on the ladder in 2001, then as minor premiers in 2002 and 2003; however, they failed to convert any of these finishes into a Grand Final appearance. The team was widely branded as chokers, and coach Mark Williams was criticised for lacking a "gameplan to win finals". This ended in 2004, when the club again finished first won its first AFL premiership. Williams, in his post-match speech, stated "Allan Scott, you were wrong!" (Scott being one of Williams' highest-profile detractors).
 
The explicit monitoring theory provides an explanation for athlete’s under-performance at the precise moment they need to be at their best. Beilock and Carr suggest that “pressure raises self-consciousness and anxiety about performing correctly, which increases the attention paid to skill processes and their step-by-step control. Attention to execution at this step-by-step level is thought to disrupt well-learned or proceduralized performances.”[1]
I know for sure I've seen this one 1st hand. My senior year of high school on was on an indoor track team, ranked 1st in the state in the 4 x 200 M relay. I ran anchor leg and our 2nd best runner ran lead. At the start of the race the gun went off and our lead froze. Simply froze in the block for what seemed like an eternity but in reality was about 0.25 seconds.... Which in a sprint is an eternity. Almost every other team was half way around the turn before he even moved. We ended up not placing.
 
Brady is on the decline, I think there's very little question about that.
If you watch Brady week to week you realize that this is a silly statement.We'll have this conversation all over again next year I'm sure. NE will probably be in a similar spot if not the exact same position next year assuming a) Talib is resigned, b) Continued growth of the young defense, c) Growth of Chandler Jones/D. Hightower/B. Spikes specifically, d) D. McCourtey settling in, e) Solid draft, f) Growth in Ridley/Vereen at RB.In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see Brady have worse stats in next year's AFC Championship and/or Super Bowl, but they win, and we're once again we're talking about Brady GOAT vs all this other madness.The bottom line: NE was not a good enough team to win this year. Brady is fine. Any other talk is wishful thinking from the haters (at least for 2 - 3 more years).KY
 
In regard to the title, I'd say Brady has become Donovan McNabb. Consistently making it to Conference Championships or Super Bowls, but unable to win them. And ironically, the body swap seems to have taken place right after the Patriots beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl. :tinfoilhat:
For me Greg, Brady will never be McNabb because Brady has won 3 Super Bowls AND he's gone to all of those divisional games. You can't just take parts of Brady's career and throw out others. McNabb's entire career was him getting deep into the playoffs and losing, that's not the legacy of Tom Brady now nor will he ever be remembered for that. He's won 3SB's and more playoff games than any other QB in NFL history, that doesn't remind me of Donovan McNabb. Maybe like some of the other NFL greats like Joe Montana, Brett Farve, and Peyton Manning who won SB's earlier in their career, but later went to the playoffs but couldn't win it again like they did earlier.
You're taking my post WAY too seriously.
 
Brady hasn't been very good or at least consistently good in the playoffs lately. Still, if Gronk doesn't get hurt or Welker brings in a ball last year, he has another ring, and nobody is talking about this.
There is no guarantee of that. For one, the Brady bad throw/Welker drop would not have ended the game. The Giants could have still held them to a FG and got the ball back with about two minutes left, trailing by 5, and went down and scored to win the game. We just don't know. As for Gronk, sure, he is a difference maker, but the game plays out completely different if he plays. It's not as simple as, "his presence would have gotten the Patriots 5+ more points, and they lost by 4, so if he plays, they win." It's not that simple. If the Patriots O is doing better, maybe the Giants don't settle for field goals on their first two scoring drives of the second half. Maybe the game is still close enough for them to go down and win it at the end like they did anyway. Again, we just don't know. We could play the "change this play or that play" in tons of playoff games and change the Super Bowl winner of most NFL seasons. But what matters is what happened, not what could have happened The fact that Brady has three rings and that his team is always a top contender to win it all practically every year alone speaks volumes of how great he has been and how important he is to that team.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top