Are you ready for some Football?!? (NFL)

[drothgery]

Gotta disagree.

How a player and coach perform at crunch time is the MOST telling factor.

'Clutch' performance is a myth perpetrated by coaches and sportswriters, who really want 'clutch players' to exist. But in the long run, they really don't. There are just players who had good luck at the right time.

Players and coaches can pad stats against loser teams during the regular season, but if you can't win at crunch time, what good is it?

Maybe in college football or the pre-salary cap NFL, you can do that. In the modern NFL, loser teams can and will beat you if you have a bad day -- even if you're among the best teams in the history in the game.

I will add, though, that you can really only judge such a player or coach after their career is over. Right now, Peyton Manning looks like a choker. If he wins a Super Bowl or two, he will cement himself as one of (if not THE) greatest ever. But if he can't win the big one, all the stats are meaningless.

And Dan Marino and Dan Fouts aren't among the best QBs ever to play the game. Got it.

Charles Barkley wasn't an amazing basketball player. Neither was Karl Malone.

Trevor Hoffman? Mediocre.

Jim Boeheim had accomplished absolutely nothing at Syracuse before 2003.

 

[Crothian]

Footballs is a team sport, a QB needs other people to win no matter how good he happens to be. Elway is the perfect example of that. He couldn't win until he got a very good running game.

 

[John Crichton]

I'm really sick of the 'championships uber alles' measuring stick of coaches and players (especially quarterbacks).

You can be sick of it all you want. Success is measured by championships for coaches. That's what I was talking about: Dungy vs. Belichick. Manning vs. Brady is a completely different discussion. They are different types of QBs.

Tony Dungy is a much better coach than Mike Martz.

I'd agree with that but neither one of them has a Super Bowl ring as a head coach. Martz won one as the offensive coordinator under Dick Vermeil. At least Martz got his team to a Super Bowl. He lost to Belichick when he was the favorite.

Peyton Manning is a much better quarterback than Trent Dilfer. That the latter have won Super Bowls and the former haven't isn't going to change this.

Well, yes of course he is. QBs are a different discussion than coaches. Manning is going down as one of the all time greats. But to this point will be viewed by many as overrated until he gets a ring.

 

[DaveMage]

'Clutch' performance is a myth perpetrated by coaches and sportswriters, who really want 'clutch players' to exist. But in the long run, they really don't. There are just players who had good luck at the right time.

Adam Viniteri = Clutch
Mike Vanderjact = Choker

Vanderjact is the all-time FG% leader.

I'll take Viniteri anytime, thanks.

Dan Fouts? I was a huge Fouts fan in the 80s. In the clutch? No way. Choked every time. (Yeah, it was really cold in Cincinnati that one year, but Cincinnati had to play in it too.) I'm sure he'd have traded all the yards for 1 championship.

I think it's stunning that Marino never won a championship. But again, what are all the records worth if you can't get it done in the playoffs?

Both Fouts and Marino had great talent - no question. But all the talent in the world is meaningless if you don't *win* with it.

 

[John Crichton]

'Clutch' performance is a myth perpetrated by coaches and sportswriters, who really want 'clutch players' to exist. But in the long run, they really don't. There are just players who had good luck at the right time.

So you are just chalking performances on the biggest stages in sports as luck? Why bother even watching sports if you are taking that attitude?

Maybe in college football or the pre-salary cap NFL, you can do that. In the modern NFL, loser teams can and will beat you if you have a bad day -- even if you're among the best teams in the history in the game.

It's all about pressure. Sure, any lowly team *can* beat the best team in the league and it happens but it has been happening way before the salary cap era. But in the postseason, that's when players tend to get a bit tighter. A regular season game that means nothing more than a win/loss vs being eliminated from your season is a big deal. Greatness is measured by the postseason. It is not the only measuring stick but it's where to start. Some great players never get the chance on the big stage and so we only have their regular seasons to go on. But when they get their chance to play in the big one, they need to come through.

Putting a bad/good performance on "luck" is silly and negates results either way. There is a reason why there are winners and losers and has much more do with results than simple timing and luck.

Charles Barkley wasn't an amazing basketball player. Neither was Karl Malone.

Both were good enough to lose to Jordan. Take from that what you will. They were excellent in the regular season and during the early rounds of season 2 of the NBA (aka - when the playoffs start). Not so much in the semis & finals.

Trevor Hoffman? Mediocre.

When has Hoffman come through in a big game on a big stage? He got destroyed in the World Series he was in. He knows how to close games in the regular season but he's not good when it really counts.

Jim Boeheim had accomplished absolutely nothing at Syracuse before 2003.

He built the program and is an excellent coach. The championship cemented his status. Until that point he was a coach who couldn't win the big one.

Championships are the equalizer when comparing contemporaries in the same sport/position. It's really that simple. It's all about winning.

 

[drothgery]

So you are just chalking performances on the biggest stages in sports as luck? Why bother even watching sports if you are taking that attitude?

When someone's playing much better -- or worse -- in a single game than they have over the course of their entire career, well, random factors have a lot to do with it. Sorry, but when it seems like someone's consistently better in the playoffs, it's almost always actually a side effect of a small sample size. Given enough games, their playoff numbers would look a lot like their regular season numbers.

When has Hoffman come through in a big game on a big stage? He got destroyed in the World Series he was in. He knows how to close games in the regular season but he's not good when it really counts.

No, the Padres weren't particullarly good, so he got few chances to 'be good when it counts'; the few times they've made the playoffs, it's been with barely-above-.500 teams. The consensus best closer in the game has blown the World Series for his team. But because the Yankees massively outspend everyone else, he gets a shot at the playoffs almost every year.

 

[John Crichton]

When someone's playing much better -- or worse -- in a single game than they have over the course of their entire career, well, random factors have a lot to do with it. Sorry, but when it seems like someone's consistently better in the playoffs, it's almost always actually a side effect of a small sample size. Given enough games, their playoff numbers would look a lot like their regular season numbers.

This is simply inaccurate. To say that there aren't players who either thrive or wilt under pressure is to not understand sports. The fact that the postseason is typically a smaller sample size changes the parameters of things like motivation and pressure, both which directly effect anyone playing sports. Sure, there are some that can block it out and they are the all-time greats. If the playoffs were like the regular season there would be no reason to have playoffs, which is why the uber-long NBA & NHL playoffs are underwhelming.

Performing when it is do or die is much different than when it is not. Hence choakers and clutch players. Some people just can't do it on the big stage. Others need the spotlight to shine.

You can dismiss it all you like but I'm assuming you've played sports or at least competitive games. Ever play for a championship, money, local title or the like? It's a different environment than a regular game.

No, the Padres weren't particullarly good, so he got few chances to 'be good when it counts'; the few times they've made the playoffs, it's been with barely-above-.500 teams. The consensus best closer in the game has blown the World Series for his team. But because the Yankees massively outspend everyone else, he gets a shot at the playoffs almost every year.

I'm not talking about Rivera (or the Yanks for that matter) who has proven that he's a big-time closer and the best ever. Yes, he can and has been beaten but it doesn't change the fact that he was one of the huge reasons the Yanks won 4 times in 5 years.

I'm talking about Hoffman getting killed in the WS in his one chance and giving up 5 runs in 13 postseason innings (not good for a closer). A pitcher can control his environment which is a huge difference between a bloop hit winning the World Series and a 3-run homer to win a WS game. Hoffman enough appearances in the postseason to show that he can't get it done on the big stage. He's not scaring anyone.

A save in the postseason is a much bigger deal than a save in the regular season. Give Hoffman enough chances in the postseason and he'll continue to underwhelm.

 

[drothgery]

This is simply inaccurate. To say that there aren't players who either thrive or wilt under pressure is to not understand sports.

No, it's to not buy the myths of sports that have no foundation.

Coaches, fans, writers, and players desperately want to believe that there are 'clutch players' (mostly to favor people that they like, as opposed to people with better regular season stats). But there's simply no evidence that there is such at thing, at least in the highest levels of profestional sports.

Did John Elway go from being a non-clutch player to a clutch player in his final two seasons, or did the Broncos just have a better team? I'd say it's the latter.

Did Ameile Mauresmo suddenly figure out how to not choke in big matches this year (where she won two grand slams, after losing in lots of semifinals and finals throughout her career before this year), or was she just playing better this year? I'd bet it's the latter.

 

[Crothian]

And to take it the other way is Breet Favre now not a Clutch player? Or is he always going to be seen a Clutch even though he's not winning championships or going to the playoffs.

 

[John Crichton]

And to take it the other way is Breet Favre now not a Clutch player? Or is he always going to be seen a Clutch even though he's not winning championships or going to the playoffs.

At a certain point, you have to take age and the quality of the team around a player. Farve was tremendous in his day. It is no longer his day.