Tony Romo

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JS19

My definition, as I'm sure it's different for everyone, is that of a player who is able to make the plays when they count, typically in a big pressure spot. For example, I remember in a much older thread about "clutch" players, I said that in 1999, there is no hitter in the league that I would rather have hitting than John Olerud, bc he always seemed to get the job done.

But that just proves my point. You consider John Olerud a clutch player because he probably got hits in times that you were watching. You built up a view that Olerud was clutch. But in baseball (like many other sports), it's really tough to differentiate between players when strictly watching them. The difference in a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is 1 hit every two weeks. That's impossible to notice with the human eye.

Using your Olerud example, lets look at his stats. His playoff batting average was 20 points lower than his regular season one. His OBP dropped 30 points and his power numbers and run producing numbers dropped as well. Over his career, Olerud hit worse with runners in scoring position than he did with no one on.

As I said, clutch is just something we create in our mind to explain situations. It's easier to say that Tony Romo threw an interception because his mind was elsewhere instead of just saying that he throws a pick X% of the time and it just happened to go down at a bad time.

Originally Posted by JS19

I'm not saying that winning a Super Bowl gives you lifetime immunity, but it definitely elevates your status in the game. As we all know, it's pretty difficult to win a game in the NFL, let alone a Super Bowl, so when you are given the chance, you need to capitalize on it. So I suppose my point from my previous post was that Eli, Peyton, Young and Aikman have all done this, while Romo hasn't.

Would you rather have Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer taking you down the field in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl over Dan Marino? Super Bowls are much more than a QB. Eli wins because he had the most dominant defense in the league. Young had the greatest receiver ever. Aikman had a phenomenal offensive line and HOF RB and WR. That isn't to say that these guy didn't contribute immensely to their titles, it's just saying that Super Bowls often times are a sum of being in the right place at the right time.

[lungs]

This was only a big game if he would've lost.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You are so incredibly ridiculous. Now he's not clutch unless he wins a big game while throwing TD's.

I mean, I think it's ridiculous to call this a big game in the first place, but you actually want to run with the argument that it was a big game, but that he didn't play well (despite no INT's and completing 66.7% of his passes) because he didn't throw a TD. That's amazing.

How about this. Let us know what he has to do in big games. Give us numbers, so in the future you can't just make shit up when he does win the game.



What the hell are you even talking about now?

You constantly bash Eli when it comes to his stats, yet want to give Romo credit tonight

Don't be such a hypocrite.

[Lathum]

dola- Romo is paid and treated like a top QB and hasn't won shit.

[TroyF]

10-18, 113 yards, 0TD, 3 INT. LOSS
16-27, 161 yards, 2TD, 1 INT, LOSS

That's Eli's first two playoff games.

The game everyone points to that Romo sucked so badly was this one:

Eli - 12-18, 163 yards, 2 TD
Romo - 18-36, 201 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT

Romo had 5.6 yards per pass attempt that game. Favre was 19-35 for 236 and 2 INT's against that defense. Brady threw for 5.5 yards per pass attempt in his game against the Giants that year.

Then we have Eli last year against the Eagles. 15-29, 169 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT, LOSS

It's funny how we rate guys. If Brett Favre drives the Packers down the field and scores in overtime, Manning doesn't get a SB title. Eli's heroics in OT consisted of handing the ball off three times and letting the kicker hit a FG. (he did drive the team down the field in the fourth and the kicker missed)

People are judging Romo far too harshly this early in his career. Tonight, in his MUST WIN game, Romo went 22-33, 255 (7.7 per pass attempt) and led the Cowboys down the field multiple times in the second half. If Eli did this, Lathum would be sounding off about how terrific he was when it counted. Instead what will happen? 2 years from now, this game will be forgotten as another insignificant early season win. Sorry, I just don't get it. It's the same joke that NE fans used to do with Peyton. Brady can win the big one, Peyton chokes. Peyton wins one game and it suddenly changes? Peyton's teams ever had a defense as good as the Pats outside of that one season?

The whole thing is silly to me.

[Lathum]

I think Romo is a good QB FWIW.

The problem with this whole discussion is people keep saying if if if if if if if .

If doesn't matter, the only thing that does matter is the results on the field.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

dola- Romo is paid and treated like a top QB and hasn't won shit.

Except of course the week 3 game you declared a big game.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Except of course the week 3 game you declared a big game.

and I give him all the credit in the world for stepping up tonight. Your smarmy attitude is getting old. People try to make logical arguments and have a discussion and all you do is take things they have said and make obnoxios comments.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't really see any logical arguments. Just subjectives presented as objectives.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't really see any logical arguments. Just subjectives presented as objectives.

and that is fine, at least it is an argument and not an annoying comment having nothing to do with the discussion.

What's next, my dad can beat up your dad?

[ISiddiqui]

I think you are letting your biases get to you. I really don't see how larry's comment had nothing to do with the discussion. If you are going to call this game a BIG GAME (which, I find utterly ridiculous btw), being called out on it is perfectly within the discussion.

[larrymcg421]

You say he hasn't won "shit".

I respond by saying he just won something you said was "shit" earlier in the thread.

In what way are you claiming that doesn't have anything to do witht he discussion?

[ISiddiqui]

To be quite honest, I hate the Dallas Cowboys (I mildly dislike the New York Giants), and I find larrymcg to be making far better and more rational arguments than you, Lathum. By a long shot too.

[larrymcg421]

If only Lathum knew I was a strong supporter of Eli Manning.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think Romo is a good QB FWIW.

The problem with this whole discussion is people keep saying if if if if if if if .

If doesn't matter, the only thing that does matter is the results on the field.

See, I don't think that's the case. I don't think Trent Dilfer is a better QB than Dan Marino because he has a Super Bowl ring. I don't think that Terry Bradshaw is 2x the QB Elway is because he has 4. Nor do I think Romo is some guy who can't win the big game because he botched a single snap and had an average day against a great defense.

Results on the field are the result of 53 players. Rarely does a single player win/lose a football game. Eli didn't win 4 games in the playoffs that year. Romo didn't lose the playoff game against the Giants by himself.

John Elway probably had one of his single worst playoff games against the Packers in the Super Bowl. He was horrible. 12-22, 123 yards and 1 INT. He went 22-37 for 304 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT in his first Super Bowl in 1986. (he also led the team in rushing that game with 27 yards. . . yeah, the Giants loss was CLEARLY his fault!!!

Funny. Now Elway is considered a big game QB. The only things that improved from that first Super Bowl was a better offensive line, a better RB, a HOF TE, a better defense and a better K. That's the difference between Elway winning the big one or being like Dan Marino or Jim Kelly and not winning the big one.

FWIW, I hate the Cowboys. Always have, always will. Can't stand Romo either. He seems way too relaxed when things go badly. I'd rather see some frustration or have him admit he was sick to his stomach for a couple of weeks after the game.

I just think your statement above really misses the point about the game of football. I won't use an IF here. I'll just say it. No Strahan, no Osi, No Tuck. . . Eli still looking for a playoff win.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I think you are letting your biases get to you. I really don't see how larry's comment had nothing to do with the discussion. If you are going to call this game a BIG GAME (which, I find utterly ridiculous btw), being called out on it is perfectly within the discussion.

you are right, I apologize for my comments earlier to Larry.

FWIW I'm trying to discuss WHY people are saying these things, I don't totally agree with them. What annoys me is Eli always seems to get pulled into the discussion.

[ISiddiqui]

Mostly because the view on Eli's "clutch" ability changed 180 degrees in an INSTANT. One playoffs turned him from someone who couldn't win big games into a clutch QB. Actually, to be honest, one play did. The Giants lose that Superbowl and a lot of people would still be talking crap about Eli.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Lathum

you are right, I apologize for my comments earlier to Larry.

FWIW I'm trying to discuss WHY people are saying these things, I don't totally agree with them. What annoys me is Eli always seems to get pulled into the discussion.

Eli is the most recent guy who got crap for not being able to win the BIG one. If Eli didn't exist, we'd be using Peyton. Or Elway. Or Steve Young. (he couldn't win the big one until he beat SD in the Super Bowl) Last years Super Bowl QB's had alreay won the Big One. Brady had won multiple big ones.

Romo is now the guy that can't win the big one. Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, Jay Cutler, and Donovan McNabb are guys who have been in the league awhile without going to the SB or having a ton of playoff success. I'm sure these guys will start hearing the same talk before long. There is no doubt in my mind that in a few years one of these QB's will be considered the guy who couldn't win the big one:

Joe Flacco
Matt Ryan
Mark Sanchez
Jay Cutler


And when their name comes up for not having done it, people defending him will pull the previous guy who couldn't win the big one and then did it to prove their point

[MizzouCowboy]

Interesting thread and just couldn't resist making a (long) comment.

I'm about the biggest Cowboys homer you will ever find, always have been and always will be. But I do look at the games objectively [at times].

In defense of Romo and his inability to win the big game, the difference in winning and losing comes down to a play or three. Against Seattle, Romo completed a pass to Witten that was just short of the first down. Most Cowboys fan feel Witten had the first down and the ref made a horrible spot. Get the spot or if Witten runs the route a foot deeper the Cowboys are set up with 1st and goal with possibly three shots to get into the endzone and win the game. Of course he shoulda held the snap, but

Against the Giants. Crayton is wide open over the middle and it appears to be an 80 yard TD or something in that general area. Romo hits Crayton right between the 8 and the 4, unfortunately Crayton does what Crayton does alot, and drops the pass.

On the last drive against the Giants, may have been 3rd down with around 30 seconds remaining, don't remember exactly, Romo appears to overthrow Crayton in the endzone which would have won the game. What actually happened is Crayton quit running his route and it appeared to have been a an easy TD. Next play Romo throws the pick in the endzone.

Romo does drive me bat shit crazy at times. The ill advised passes, not protecting the ball in the pocket, and he still has trouble picking up a blitz. But hey, that's my quarterback man.

As for Romo against Eli. Romo's offense is/was more wide open and open to more risk, and Eli is in a very structured and disciplined offense. Eli is playing in a system like Aikman used to play in, move the chains, hand the ball off, don't make mistakes and win. Stats won't show what Eli is worth to the Giants, especially without an Irvin or Novacek.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by MizzouCowboy

As for Romo against Eli. Romo's offense is/was more wide open and open to more risk, and Eli is in a very structured and disciplined offense. Eli is playing in a system like Aikman used to play in, move the chains, hand the ball off, don't make mistakes and win. Stats won't show what Eli is worth to the Giants, especially without an Irvin or Novacek.

I think you make good arguments, but Eli can throw when he needs to.

Smith and Manningham both had 10 catches and 130+ yards against the Cowboys last week,.

[MizzouCowboy]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Smith and Manningham both had 10 catches and 130+ yards against the Cowboys last week,.

You would have to bring that up!

Oh there's no doubt he can throw when needed, especially when his Oline gives him all day and his receivers are running free in the secondary. I didn't mean to imply that Eli's role is not to lose the game, as in a Dilfer role. It's just that Coughlin knows that he has a helluva combo at RB, a great OL, a dominant defense, and there is no reason to put themselves at a disadvantage with costly turnovers.

Steve Smith has to be one of the most underrated receivers in the NFL, reminds me of the other Steve Smith, without the blazing speed and the prima dona attitude. Manningham was a total surprise, I did not believe he had it in him, although I was hoping the Cowboys would draft him. Looked like the Cowboys didn't respect the Giants receivers and were only worried about Jacobs and Bradshaw. Thought they could play man and get another 8 sacks on Manning.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Eli is the most recent guy who got crap for not being able to win the BIG one. If Eli didn't exist, we'd be using Peyton. Or Elway. Or Steve Young. (he couldn't win the big one until he beat SD in the Super Bowl) Last years Super Bowl QB's had alreay won the Big One. Brady had won multiple big ones.

Romo is now the guy that can't win the big one. Drew Brees, Philip Rivers, Jay Cutler, and Donovan McNabb are guys who have been in the league awhile without going to the SB or having a ton of playoff success. I'm sure these guys will start hearing the same talk before long. There is no doubt in my mind that in a few years one of these QB's will be considered the guy who couldn't win the big one:

Joe Flacco
Matt Ryan
Mark Sanchez
Jay Cutler


And when their name comes up for not having done it, people defending him will pull the previous guy who couldn't win the big one and then did it to prove their point

Psst, Troy, Cutler's only been in the league for 3+ years. I'm not sure it's time to lump him in with McNabb and Brees. Really, the same is true for Rivers - yeah, he's been in the league two years longer than Cutler, but has started for exactly the same amount of time.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There are those who would say that there is no such thing as clutch. That it's just great players who do great things because they are great players.

Statistics bear this out (for baseball too incidentally). Players who are generally considered "clutch" performers generally have very similar statistics in clutch situations to what they have in the rest of their team's possessions.

In the last 30 years or so (back far enough to include Elway, Montana and Marino) only one QB with a statistically significant number of starts has a QB rating that is notably better during game winning/tying drives than the rest of the time.

And, its Eli Manning.

[flere-imsaho]

First of all, I thought that was a really good first post, TroyF. Good question, backed with a lot of data to chew on. The kind of thoughtful question at the start of a thread I enjoy seeing.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I don't really see any logical arguments. Just subjectives presented as objectives.

I personally think it's still too soon to figure out what Romo's legacy is going to be. I watch him play and I feel he's still learning, still gaining the experience he needs to pull out games for his team when he has to.

This argument, however, always reminds me of the many spectacular meltdowns Peyton had before finally winning a Super Bowl.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think you make good arguments, but Eli can throw when he needs to.

Smith and Manningham both had 10 catches and 130+ yards against the Cowboys last week,.

Aikman was able to throw when he needed to also, just the Cowboys' running game was their bread-and-butter, much like it is for the Giants now. MizzouCowboy made a lot of good points. I saw this recently about Romo's stats:

In Romo's first 23 games as a starter, he was 17-6 with 50 touchdown passes, 24 interceptions and a 101.7 passer rating. When that stretch ended in 2007, the Cowboys were 12-1 and en route to earning the NFC's top playoff seed.

Since then, Romo is 11-9 as a starter with 34 touchdowns, 23 interceptions and an 85.0 passer rating.

The columnist who wrote this claimed Romo missed Parcells, but I think this actually shows the value of a good WR group. Each successive year Romo has played, his WR corps has declined. His first half season he had a dominant TO and Terry Glenn. His first full season starting he still had a dominant TO but Glenn didn't play until the playoff game vs. NYG. His second full season starting TO was on the team, but he was mediocre (for a #1 WR) and couldn't beat press coverage. Roy Williams hasn't looked particularly special since he's been in Dallas and the other WRs have been on the team since then and haven't done anything to show that they've developed, so this is probably the worst group Romo has had. His INT totals haven't changed much from when he started, it's the TDs / yards per pass that have diminished. If he ever figures out how to stop making bad decisions, he would be a top 5 QB, until then it's more like top 10-15.

[JS19]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

But that just proves my point. You consider John Olerud a clutch player because he probably got hits in times that you were watching. You built up a view that Olerud was clutch. But in baseball (like many other sports), it's really tough to differentiate between players when strictly watching them. The difference in a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is 1 hit every two weeks. That's impossible to notice with the human eye.

Using your Olerud example, lets look at his stats. His playoff batting average was 20 points lower than his regular season one. His OBP dropped 30 points and his power numbers and run producing numbers dropped as well. Over his career, Olerud hit worse with runners in scoring position than he did with no one on.

As I said, clutch is just something we create in our mind to explain situations. It's easier to say that Tony Romo threw an interception because his mind was elsewhere instead of just saying that he throws a pick X% of the time and it just happened to go down at a bad time.


Would you rather have Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer taking you down the field in the 4th quarter of the Super Bowl over Dan Marino? Super Bowls are much more than a QB. Eli wins because he had the most dominant defense in the league. Young had the greatest receiver ever. Aikman had a phenomenal offensive line and HOF RB and WR. That isn't to say that these guy didn't contribute immensely to their titles, it's just saying that Super Bowls often times are a sum of being in the right place at the right time.

I hear what you're saying, I was able to watch Olerud the majority of the time so I was able to see what he was capable of and what he brought to the table. I think that works in my favor, for determining his clutch ability. See, you just take a look over his career stats and make your determination, I was able to see him on a game-by-game, situation-by-situation basis. IMO, stats don't tell the whole story. I tried looking, but I suck at using a computer, so couldn't find anything, but what were his stats with 2 outs in the bottom of the 8th, a runner on, down by 2, and they need a hit/walk to keep things going, or down 1 going into the 9th and they need their leadoff batter to get on. Obviously, I can think of a thousand different late inning scenarios, but my point is, by being able to watch Olerud play everyday, I was able to notice that in the "clutch" moment, when they really needed something to get started, or finished for that matter, he was able to do it. Just off the top of my head, I remember him coming through with a big hit in the bottom of the 8th against Rocker (who absolutely owned the Mets), in the NLCS to keep the series alive. I know that's only one example, but there were many more that yr.

Definitely wouldn't want those guys over Marino. I'm not debating the fact that the Giants defense pretty much carried them through the playoffs and a Super Bowl victory. But, I'm not so sure they would have one w/o Eli, either. I would assume many other Giants fans would agree with me here, but I don't base my whole Eli argument off of one play in the Super Bowl. Since he joined the Giants, sans his first yr (although maybe not, I really don't remember that yr much), Eli has always elevated his game in the 4th quarter with a shot to win. I firmly believe his performance in week 17 against the Patriots only added to his "clutch" ability. Call it what you will, but that was a huge game, ya know, with the whole undefeated thing and all, and Eli played like a champion. Also, in the Super Bowl, I think many are forgetting the the 3rd and 11 pass that Eli completed to Steve Smith for a 1st down, followed by his pass to Plax. My point with that is, it wasn't just one semi-fluke play to Tyree that turned Eli from a choke artist to someone who's got it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JS19

I was able to watch Olerud the majority of the time so I was able to see what he was capable of and what he brought to the table. I think that works in my favor, for determining his clutch ability. See, you just take a look over his career stats and make your determination, I was able to see him on a game-by-game, situation-by-situation basis. IMO, stats don't tell the whole story.

my point is, by being able to watch Olerud play everyday, I was able to notice that in the "clutch" moment, when they really needed something to get started, or finished for that matter, he was able to do it. Just off the top of my head, I remember him coming through with a big hit in the bottom of the 8th against Rocker (who absolutely owned the Mets), in the NLCS to keep the series alive. I know that's only one example, but there were many more that yr.

I think I'll echo what I said earlier:

Just subjectives presented as objectives.

[KWhit]

Romo really surprised me with his ability to win the BIG GAME last night!

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Psst, Troy, Cutler's only been in the league for 3+ years. I'm not sure it's time to lump him in with McNabb and Brees. Really, the same is true for Rivers - yeah, he's been in the league two years longer than Cutler, but has started for exactly the same amount of time.

Rivers became a fulltime starting QB in week 1 of 2006.

Romo became a fulltime starting QB in week 7 of 2006. (Cowboys 6th game of the year)

Cutler became a fulltime starting QB in week 13 of 2006. (Denver's 12th game)


That's the silliness of all of this. The gut reaction of most people would be to lay off Rivers and Cutler and rip into Romo. Rivers led a 14-2 team with oodles of talent into the playoffs his rookie year and went 14-32 against the Patriots. His second year he played better the first two weeks and then was horrible against the Pats again. (he was hurt in that game, he was gutsy in that game) 2008 was bizzare because he was pretty average to poor agaisnt the Colts and won and great against the Steelers and lost.

He has won playoff games. But he's had probably the most talented team in the AFC in two of those three years and couldn't win. That's why people will start talking. People will start talking about Cutler because:

He's never made it to the playoffs.
He's performed poorly when he's had a chance. (loss against Alex Smith in 2006, collapse last year that was the defense, but that won't stop the people from blaming him for it, just watch)
Cutler forced his way out of Denver to a high profile market.

Cutler doesn't lead the Bears to the second round or further in the playoffs this year, you watch what will start happening. Cutler's advantage? Tony Romo is the current whipping boy and will probably be that way throughout the year.

[RendeR]

Wow, this discussion is a melting pot of terrible examples, homer-isms and just plain "my dick is bigger and shinier than your dick" commentary.

When it comes down to it how many people that aren't Dallas Fans would take Romo as their QB if they were drafting a full team of their own? I wouldn't. he's too inconsistent. I doubt he would make the top 10 QB's in the league right now in my draft list.

Guys I would take before Romo (in no particular order)

Peyton, Eli, Breez, Rivers, Mcnabb, Palmer, Rothlesburger, Flacco, Brady, Favre, Warner

Even if all of those were gone I'd probably look at guys like Sanchez and Cutler before taking Tony.

Its not that he doesn't have talent, but when I watch Romo play I simply see no confidence. I never get teh feeling watching him that "Yes he's gonna make the plays right here and get it done" When he does it always feels like a surprise or kind of relief that he did it.

I want a guy under center that fills me with the confidence that it WILL get done. I'd rather feel surprised at failure than shocked at success.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Romo really surprised me with his ability to win the BIG GAME last night!

Obviously you missed my post when I explained to Hoops while I don't think last nights game was a must win by any stretch, you are crazy to not think there was added pressure last night.

no one wants to lose their first 2 games at home to go 1-2 and down 2 games already in your division.

[Lathum]

dola- I also gave all the credit in the world to Romo, he stepped up after his teams horrible first half and got the job done.

[Samdari]

The funny thing is that his detractors point to him not winning the "big game" last week, and winning the "meaningless" game last night.

Romo actually performed similarly in both games, just last week played against the best defensive line in the league, and this week played against a pretty ineffectual one. Every QB is worse, and makes worse decisions, under pressure from the defense.

I don't think he's great myself, but some of the criticism is ridiculous.

Speaking of Carolina's ineffectual defensive line, has there ever been a player who was considered great, and even had some stats to back it up, and made less of an impact than Julius Peppers? Sacks are considered valuable, because the thinking is that they indicate bringing pressure, i.e forcing an incomplete, hitting the QB, etc. 3-4 other times. Doesn't seem that way with Peppers. I've never seen him dominate a game, making an impact constantly, like I have seen other great pass rushers do. He either gets a sack or he's just watching the play.

[JS19]

I'll admit, between this discussion and last nights game, I somewhat saw a flaw in my argument, as him not being able to win the big one. Not to say last night was a big game, but it most certainly was added pressure, as Lathum has already pointed out. If he would have lost, I probably would have said "there he goes again, can't get it done", but since he won, I'm more like "big deal, he beat a shitty team".

But I totally disagree on your comparisons of the D-Lines. Giants D-Line had absolutely no pressure and, IMO, were pretty ineffective against the Cowboys. The Panthers last night, in the 1st half anyhow, seemed to be getting at him one play after another.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Peyton's teams ever had a defense as good as the Pats outside of that one season?

The whole thing is silly to me.

Funny how success changes things. Not to thread jack here but it should be pointed out that the 2006 Colts defense was not any different than any other year. They were a team that gave up 375 yards rushing to the Jacksonville Jaguars in a week 14 blowout loss. Thats right, they gave up 375 yards rushing in week 14 of their super bowl run.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JS19

But I totally disagree on your comparisons of the D-Lines. Giants D-Line had absolutely no pressure and, IMO, were pretty ineffective against the Cowboys. The Panthers last night, in the 1st half anyhow, seemed to be getting at him one play after another.

We watched different games then. I saw F Adams get humiliated on every single pass attempt vs the Giants, never getting his hands on anyone the entire game. Last night I watched Romo have all the time he wanted to throw.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Funny how success changes things. Not to thread jack here but it should be pointed out that the 2006 Colts defense was not any different than any other year. They were a team that gave up 375 yards rushing to the Jacksonville Jaguars in a week 14 blowout loss. Thats right, they gave up 375 yards rushing in week 14 of their super bowl run.

As I recall, their run defense during the season was atrocious, but during the playoffs it was far better (possibly coinciding with the return of Bob Sanders from injury? I can't recall).

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You choose 3 games out of his 41 game career. Like I said, clutch really doesn't exist in sports. If you take the career statistics for most players who play a substantial amount of playoff games, they'll be relatively close to their regular season stats. The same goe sofr every sport (there are some huge studies on this).

But if you want to talk stats. Coming into the season Tony Romo had a come from behind win in 15% of his starts. That is a higher percent than Dan Marino, John Elway, Roger Staubach, Terry Bradshaw, Troy Aikman, and Brett Favre.

And that is why clutch is such a bullshit analysis of a player. There is no real criteria for it. Eli Manning is clutch, yet if his defense gives up 40 points to the Pats, he is magically not clutch (although he didn't do anything differently). You picked out one play from his first playoff game and determined that was the only play that mattered.

Yes, I took three games... the three games. They wre the three biggest gaes of his career and he blew them all.

Clutch doesn't realy exist in sports? Are you serious? Clutch is a mental state of mind. Clutch may not exist during an entire career but it does exist. Look at Brad Lidge. His state of mind last year was clutch, he knew that no-one was going to beat him. This year he s a head case in the clutch moments.

Until Romo can prove himself in the big game he is not clutch.

Is Peyton clutch? Overall for his career I ould say no as some of te worst performances which he has ever had wer in the playoffs.

Is Eli clutch? I would begrudgingly say he leans towards clutch.

Is McNabb clutch? More than Romo. Until Romo can actually win a playoff game he can't carry McNabb's jock. McNabb is 8-5 in playoff games (9-5 if you count week 17 from last week which was basically a playoff game). Romo is 0-2 or 0-3 if you count week 17.

Is it just an amazing coincidence that he has bad games (or made key bad plays in the games) in the three biggest games of his career?

[larrymcg421]

If I was playing poker and I lost with pocket Aces three times, I wouldn't start folding pocket Aces preflop.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by headtrauma

Does getting tired at the end of the Superbowl make McNabb a choke artist?

Not sure what that has to do with Romo holding kicks that season.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There are those who would say that there is no such thing as clutch. That it's just great players who do great things because they are great players.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Clutch is a goofy narrative people in the media like to give. Sure there are players who may handle pressure a little better, but for the most part it's extremely objective.

Clutch is an intangible that is either present in someone, or it isn't. I can name some players across the four major sports that are considered clutch:

NFL - Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Terry Bradshaw, Adam Vinatieri

NBA - Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Larry Bird, Joe Dumars, Tim Duncan

MLB - Derek Jeter, Curt Schilling, Andy Pettite, Roger Clemens, Albert Pujols

NHL - Patrick Roy, Chris Osgood, Steve Yzerman, Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier

There are also those players that are anti-clutch:

Alex Rodriguez, Tony Romo, Dan Marino

Any player who is not clutch can, at some point, become clutch, and vice-versa. Usually, however, clutch is something that is just "there".

Some people call this trait "it". Some players have "it", others don't. Just because you can't measure "it" on a scoresheet, doesn't mean it is bullshit.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Uh, this is really one of my biggest pet peeves on this board. You did not respond to any point that was made in that post. Instead, you pretended as if he said Romo was clutch when he said no such thing. If you can't bother to actually read and understand the argument someone is making,t hen why do you even bother posting a reply to them? Your response is as trollish as it gets with your cute little laugh smiley because you were oh so clever nailing someone for something they didn't even say.

Get the fuck off my bridge!!!

I guess anyone who doesn't agree with you MUST be a troll. That is one of my biggest pet peeves on this board. People who are so fragile that they put on a holier than thou act when someone has a different opinion...

God damn, we'e talking about freaking football players. How the hell does that affect your life when someone doesn't have the same opinion as you?

A couple of my poker buddies are Cowboys fans and we give each other much worse shit than this without the need to cry about it.

Get over yourself!!!

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

If I was playing poker and I lost with pocket Aces three times, I wouldn't start folding pocket Aces preflop.

Bad analogy. If you were playing poker and were top 5 in chips every time at the end of day one but then finished out of the money every time.... are you clutch?

[JS19]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Clutch is an intangible that is either present in someone, or it isn't. I can name some players across the four major sports that are considered clutch:

NFL - Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Terry Bradshaw, Adam Vinatieri

NBA - Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Larry Bird, Joe Dumars, Tim Duncan

MLB - Derek Jeter, Curt Schilling, Andy Pettite, Roger Clemens, Albert Pujols

NHL - Patrick Roy, Chris Osgood, Steve Yzerman, Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier

There are also those players that are anti-clutch:

Alex Rodriguez, Tony Romo, Dan Marino

Any player who is not clutch can, at some point, become clutch, and vice-versa. Usually, however, clutch is something that is just "there".

Some people call this trait "it". Some players have "it", others don't. Just because you can't measure "it" on a scoresheet, doesn't mean it is bullshit.

Well put. I believe RainMaker said something along the lines of "there is no clutch, just great players who do great things". Typically, they coincide with each other, that is what makes them great, their "it" factor, as EagleFan has put it. However, not all great players are clutch, such as the ARod and Marino, among others, example. On the other hand, mediocre players can also have that "it" factor, such as Robert Horry. Some players you just know that they have what it takes when it counts, no matter their overall stats.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

There are also those players that are anti-clutch:

Alex Rodriguez, Tony Romo, Dan Marino

What the fuck are you talking about?

[larrymcg421]

I guess I don't really know what we've been arguing about if Marino isn't clutch, unless clutch = have a really great defense and running game.

The guy has the most 4th quarter comebacks in NFL history.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Funny how success changes things. Not to thread jack here but it should be pointed out that the 2006 Colts defense was not any different than any other year. They were a team that gave up 375 yards rushing to the Jacksonville Jaguars in a week 14 blowout loss. Thats right, they gave up 375 yards rushing in week 14 of their super bowl run.

The Colts defense was not any different than any other year in the REGULAR season. The playoffs? A far different story.

Here are their playoff games:

Kansas City: Larry Johnson, who had run for close to 1800 yards goes for 13 carries, 32 yards. The Chiefs have 126 yards of total offense.

Baltimore: Jamal Lewis, who ran for over 1100 hyards int he regular season, rushes for 53 yards. The Ravens have 244 total yards of offense.

NE: While the Patriots 34 points looks impressive at first glance, you need to realize 14 of those points were scored by the defense. Brady threw for a pedestrian 235 yards with 1 TD in the game. The Patriots were held to 319 total yards and were 5-14 on third downs.

Chicago: The Colts gave up 17 points, but 7 of those were on a Hester KO return for a score. The Bears were held to 265 total yards of offense and were 3-11 on third down.

So, yeah, in the regular season the Colts sucked hard on defense. You didn't even mention Ron Dayne running for 163 yards in the second to last game of the season or the Cleo Lemon led Dolphins putting up 350+ yards on them in the final game of the season. But Sanders came back in the playoffs and they dominated that year when they needed to.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Clutch is an intangible that is either present in someone, or it isn't. I can name some players across the four major sports that are considered clutch:

NFL - Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger, Terry Bradshaw, Adam Vinatieri

NBA - Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Larry Bird, Joe Dumars, Tim Duncan

MLB - Derek Jeter, Curt Schilling, Andy Pettite, Roger Clemens, Albert Pujols

NHL - Patrick Roy, Chris Osgood, Steve Yzerman, Wayne Gretzky, Mark Messier

There are also those players that are anti-clutch:

Alex Rodriguez, Tony Romo, Dan Marino

Any player who is not clutch can, at some point, become clutch, and vice-versa. Usually, however, clutch is something that is just "there".

Some people call this trait "it". Some players have "it", others don't. Just because you can't measure "it" on a scoresheet, doesn't mean it is bullshit.

Here is the thing though, statistics don't back up your argument. The players you list as "clutch" just so happen to be great players in the regular season as well. The reason they perform in big moments isn't because they have some inate ability to get better, it's because they were already a great player who just did what they normally do.

Lets take Derek Jeter who everyone calls "clutch". Jeter has worse statistics in the playoffs than he does in the regular season. He hits 10 points higher when no one is on base than if runners are in scoring position. In fact, in games considered "Close and Late", Derek Jeter hits 23 points lower than his career average. (I can do the same for Jordan and Bird who shot worse in the playoffs than they did in the regular season)

So in your mind you and many others have considered Derek Jeter clutch. In reality, the statistics don't play out that way. He's essentially the same hitter and even a little worse in those situations. This isn't just for Jeter, it's for almost all athletes (plenty of statistical studies to back it up too). In sports, we like to create narratives. We need to have a reason why someone struck out in a crucial spot. It's easier to say that he is a choke artist instead of saying that statistically there was a 20% chance he would.

Notice that your list doesn't have any below average players who magically turn into Hall of Famers come crunch time. If there was a "clutch" that magically turned players into much better players, your list would be filled with people who we wouldn't consider great normally.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JS19

Well put. I believe RainMaker said something along the lines of "there is no clutch, just great players who do great things". Typically, they coincide with each other, that is what makes them great, their "it" factor, as EagleFan has put it. However, not all great players are clutch, such as the ARod and Marino, among others, example. On the other hand, mediocre players can also have that "it" factor, such as Robert Horry. Some players you just know that they have what it takes when it counts, no matter their overall stats.

So your argument is that some players just have "it" even if statistics doesn't show it. That's like saying that someone is rich even if their bank account doesn't show it.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is the thing though, statistics don't back up your argument. The players you list as "clutch" just so happen to be great players in the regular season as well. The reason they perform in big moments isn't because they have some inate ability to get better, it's because they were already a great player who just did what they normally do.

Lets take Derek Jeter who everyone calls "clutch". Jeter has worse statistics in the playoffs than he does in the regular season. He hits 10 points higher when no one is on base than if runners are in scoring position. In fact, in games considered "Close and Late", Derek Jeter hits 23 points lower than his career average. (I can do the same for Jordan and Bird who shot worse in the playoffs than they did in the regular season)

So in your mind you and many others have considered Derek Jeter clutch. In reality, the statistics don't play out that way. He's essentially the same hitter and even a little worse in those situations. This isn't just for Jeter, it's for almost all athletes (plenty of statistical studies to back it up too). In sports, we like to create narratives. We need to have a reason why someone struck out in a crucial spot. It's easier to say that he is a choke artist instead of saying that statistically there was a 20% chance he would.

Notice that your list doesn't have any below average players who magically turn into Hall of Famers come crunch time. If there was a "clutch" that magically turned players into much better players, your list would be filled with people who we wouldn't consider great normally.

Winner Winner!

I dont think there is anything to a clutch player theory but I do feel there is something to an anti-clutch theory. Its hard for me to believe that a player can be better in tough situations over more normal situations but I can believe that certain players dont deal well with pressure whether its scared to fail, not confident in them situations OR ?????

And why the hell is Dan Marino in this debate? The guy had a history of leading teams back in the 4th quarter. Let me guess? He didnt when a Super Bowl so people think he is not clutch? Funny