The "Clutch Game Manager" and the Super Bowl
First, as a little introduction I'd like to compliment Davis Hsu for the hard work he's done at this site. If you're not familiar with Davis or his work, let me just break it down for you because it's really pretty awesome. An example of one a day in the life of Davis might include going to his job for 10 hours, hanging out with his family and putting his kids to bed, then retiring to his study to do hours and hours of research on the Seahawks cap structure, putting together spreadsheets detailing every single player on the Seahawks, how long they're under team control, and how much they make, projecting future cap space and potential for signing free agents and retaining Seattle's star players. On another day, he'll do this with other teams that he admires as well, so he can better understand what the Seahawks' front office is doing and/or should be doing.
In his other free time, he reads books on the Ravens and Steelers because he's fascinated with their ability to win consistently over the years. He's read Pete Carroll's book. He's read Paul Allen's book. Not for fun, but to understand his team better and understand how to win in the NFL better. He not curious, he's studying furiously. He scribbles down notes in the margins. How do I know this? I first met him when we went to the VMAC for Pete Carroll's Win Forever coaching seminar (this was way before he wrote for this site, that's how much of a Seahawks' nut he is) and he brought me, unsolicited, Tim Layden's Blood, Sweat and Tears, an excellent book that explains in detail the evolution of every important offensive and defensive scheme in football history. It came complete with Davis' revelations jotted into the line breaks.
Anyway, he takes a scientific process and and academic viewpoint to his NFL fandom. And I love it. Davis and I email frequently, typically just shooting the shit, but he'll also bounce interesting ideas off of me (and others) and one recent chain I thought I'd share because I found it interesting. Davis was exploring the idea of the "Clutch Game Manager" that Pete Carroll has mentioned on many occasions. Davis has added the word 'clutch' because if you've listened to his recent press conferences, Carroll clearly wants a guy that has some late-game heroics in him. A guy that's able to lead a team back in the fourth quarter. A guy that's proficient in the two-minute drill.
Scott Enyeart has argued this, and I've mentioned it several times as well, but I think the whole "game manager" label has been misconstrued or mis-characterized a bit by the media and fanbase here. People will inevitably point to the idea that only two or three teams in the past twenty years or so have won a Super Bowl with these so-called 'game-managing' quarterbacks, and people picture Trent Dilfers and Brad Johnsons running around in Pete Carroll's mind's-eye. 'In the modern NFL,' people will say, 'only teams with the elite quarterbacks can win the big one.'
The exceptions, of course, as many would report, would probably be the Buccaneers in 2002 with Brad Johnson and the Ravens in 2000 with Dilfer, and... that's kind of it. In like, the last 30 or 40 years.
Well, Davis explored that notion and depending on how you look at it, that's not necessarily true. The following is my paraphrasing from Davis' mad-scientist emailing, with the following jointed disclaimers:
First, we all agree that Tom Brady, Ben Roethlisberger and Eli Manning are 'elite,' but maybe weren't way back when in terms of what we're about to describe.
I also think we define "elite" as: a QB that is (1) generally regarded as top 5-6 QB in the NFL by most experts/fans (2) throws for todays equivalent of 4000 yards (which may have been like 3600 back 5-10 yrs ago but ten QBs threw for 4000 yards in 2011) (3) first ballot (non-injury replacement) Pro Bowler.
There are QBs that are really good and not 'clutch game managers' and are not 'elite,' ie - Matt Schaub, maybe Matt Ryan.
The top 5-6 Elite QBs are: Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, and honorable mention Matt Stafford. "High volume" QBs that are not elite but not game managers are probably: Matt Stafford, Michael Vick, Matt Ryan, Matt Schaub, Jay Cutler, Ryan Fitzpatrick. Tony Romo is an example of high volume but not elite.
The game managers that are possibly clutch? Alex Smith, maybe Joe Flacco and maybe Mark Sanchez circa 2009, 2010. Anyway, here we go.
****************
2001 Super Bowl Champion New England Patriots
Yes, they had Tom Brady- and yes - he went to the Pro Bowl that year - but he was not "Elite".
In 2001, he threw for 2,843 yards in 14 starts. The Patriots, as a team, threw for a shade over 3000 yards for the year. Drew Bledsoe got hurt in game two. The four 'Elite QBs' that year were Kurt Warner (threw for 4663 yards), Peyton Manning, Brett Favre and Rich Gannon- they all threw for over 3700 yards.
New England was 22nd in the NFL in passing in terms of yards.
That year they ran 473 times and passed 482 times, nearly exactly 50-50 balanced offense. Their defense gave up yards - 24th in the NFL - but only gave up 17 points a game - good for 6th in the NFL. They were 9th in the NFL in turnover margin at +7. Tom Brady threw 18 TDs and 12 Picks and he was sacked 41x, which was a ton.
In the Super Bowl that year, Brady threw for 145 yards with 1 TD and no picks.
Brady was not "Elite" but rather a "Clutch Game Manager" at the time. This idea gets clouded because of what he has done since.
2005 Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh Steelers (11-5)
In 2005, Pittsburgh passed the ball a league-low 379 times, and ran the ball a league high 549 times (41% / 59%). They had the 24th ranked passing offense in terms of yards 2926 yards.
They had the 5th best rushing offense at 2223 yards, but only 12th in YPC at 4.0 (they just ran a ton). That Steeler team a turnover margin of +7 (good for the 10th).
In the Super Bowl, Ben Roethlisberger had a QB rating of 22.6, was 9/21 for 123 yards and two picks, and did "rush" for a TD (though did he cross the line?).
Interestingly, he won a Super Bowl in his 2nd season - same as Tom Brady in '01. Ben was 23, Tom was 24. You can win a Super Bowl as a QB in your 2nd season- but YOUR TEAM has to be STRONG.
The '05 Steeler sefense was strong:
- 1st vs the run in YPC at 3.4
- 3rd vs the run in yards per game at 86
- 16th against the pass in yards at 198
- 4th best defense in total yards allowed
- 3rd best defense in points allowed at 16.1 per game
- 8th best defense in QB rating allowed
Basically the defense was rock solid vs. the run, average against the pass in terms of yards - but stingy in points. That defense did not have a ton of picks (only 15) good for 19th, but they did have 47 sacks (good for 3rd).
For comparison, the Seahawks had 50 sacks that year and led the NFL. To be fair to Ben, he was the offensive rookie of the year in 2004 and his numbers in 2005, were 196 for 295, 66.4%, with league high YPA at 8.9, 17 TD, 11 INT, 98.1 QB rating.
So, the little they did throw, he was very efficient. The key here is that he led six 4th quarter comebacks. He was the QUINTESSENTIAL CLUTCH GAME MANAGER. I bet that 6th 4th quarter comeback by Big Ben was a record that lasted till Tim Tebow did that this year..
Ben was not voted to the AFC Pro Bowl for the 2005 season - he was behind Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Carson Palmer, Jake Plummer, Steve McNair and Trent Green. Tom Brady did go to the Pro Bowl in 2001 but finished with only 2843 yards passing. Ben Roethlisberger passed for 2400 yards and PIT 2800 yards or so for the year and didn't go to the Pro Bowl in 2005.
The point is, they had a balanced or run-based offense with a very clutch quarterback in Big Ben. Defense was good, turnovers were good.
I also think with a good team, as Big Ben and Brady showed, a QB can win a Super Bowl in their "sophomore" year if the team around them is good and the QB is clutch.
Of course the Seahawks want an elite QB - but on his way to being that - if he can be that 'clutch game manager' in his early years, and they have a good team around him, they can win a Super Bowl in 2013/2014, theoretically. Obviously, it will be hard, but not unprecedented, even in the last decade. Also obviously, you have to get lucky in several different ways, but as we're seeing this year, if you get hot at the right time anything can happen.
****************
Davis went on with some other theories and ideas that I think he'll get into more soon. I would add another team to this list as we talk about this 'clutch game manager' theory - and that would be the 2007 Super Bowl winning New York Giants.
2007 Super Bowl Champion New York Giants
In '07, Eli Manning passed for 3,336 yards, 23 TD to 20 interceptions, and completed 56% of his passes. 6.8 yards per attempt. For a comparison to that, Tarvaris Jackson passed for 3,091 yards this year, 14 TD to 13 interceptions while completing 60% of his passes. 6.9 yards per attempt. Apart from the touchdown/interception totals (though similar ratio), fairly parallel.
The Giants, that season, had the 16th ranked offense in terms of yards per game. They were 21st in the league in passing with just under 200 yards a game. They were fourth in the NFL in rushing at 132 yards per game while rushing 29 times per game on average. In the playoffs, the Giants didn't particularly lean on Eli - he passed for 185 yards and 2 TD to beat Tampa Bay in the Wild Card round, 165 yards and 2 TD to beat Dallas, 251 yards and no TDs or interceptions to beat Green Bay to go to the Super Bowl. All three wins were on the road though and close finishes, and propelled the Giants to the Super Bowl.
In that game, they beat the previously undefeated and seemingly invincible Patriots on Eli's 19 of 34 passing for 255 yards, 2 TD, 1 interception game. They held New England to 45 rushing yards and a surprisingly low 229 passing yards. They sacked Brady five times and disrupted their game (essentially what they just did to Green Bay last week actually).
In the 2007 playoffs, the Giants had a +5 turnover ratio, averaged 200 yards passing a game, averaged 103 yards rushing, and played solid defense, giving up only 16.5 points a game and only 3.5 yards per carry on the ground.
Eli Manning is now considered much more than a game manager, maybe even 'elite' these days, but his late season and fourth quarter play and efficiency - and ability to make that huge play to David Tyree, for instance- , is more in line with this CLUTCH GAME MANAGER model that Davis brings up.
Using this model, instead of just saying "you need a Tom Brady, a Drew Brees, a Peyton Manning to win it all in the modern NFL," or something akin to that, you can see that there have been several Super Bowl winners in just the last decade alone that point to another way to win. Defense. Efficiency. Winning the turnover battle. Late game effectiveness and a QB with that intangible 'clutch' factor.
Brandon Adams wrote about this yesterday as well, using Alex Smith as an example and citing a Greg Cosell article that impressed just how clutch Smith was against New Orleans. Adams said:
"This redefines "game manager". As Cosell aptly put, every team that wants a Lombardi will eventually require the quarterback to adapt and overcome. Whether that's on the occasional inevitable third-down-and-long, or the fourth quarter with the game on the line, this moment will come. The 49ers have built their scheme around minimizing these moments for Smith, essentially making him a game manager. When he beat the Saints, did he make himself worthy of these moments? Did he rephrase "game manager" to include epic throws, or did he transcend the phrase on his way to a new plateau of play?"
Brandon, ever the champion for finding that 'elite quarterback' that will lead the Seahawks to the promised land, sort of, kind of, a little bit, acknowledges that maybe he's coming around to another mode. He writes:
"As a Seahawks fan, I'm continuing to induce vomiting amidst the 12th Man by complimenting Alex Smith. Elite throws deserve recognition, and they solicit thought on what Seattle should be looking for in a quarterback. Do we hold out for the all-time elite QB whose origins remain a seeming mystery, or do we seek, as a baseline, a QB who can come through in the clutch and work from there? As of today, I'm considerably more comfortable with the latter option."
/Scratches chin, interested, intrigued.
Now, so what's the point then here? Well, I think that some people worry that the Seahawks are primed and ready and now just need that final piece, an elite QB, the mythical "QBOTF", to lead them to the Super Bowl Championship. Their window of opportunity is closing by the day and the stars will need to align soon so the Hawks can win it all. That might be true.
The idea presented with this line of thinking here though is that with a good, solid team with a strong defense and run game, a less than elite quarterback can suffice as long as he has that clutch gene in him. San Francisco is showing it's possible so far this season and the examples cited above provide more precedent. So really, what this does is widen or lengthen the perceived window of opportunity for the Seahawks to do what we all want them to do with the talent they've compiled on both sides of the football. In theory, anyway.
/Scratches chin, interested, intrigued.
138 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Some of the ugliest uniforms come from Pennsylvania
Doesn’t that yellow look like something that would shoot out of a baby’s butt?
Alex Smith will top this "Clutch Game Managers" list if he wins the Super Bowl.
Ridiculous how far from elite he is, yet how good he was this year at not turning it over, with 6 4th Q Comebacks and that game against the Saints. Unreal. And honestly, Smith is still only 27, could he also develop the confidence, ability that those other guys developed AFTER they won a Super Bowl? Potentially.
follow @casetines
The term has got a bit of derogatory to it, doesn't it?
Watch all the film on Andrew Luck. He’s the consummate game manager.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Eli Manning led 5 comeback wins this year
Just think about that. They ended up 9-7. Wwith a QB who can do that, it makes a huge difference to a team. Just think, if they had Tarvaris Jackson the Giants are a 4-12 team. Crazy.
I hate digging on Tarvaris so much, because he is a good guy, but I’m beginning to see that he is the difference between our team being 7-9 and 10-6. I’m sure a lot of teams in our range can say that though, oh NFL parity. For example, if Carson Palmer leads even one comeback victory, the Raiders and not Broncos win the AFCW.
I don't think it's fair to say they'd be 4-12 with Tarvaris Jacksn, only because Victor Cruz/Hakeem Nicks help comeback victories.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 8:44 AM PST up reply actions
But you have to throw
If you fail to throw to Nicks or Cruz, the fact that they are on your team and capable of catching the ball is inmaterial. There are two issues I have with TJax, one he holds the ball too long waiting for a WR to be essentially completely uncovered. The second issue is that if the first doesn’t happen, he won’t try to throw his guys open or really throw it awayand will instead take the sack.
Could TJax be coached out of this? Maybe, and I believe that is the reason PC has been so effusive in his praise of TJax – so that he knows if he throws an interception he won’t be relegated to the bench ala the Vikes.
by Aztecs on Jan 20, 2012 8:58 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
In response to both of y'all.
Just to be clear, Eli Manning is miles ahead of Tarvaris Jackson… but Cruz and Nicks helped him. The whole offense helped him. He has more offense than Tarvaris. Putting a 4QC on only a QB isn’t fair. Manning had the best season of his career, but also the best weapons of his career. There’s a big difference between David Tyree and Victor Cruz.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 9:04 AM PST up reply actions
Hard to say
Look at Tebow, the exaggeration of this argument, he plays like complete shit for three quarters and then leads the team to victory. He’s clutch.
Now, nowhere do I think the Tebow type of play is sustainable, but I don’t think with Orton the Broncos win 8 games and make the playoffs. Or who knows, maybe they do. These what if arguments are kind of silly, but interesting. Would a QB playing average for 4 quarters win more games then one that just shoes up in the 4th? Scientists need to get on discovering parallel universes so we can have answers damnit!
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 20, 2012 9:13 AM PST up reply actions
You also can't compare 4th Q defense to 1st Q defense.
Most defenses tire and then loosen up when they have a lead in the fourth. Why do we see so many quarterbacks all of a sudden seem to “figure it out” when they need to drive 80 yards in a minute and a half? Because they’re now spreading their offense and the defense is opening their defense, only using a three man rush, etc… it’s just a different ball game in the 4th.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 9:18 AM PST up reply actions
So Tebow can shred 4th quarter D's but TJ can't.
You’re harsh dude. But I guess you’re right.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Clutch guy wins
Hands down because by the very definition, he puts his team in position to win in the final moments of the game and then goes on to win it.
Tebow is far from clutch
His defens eplays good and his special teams play good, definitely helps to have a fg kicker who can kick 50+ game winners. Tebow plays like complete shit rather often. Clutch QB’s may have bad games, but not a game where they complete only 3 passes.
by datboyeddiep on Jan 20, 2012 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
Pulling something out of my rectum:
I acknowledge there’s no way to back this up, but I think the presence of Tebow when he was NOT starting is why the Broncos were 1-4 while Orton WAS starting. My unprovable hypothesis is based on the attitude of the team after the way Tebow played last year; I think the team was anticipating Tebow being “the man” and unconsciously played down with Orton and then got peppy once Tebow was inserted.
Not all QB controversies are played out in/created by the media.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
Remember when Lloyd said,
at the beginning of the year about them not being able to focus because of the whole “Tebow thing”? Orton was a lame duck QB and they all new it.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Decision making
Decision making is what seperates Eli from TJax, not necessarily the talent level around them.
Ugh.
I don’t even want to have this conversation anymore. I know Eli is better than Tarvaris in many ways!
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Not if the QB on a critical fourth down throws it 50 miles out of bounds.
Victor Cruz isn’t catching that.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 20, 2012 8:59 AM PST up reply actions
Can't put all of the non-comebacks on TJ though
Dropsies, bad coaching/clock management, and playcalling all were problems in the final minutes last season.
I wonder if there is an alternate dimension where people argue every day against drafting elite pass rushers, or elite offensive tackles.
Sure an elite offensive tackle is nice, but you don’t have to have one to win a super bowl. Let me break down three examples of teams that didn’t have the mythical OToTF, but instead were able to be successfull with OPPORTUNISTIC CUT BLOCKERS. And sure, each of these OPPORTUNISTIC CUT BLOCKERS went on to be elite, and their teams have been to multiple superbowls in large part because of their elite left tackles, but they weren’t elite at the time.
So, sure. Seattle could serve to upgrade at one of the most important positions in football. But why worry about it when they have Breno Giacomini? No one expected anything of Breno this year, and most of us probably thought he’d be bad. Because of that, his perfectly average play at tackle was a surprise. Here is a list of people like Breno, who maybe didn’t have all of the fancy hype of a first round tackle but had similar stats and developed into acceptable OPPORTUNISTIC CUT BLOCKERS. If the 2005 Steelers can win a superbowl with Marvel Smith, the 2012 Seahawks can win one with Breno Giacomini.
In conclusion, Seattle would be foolish to waste a first round pick on an offensive tackle. And they certainly don’t need to waste picks trying to trade up for a supposedly elite talent like Matt Kalil. The bust rate is way to high, Seattle doesn’t need to trade up for the next Jason Smith, Levi Brown or Mike Williams. The best course of action is to bank on the exceptions and hope Seattle is able to beat the odds.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 20, 2012 8:43 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
You seem to think I'm arguing for NOT drafting a QB rd one.
I’m not. Stop thinking that. I never once said that. I simply think that the front office sees it differently than you and that maybe it’s not the end of the world.
I would jump for joy if they took a QB in round one. Just preparing people for what I see as a pretty distinct possibility that they won’t.
This was more a parody of Field Gulls in general than you in particular.
But at the same time, you’re pretty disparaging of finding the “mythical QBoTF” in this post.
Yeah, I guess I was, and not meant to be offensive.
Just that the QB thing has been built up for the past three or four years or so, so much that it’s almost become a mythical ‘savior’ type thing I think. Not trying to be an asshole, but that’s kind of how I see it.
I guess I was just presenting evidence that there is more than one way to skin a cat and this whole “you need an elite QB” argument isn’t completely gospel.
I’m DEFINITELY not saying they should avoid getting an elite qb or taking a chance on one. I really hope they do.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 20, 2012 9:04 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm 100% sure Pete hopes they do to
But they don’t grow on trees and in the meantime, you can’t just lay over and play dead every year.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 20, 2012 9:08 AM PST up reply actions
And yet, fate's not really even in their hands on this one.
I think we can all agree that we’d love to grab a QBotF, yet what’s really mythical is the idea that Seattle is drafting in the top two.
Maybe a QB steps up during combine/pro day and becomes the kind of guy that gets drafted around 11/12, though I don’t see it yet. It’s funny when people say “WE NEED TO DRAFT A QB!” as if we should just draft any QB with the first pick and assume that because he was drafted in the first round that he must be a QBotF. No, you have to grade out there as well, just being draft 11th doesn’t mean a damn thing. And I don’t think anyone has advocated for finding a way to get Robert Griffin more than I have, but we can’t even guarantee that it’s possible.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 9:09 AM PST up reply actions
That's an unfairly simplistic summary of the "WE NEED TO DRAFT A QB!" argument.
Seattle is at a point where they need to identify a guy they feel has the best shot to the an elite quarterback and aggresively pursue it. Maybe that’s giving a ridiculous contract to Flynn, maybe that’s trading three first round picks for Luck. Obviously there are other teams at play and you can’t just force trades or a player to sign a contract, but one of the things a front office should be graded on is the ability to find a way to get things done.
And it’s not like Seattle hasn’t had the chance to draft a legitimate prospect at QB. They passed on Ryan Mallett twice last year. But they turned that second pick into John Moffit and KJ Wright! KJ Wright and John Moffit look like they can become solid starters at their position. But if Mallett becomes a solid starting quarterback, and Moffitt and Wright become a solid guard and linebacker, Seattle wouldn’t be able to trade those two for Mallett. Seattle passed on huge upside at QB in favor of two positions that are not particularly difficult to fill.
But the character concerns! But the scheme! At some point Seattle has to take a risk. And maybe Mallett isn’t the risk, that’s fine. But my real problem with posts like this is that it encourages being conservative at the position. Be patient, wait for something to fall in your lap, see what you can get done with mediocrity. There’s precedent! Well, that’s been the mantra for ten years, and for the last four it’s bitten Seattle in the ass.
Carroll and Schneider have started building something here. It’s a good team in it’s infancy, and that lends itself to patience. Letting the churn do it’s thing on mid round guys and scrap heap pick ups might sound appealing, but it comes with the cost of burning years on the talent they have now. You don’t have to look too hard to see how fleeting the window of opportunity is in the NFL. The Chargers, the Cardinals, the Seahawks, the Titans, the Rams, the Buccaneers, and the Panthers are all examples of how quickly it can fall apart.
The point of the post was never supposed to be about the draft this year.
The point was more to illustrate the idea that the ‘only way to win in the modern NFL is with an elite quarterback’ theory isn’t gospel. It’s a damn good way to win, yes, but for teams that don’t have an elite quarterback, should we all just languish in despair?
A lot of people believe (and I’m not saying they’re wrong, just pointing to precedent that says otherwise) that the balanced offense, defense focused philosophy that the Seahawks are taking is archaic. My main point with this article was to say that there are several examples in the last ten years of teams with balanced offenses and quarterbacks that weren’t considered elite at the time of winning a super bowl. In effect I was saying, “hey, maybe it would be possible to win it all before we have that elite quarterback, maybe that could be a good thing!”, not “we should just never look for an elite quarterback”.
It’s an argument for open mindedness on philosophical ways to win in the NFL today. Which goes against your argument that unless the Seahawks do land that elite quarterback, they’ll just remain mediocre. My point was, maybe that’s not true?
by Danny Kelly on Jan 20, 2012 10:12 AM PST up reply actions
That's never been my point.
Having an elite QB is a damn good way to win is my point. It’s the best (but not only) way to win, and to consistently contend for super bowls, in my opinion.
This is where the confusion comes in for me I guess. You’re saying that your point is maybe teams that are good overall can be good. Well, of course they can! Good teams are good, I don’t think that needs a discussion. So maybe this is just me reading too much into things, but when I read a post like this it feels more like an argument for something, for winning without an elite quarterback. Because, not to discourage you or anyone else from writing and not that I don’t appreciate the work that goes into it, but a post thats says being balanced on offense and good on defense is good seems a little “well, no doy.”
haha
Ok, well I suppose we tend to go around in circles with arguments because that’s the nature of sportswriting, and I suppose it’s difficult to come up with epiphanies on the regular.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 20, 2012 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
Interesting take - mine was opposite, in that Danny's piece allows for taking someone like...
…Ossweiler or Tannehill in the first, if PC/JS like them at all (assuming they can’t make that blockbuster trade for one of the top 2).
Non-elite prospects good athletes with big arms and tons of upside – just about your definition of risk.
ONLY IN SEATTLE:
By swaggering could I never thrive,
For the rain, it raineth every day.
Want to be the Raiders of the last decade??
Al Davis is the perfect example of how to doom a team for the longterm. He constantly reached for low projected players/talent because of ‘tons of upside’ & potential. If we draft Osweiler or Tannehill which I dont for a second think PC will, we would be a complete joke in my opinion. Both of these guys are big projects, definitely not early/mid first round prospects.
by Derian Johnston on Jan 20, 2012 8:09 PM PST up reply actions
The OZ is for real. Not mythical like Cand Mountain Cholly.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
There is no QBOTF
That was the point of this article. Every elite superstar QB in this article was developed. They weren’t drafted as elite. There are varying levels of existing tools when you draft a QB 9or any positions ofr that matter) but it is what the scheme and the coaching do with that talent that seperates the elite from the “also played”.
Well...
Eli Manning was drafted as Elite. Big Ben was in the top half of the first round. Both of those guys started their first season as well. I don’t think it’s fair to say these were average guys who were “developed” based on scheme. In Big Ben’s case, scheme has nothing to do with his big-play ability. He appears to get better the more things fall apart.
If you got the best guys from every team together in a pick-up game in a backyard, no schemes and coaching involved, Ben would be the MVP.
italics make it special
So were David Carr, Joey Harrington, Mark Sanchez, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Ryan Leaf . . .
No matter how gifted, they still have to be developed — and they still have to do the work of developing.
"Baseball isn't the world's best distraction, but only because it's so easy to start a fire." --Jeff Sullivan
by The Ancient Mariner on Jan 20, 2012 9:50 AM PST up reply actions
Funny, but i think you missed the point of the article
I’m sure your same caricature of Kelly’s argument could be made for punters too. You should’ve used punters.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 20, 2012 8:58 AM PST up reply actions
WE ALREADY HAVE THE EGG McMUFFIN OF PUNTERS.
NO ONE DENIES THIS!
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
by hazbro24 on Jan 20, 2012 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Two points here
One, I think when PC/JS talk about a “point guard QB,” they’re talking about a guy who succeeds because he runs the offense well. If Brett Favre is Kobe Bryant, they’re looking for John Stockton. If you happen to find a guy who combines the gifts of both, great — but it’s more important to find the latter, someone who knows what the right pass is and is able to complete it, even when it’s a tough pass and a split-second decision.
Two, somebody like that doesn’t have to make brilliant plays all the time, because he isn’t depending on his own brilliance — he’s depending on his understanding of the offense and the playmakers around him. He is, in that sense, a “game manager.” However, when times come that do require brilliant plays in order to make the offense work, or when the play has broken down — and such times always come — he has the ability to make them. But that ability is mental first; it requires at least a certain degree of physical ability, yes, but it requires him to understand his physical ability well enough to know what he’s capable of doing to make the play, and then to be able to read and execute well enough and decisively enough to make that play. (And then, of course, it requires the receiver to catch the ball even if it’s a tough catch, which is why even the best QBs aren’t one-man bands.)
"Baseball isn't the world's best distraction, but only because it's so easy to start a fire." --Jeff Sullivan
by The Ancient Mariner on Jan 20, 2012 9:26 AM PST up reply actions
Hit "post" too soon . . .
When you put this together, assuming enough other pieces are in place, it reduces the demands on the QB because simple execution will get you 90% of the way there; he only has to carry the team the last 10%. In a sense, it’s a lot easier to produce elite-level results if you only have to be elite in the clutch. If your offensive plan is the NFL equivalent of “run isolation plays for Kobe,” there are a lot fewer players who can carry that . . . and really, as this year’s Saints and Packers show, a lot more ways to beat you.
"Baseball isn't the world's best distraction, but only because it's so easy to start a fire." --Jeff Sullivan
by The Ancient Mariner on Jan 20, 2012 9:32 AM PST up reply actions
I don't have a problem with any of this.
John Stockton was an elite player, he’s in the hall of fame. If Kobe is Favre, then Stockton is Manning. And both of them needed a big man to make their teams great, they had a team around them. The issue I have is with looking for something less than elite. It’s like arguing for Vernon Maxwell over Kobe Bryant, or Derek Fisher over John Stockton.
Nobody is intentionally looking for something less than elite
but Stockton wasn’t Manning. Manning was #1 overall out of a traditional powerhouse with a brilliant lineage, considered a once-in-a-generation elite prospect. Stockton went 16th overall — and yes, this was before they shortened the NBA draft to three rounds and then two, but still, when there’s only 12 players per team, 16th is a lot farther down than it would be in terms of the NFL draft — out of a tiny school that had never won anything. Considered as a draft prospect, he was about on par with Chandler Harnish. We know he’s elite now, because we know what he did as a pro; as a prospect, he wasn’t.
"Baseball isn't the world's best distraction, but only because it's so easy to start a fire." --Jeff Sullivan
by The Ancient Mariner on Jan 20, 2012 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
Interestingly, Elway used to be the king of fourth quarter comebacks when he was young
And then would get blown out in the Super Bowl. It wasn’t until he had a top run game, a top defense (elite run defense), and turned into an old man game manager who didn’t throw interceptions that he won a few.
The clutch factor is why those QB's became elite
If a guy is a “winner” in the sense that he has that killer instinct, or is at his best when the game is on the line, then you will see early career success if the clutch factor is combined with a strong team. Over the course of his career the other skills sets that round out his game will become more and more developed, and he will soon be an elite QB. I think the trouble with an elite QB is that there is a tendancy to think that he will carry the team. Brady won 3 superbowls as a clutch game manager with a great team, and then sucked in the playoffs from 2005-2010 (excepting 07 of course) when he was an “elite” QB. Manning has been elite for a decade and they could only put 1 superbowl win together. Brees is elite, and got bounced from the playoffs in consecutive years but the upstart NFC West.
I think my point is 3 fold:
1) if your game manager QB is clutch, he will eventually be elite
2) football is a team sport, and you have to have a complete team: a fact which is easily forgotten when you have an elite QB
3) The Colts should be barred from taking Andrew Luck as penalty for only being able to put 1 superbowl win together after having the best QB for the past 15 years. SHAME ON THEM.
"if your game manager QB is clutch, he will eventually be elite"
I think I’d say that if your game manager QB is clutch, he could be elite if he throws more.
Efficient passing has always been a common ingredient in winning NFL football.
Fuck sake, JOE MONTANA could easily be termed a clutch game-manager. =)
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
Regardless of this or that
Seattle will not get very much further with T Jax under center.
by Redzone59 on Jan 20, 2012 9:27 AM PST via mobile reply actions
I don't think anyone disagrees with you.
"Baseball isn't the world's best distraction, but only because it's so easy to start a fire." --Jeff Sullivan
by The Ancient Mariner on Jan 20, 2012 9:33 AM PST up reply actions
Man, the above conversations are tired.
No disrespect to any of you individually, it’s just astonishing that we’re still having this same debate. Again.
by jhmg16 on Jan 20, 2012 9:35 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
I feel the same way.
But if we’re going to keep getting posts about winning without elite quarterbacks, we’re going to keep having this discussion.
Danny should pass out powerball tickets everytime they post one of these.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
The point is that winning a super bowl with a sub-elite QB is not as rare as everyone makes it out to be.
I’m not advocating ignoring the QB position. Having an elite QB is the absolute best way to win a Super Bowl, probably, yes. Is it the only way? No. That’s what the story was about. Obviously people will disagree.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 20, 2012 10:17 AM PST up reply actions
It's not the content of the article that is causing this cycle, it's that anytime someone brings up the word "quarterback" people feel the need to bring up:
-Tom Brady was a sixth round pick!
-Seattle passed on Ryan Mallett
-Josh Portis
-Three first round picks
-Matt Flynn is the next Matt Hasselbeck
-David Carr
We are a Seahawks blog. We have to talk about the quarterback position. But I can’t help but find myself avoiding any subthread that re-hashes the same points over and over again.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 10:50 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It's the nature of the beast!
At least we don’t have to debate re-signing Matt Hasselbeck or not this season. That was the worst.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 20, 2012 11:12 AM PST up reply actions
WHAT IF THE TITANS CUT HIM?!
OH NOES!!!!
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 11:37 AM PST up reply actions
This reminds me of that, honestly.
It’s getting to the point where we should all just have little symbols in our signatures that denote which side of the debate we are on and forego the debating entirely. And I agree with Kenny that the articles are always welcome, it’s the comments that inevitably follow that grow tiresome.
I think this article makes an interesting point about patience at the QB spot.
I wonder if Brady, Rothlisberger, and Eli (especially Eli) could have had the careers they have had were it not for the confidence and buy-in that you get from winning the SB.
I almost went down that chicken and the egg road
About how confidence and clutchness are intrinsically linked. But then I decided not to.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 20, 2012 10:15 AM PST up reply actions
Thank goodness luck (not the QB) never never entered into the conversation...
…leading to confidence.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
I thought the point was
That you can win a superbowl with a great defense and average offense. Assuming we get a consistent running game and upgrade our defense, then we are built like the Steelers. No knock on Big Ben, but he is not the most accurate QB in the world.
We do need to recruit our QB of the future, but this whole first round arguement really breaks down when you get past the top 2-3 QBs each year. If you can’t draft them, the rest our a crap shoot with equal chance of making it in the NFL. So why draft them early? The old routine was to wait until the 3 or 4th round and not reach.
We need to either trade up for the elite top two or wait till the middle rounds and take an average QB.
But most of all, we need to draft for a top defense. That is the only reason that the Ravens or 49ers are still in the playoffs. Defense!!!
Thanks Danny and by extention Davis
Sometimes, despite plenty of evidence, its impossible to convince someone of something when they dont want to listen.
This happened with the earth being flat, with racial superiority, with “witch trials” and a multiude of other things. Sometimes it takes a mountain of information and proof PLUS an undying will to continue to state the facts over and over again. If anyone has even been a parent they can graps what im saying.
NO ONE has said that we wouldnt be a better team with better players. No one is saying that QB is an upgradable possition. no one is saying that a QB is not important.
Somehow people see proof that you dont “NEED” an elite QB as suddenly you are crying out against their core beliefs and pin you as a heretic.
I think I see someone getting a big couldron, you may want to run!
If you look at elite QBs left in the playoffs
Two of them (Giants and New England) are still in the playoffs. The other two teams do not have an elite QB but do have an elite defense. The difference in Qbs being consistency in the passing game and yards per catch.
But I think an arguement could be made for the Giants having an elite defense during the playoffs (especially their pass rush).
So that is 50% of playoff teams with an elite Qbs. And 75% playoff teams have an elite defense.
Are we really talking about "Clutch" as if it's a real skill?
This is fucking ridiculous. Is this FieldGulls or the Seattle-Times comments section?
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
"Clutch" isn't a skill per se ....
I see “clutch” being more of a mentality rather than a skill. It’s the thing that makes the QB know that he can take the team on his shoulders and lead them down the field for a score when they need it desparately. It is also the mentality the QB instills in his teammates, who have confidence in him and also believe he will lead them for a score.
That was the thing I hated most about Jackson this year. When we had to have a late score to tie or win the game, pretty much everybody in the stadium … our players included … knew that T-Jack was going to fail. No confidence = no score = loss.
You blended "leadership" into the mix, too?
Great, lets throw “desire” in the mix and we could have the holy troika of subjective intangible crap. Turn that it into a “stat” and you’d give every old school sportswriter across the country an instant hard-on.
You’re first paragraph is entirely hokum. It doesn’t exist, and even if it did we wouldn’t have a way to track it anyway. It’s a waste of time.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
While one can not measure "clutch" (hence, why it is called an intangible) we can also not ignore that some people do better under pressure and others buckle.
This is not an opinion, it is a fact.
In this study from the University of Chicago:
Distraction theories propose that choking occurs because attention needed to perform the task at hand is coopted by task-irrelevant thoughts and worries. Explicit monitoring
theories claim essentially the opposite—that pressure prompts individuals to attend closely to skill processes in a manner that disrupts execution. Although both mechanisms have been shown to occur in certain contexts, it is unclear when distraction and/or explicit monitoring will ultimately impact performance.
The authors propose that aspects of the pressure situation itself can lead to distraction and/or explicit monitoring, differentially harming skills that rely more or less on working memory and attentional control.
Whether it is because of our environment, being watched, applying pressure on ourselves to perform, or working under heavy demands, it is proven that certain people perform in “the clutch” and others do not. We can not pretend to measure something like this and therefore it can only lend to the “eye test.” An inaccurate and debatable test that will undoubtedly cause friction between one side of the argument and the other when arguing against Player A or for Player B, but what is not in doubt is that while some players seem to crumble when it matters most (See: Norman, Greg), others perform above expectations when they are approaching deadlines or are under the microscope of 100 million people at the Super Bowl. (See: Vinatieri, Adam.)
I simply propose that you do some more research and come back so that we may have a thoughtful and intelligent discussion on the matter, rather than simply insult the community and it’s members. Thank you.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 1:28 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
I agree with this except for one part
…others perform above expectations when they are approaching deadlines or are under the microscope of 100 million people at the Super Bowl. (See: Vinatieri, Adam.)
I’m not sure if this is what you’re saying or not, but I don’t think Vinatieri suddenly became better because it was a pressure situation. To me clutch is being able to perform at your peak level despite the pressure and distractions, not about raising your level of play.
There are two kinds of clutch, depending on how you define it.
If a person fails under pressure, then you would say: “They are not clutch.”
If a person performs above expectations then you would say: “They are clutch.” or “That was clutch.”
When Adam Vinatieri hit game-winning Super Bowl field goals, he did not fail under the pressure of doing his job as he would regularly do it. Therefore, he was not “They are not clutch,” henceforth: If he is not A, then he must be B.
I think we can all agree that we’ve seen field goal kickers that regularly fail to perform at expectations during critical times. I would propose that kickers find themselves in the moment of the “clutch” more than any other position in the sport of football. Much like how a closer in baseball is far from the most important player, his ability to perform at end-of-game situations is what his value will be based upon.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 1:46 PM PST up reply actions
How do we know the WRs
are not the ones with clutch issues, after all there were an aweful lot of dropped balls in those situations.
I think that can easily be explained from this Shakespeare Sonnet:
But thou contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed’st thy light’s flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making a famine where abundance lies,
Thy self thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel:
Need I really say more?
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
This sounds like psycho-babble.
You know this sounds like you’re talking in circles, right? You can’t even define what it is your trying to talk about.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
It's easier to have a conversation when you construct an argument instead of just taking potshots at random comments.
People have taken way more time and consideration in their responses than your original comment deserved, try to respond with the same level of respect.
by Nate Dogg on Jan 20, 2012 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Though the wording on that was not very good on my part, and I don't mind being called out on it.
Being clutch can be performing above expectations when pressure is the heaviest, or simply performing at expectations. However, if we propose that it is harder for many people to perform at expectations during critical game times or critical times in any situation (whether it be a field goal or taking the SATs) then performing at expectations is actually a performance above expectations.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 1:50 PM PST up reply actions
Ones own expectations on his or herself will end up defining there own ability to perform in "the clutch."
I believe it was Albert Einstein who said: “Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character.”
But now I am just being an audacious braggart.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 1:56 PM PST up reply actions
KA, you're kinda all over the place
You’re scaring me a little bit. Stop. :)
If clutch is just actual performance vs. expected then you don’t really need the clutch construct. Hell, that basically just tells us who is good. DVOA can do that.
If the notion of “clutch” is to provide any insight beyond what we can already get just by looking at the best players I don’t think it can just be “actual versus expected.” It’s gotta be tied more closely to multiple types of performance across a variety of game situations.
In that sense I think kickers are a poor place to look. Kickers’ jobs are always the same under every game circumstance. One can speak of “pressure” kicks, but in truth we can’t separate out poor performance from random variance.
In my comments below I say more about what I mean by clutch. For it to be meaningful it’s gotta be about response to changing game situations.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
I think it would be fair to say, not knowing if you are a golf fan or not, that Greg Norman was one of the best golfers of his generations.
He hit the same shots over and over again, but when it was Sunday and he had a lead in a major championship, those same shots became shanks.
It is no different than a kicker who is consistently in the “same situation” on every kick, but when it’s the fourth quarter (much like how Sunday is the fourth quarter of golf) they can not perform at their normal level of aptitude.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 2:06 PM PST up reply actions
See, this is the problem...
Norman is the king of choke, right? Clearly he has a major choke that everyone remembers.
But what happens is that every tournament he managed to win late is now no longer “clutch”. So that rather than seeing Norman’s career in perspective, as filled with great performances (and obviously some poor ones) in “late game situations” he has become the cautionary tale for choking.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
That's where the "stage" becomes the most important variable.
If I nail my practice SATs, it does not matter because the “pressure” is not applied. Therefore, it is the control example, not the actual situation in which you would try to measure what it is you are trying to define.
It is well-explained in that study. “Clutch” is not what Greg Norman did at the Pepto-Bismol Invitational, it’s what he did or did not do at The Masters. A kicker that goes “wide right” in front of an audience that is 10x larger than what he is used to, that is where we start to wonder what the difference is between a kick he made 100 times and a kick he missed in that specific situation.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
TJ has led 4 4th quarter combacks in 12 opportunities
33%, that is better than Jordan, BTW
THIS year he wasnt clutch…because
Carroll wanted a 61 yard field goal,
The defense gave up pointds late.
Obo dropped passes
AND
Tarvaris didnt play as well as expected.
Tarvaris had a huge part of some of our losses, but look back at those games, like ANY game, and you can see a lot of equal factors going into it.
Game 1 offensive line struggled, and Tarvaris played like crap. so did Marshawn. It could not have been our special teams giving up two 4q touchdowns.
Game 2 Tarvaris played like crap. It definately wasnt Browner getting beaten like a red headed step child over and over. Its not like the steelers have a good defense.
Game 3. Technically it was a comeback victory, and tarvaris scored the go ahead TD, but it was in the 3rd Q not 4th.
Game 4 Tarvaris stunk again, he lead the team down in to scoring position and with 10 seconds left he failed us. He choose to kick a FG, wait what that was Carrolls call? Well its not like Tarvaris hit that 10-20 out rout consistently the next week against the giants…Its not like the defense gave up a 4th Q FG.
game 6 It was Tarvaris’ fault for being hurt. Its not like Bevell decided to pass against an elite pass defense team instead of running the ball against a weak run team. It wasnt Charlies fault cause he is a great QB!
Game 7 was Tarvaris’ lack of Clutch, because well he should have let Charlie play more!How dare he play with a torn Pec. Special teams had nothing to do with the 17 point 4th Q the bengals had.
Game 8 ok in this one, TJ played a terrible game…seriously no sarcasm this time.On the other side(very thin arguement) the defense gave up a lot of Yards.
Game 11 Tarvaris lost this one too by giving up those 4th Q points again. another 17 point
Quarter by opponents in the 4th Quarter is all Tarvaris’ fault.
Game 15 Its tarvari’s fault for giving up yet another FG in the 4th Quarter. Its not like hi had just driven the seahawks down to score or anything. Granted he did have a chance at the end of the game and didnt cash in, so even though i think he outplayed Smith, he gets no clutchies here.
Game 16 Tarvaris also gave up the OT points as well.
I still dont get how you can compare a team sport to golf. Its not like norman has to depend on anyone else to keep the otehr golfers from making putts, or lean on anyone else to catch chip shots so they dont go out of bounds…
I don't know why you're replying this to my statement about the stage and the Super Bowl.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Because the whole threat was about QBs being clutch
Sorry, I thought you were using examples to relate a point about QBs and clutch. If you were not, sorry for hijacking your hijack.
The sample size is too small.
And, for Norman, there is the issue confirmation bias.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Jan 20, 2012 6:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Norman's issues were an easy media narrative more than it was anything else.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
I knew someone was going to question the idea of "clutch" at some point
I just didn’t expect the first criticism to be so insulting or fact-free.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 20, 2012 12:46 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I expect a certain knowledge base around here.
Don’t waste my damn time asking me to explain why “clutch” is hokum.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
Hypothetical:
you’re coaching the Olympic b-ball team. 4th quarter, last possession, down one, gold medal game.
You calling a play for Kobe, or are you calling a play for Lebron? It’s a no brainer, because one guy is “clutch”.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
He is just better, period. There is no clutch.
I'm so positive, you'll need AZT later.
by Steen on Jan 20, 2012 6:04 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Elaboration!
You’re passing off, what is obviously, your minority opinion as fact – which is quite impressive in terms of ignorance.
And to respond to you saying Kobe is more talented than LeBron: sfjierjpwrfwljergljtpiwj
And the tone that is present in your comments is infuriating me, to say the least.
by GasolineSnuggie on Jan 21, 2012 2:56 AM PST up reply actions
Give him a break.
He was under a lot of pressure to make a good comment.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 21, 2012 7:18 AM PST up reply actions
GAWD.
/scraps Santa Claus, Easter Bunny articles.
by Danny Kelly on Jan 20, 2012 1:19 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
There is no clutch in baseball, but I think there may be in football and basketball
Baseball is not clocked. So different game situations are mostly just random occurrences. One is no more likely to be up at bat with two out and two runners on in the ninth inning than in the third (OR, with a lead versus while trailing). Tracking performance under such practically random circumstances not surprisingly converges on whatever a player’s career performance is. Performance in specialized so-called “clutch” situations is unstable year to year.
However, in football and hoops the games are clocked. By definition that leads to “late game” situations that call for different strategies than those employed early in games. For instance, no basketball team fouls intentionally to stop the clock trailing by four points midway through the first half. No football team goes into a “prevent” defense up by a TD midway through the 3rd quarter. Consequently, strategies that call for different skills occur in game situations that vary systematically with the clock.
Now, I don’t think any notion of “clutch” involves superior performance in late game situations. (So, I would NOT call every 4th quarter come back evidence of “clutch.” Quite the opposite, if the guy sucks for 3-1/2 quarters.) Rather, I think it’s about having the skill set to implement whatever strategy is called for by the game situation. To my mind, a clutch performer is one without a fatal flaw. He may not always win, but there is no game situation strategy that he cannot respond to.
For a QB, he’s clutch if he can make throws at every level of the defense, audible out of bad plays, and/or adjust protection schemes.
For a PG, he’s clutch if he can beat a team with the pass, the bounce, the shot, or on defense.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 20, 2012 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
This is a semantics argument
Nevermind the use of the word “clutch”, which is a kind of immeasurable term like “winning nature” or “grit” or whatever, that pundits like to throw around when they have no real explanation for what’s going on.
But basically you’re not arguing about much in terms of model or making people understand the targets. This article defines game manager by yardage output, and by doing so gives it a purely volume definition. And yet that is exactly what this article is also arguing again. That really muddles the issue, because that is not a common definition. Game managers are generally not seen as the type who can if asked take the team on their back, as Tom Brady could even back then, as could Eli (Ben not so much, yet). So you’re redefining something away from common concepts and then further adding confusion by adding a vague term like “clutch”.
Not saying the conclusions drawn are wrong or the work isn’t valuable, but if this were an academic situation, and I was a professor looking at this, I would tell you to scrap it and rework it from the ground up using much clearer, less ambiguous phrasing to cut down to the actual issue rather than the irrelevant semantics.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 20, 2012 5:08 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Trying to be constructive! Particularly since Steen above me had a fair point I think that gets lost in snark
It’s always better to use specific terms over the vague, to be precise over broad, etc.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 20, 2012 9:11 PM PST up reply actions
For sure.
Didn’t object to Steen’s point. Just the tone certainly leaves something to be desired. Overall this maybe wasn’t my best piece in terms of organization and language, but it did get some discussion going so I guess that’s a good thing.
I think you did a great job compiling information on Super Bowl teams, and isn't that the objective of any fan?
To find out the “how”? At least, that’s what I have been obsessed with lately.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 21, 2012 7:19 AM PST up reply actions
For sure - credit Davis for that
It was sort of an exploratory article. Some of the wording I used was pretty vague, as Thomas points out, but either way I think there is some good information in there that you can draw some theories from. I didn’t just pull it all together cleanly enough.
But if this were a party situation, and you were a guy slammin frosty cold ones and flipping skirts, THEN what would you tell him?
#hypotheticalsituations
by jhmg16 on Jan 20, 2012 6:39 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I want to have more parties where people slam Frosties from Wendy's.
Who wants a double stack?!
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 20, 2012 7:43 PM PST up reply actions
Clutch
I don’t think this is as hard to figure as people let on.
If a QB comes out of college as a 3-4 year starter there’s going to be a fair sample size of his perfomance (with competition and surrounding personnel changing). You could isolate his statistics in obvious passing situations (3rd and long, 4th quarter and close) cutting out garbage yards for blowouts. In the end scouting is going to always require watching actual tape and a superior working knowledge of college football and its players, but this gives you a great place to start.
The same could be done with pro stats, and the larger the sample size gets, the more credit (or blame) the QB gets. This is what people do when they call a player a “gamer” or “choker” just without doing the leg work to support their argument.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
I dunno if that's that good a start
It works on the assumptions that a QB’s performance in such situations can be isolated from the system. It usually can’t. Flynn excels in 3rd and long as Rodgers excels in third and long because the system excels in third and long.
Formerly known as Vasilii, follow me on twitter @dolgorukii
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 20, 2012 9:14 PM PST up reply actions
2 Potential replacement QB's......
Danny, I agree with you with the winning qbs not being elite. Roethlisberger had one of the worst games in his first Superbowl, and wasnt impressive before. Pittsburgh fans were calling for his head many times that season. Eli Manning before he got to SB, I thought they should give up on him, He was brutal, always throwing into double coverage, similar to how NY views Sanchez right now. These guys were not ‘elite’ at all at the time, but Manning was ‘clutch’ on way to SB.
As rediculous as this might sound I think there are 2 qbs out there that could win a SB:
1. Vince Young – he is crapped on by everyone, and rightfully so, especially the leadership, & immaturity. PC knows firsthand how clutch he is. I dont know the current stats, but he is rated right at the top as far as 4th quarter comebacks, and he has the ability to take over a game. With the right offensive system to work around his strenghts, if he still has his speed, and being given his last real chance to start, I believe this is a possibility. You can say many bad things about VC, but hard to argue with win/loss record, and the evidence he is ‘Clutch’.
2. Matt Flynn – He has been very clutch during his short career on the field. LSU championship qb. The most impressive pro game was against NE last season, he came out of nowhere, and went blow for blow with Brady. He was not intimidated at all. He has the same training Rodgers had sitting behind Favre.
I doubt VC will every get another chance, and I realize this opinion will not be popular :)
by Derian Johnston on Jan 20, 2012 8:33 PM PST reply actions
I am secretly hoping that Manning is a free agent
and the NYJs sign him and trade us Sanchez for something cheap like a second and a fourth.
I am intrigued by the possibility of moving Sanchez to a better environment to see what he could do.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Manning will be a FA
The Colts cannot afford to pay $50.5M to the two QB’s. Peyton alone gets a $28M roster bonus and a $7.4M base salary. That is simply too much to pay for a single player in a salary cap year.
The number one overall pick in draft (Luck) will get $15.1M in bonus plus salary in 2012. The Colts are in a full on rebuild and appear to be cutting all ties to the past
What is the attraction of Sanchez? In the limited games I have watched of him, he does not appear to have developed significantly.
I agree with his development being stunted
But is that because of him or his coaching staff actively stunting him. The typical NYJ gameplan is don’t lose, don’t lose, don’t lose, oh shit we are losing, Sanchez win it for us, but don’t screw it up along the way. Their gameplanning is erratic at best with a wierd combo of run and dump off passes. He doesn’t get many shots down field until he has to win it for them.
The fact is that he is a superior athlete who can throw it down field when asked to with decent WRs.
If PC goes after him, I will be confident that he thinks he can get more out of him and help him to be better. I know that’s not much data, just a hunch, but I think he is a lot better than their system is letting him be and PC could fix that.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Yeah, that would be cool.
It would finally give me the opportunity to kill myself.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 21, 2012 7:19 AM PST up reply actions
At least you have a well thought out response
I can definitely see why someone would disagree with me, and say its not worth the risk and point out his current stats and play as reasoning. I also can’t see how anyone can’t admit that he may be stunted in the current situation that he is in and could end up being a great QB who we get now on the cheap. At least admit to the possibility, even if you discount the odds.
Or continue on with reactionary, non fact base emotional reactions. Whatever works for you.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
You could read my work.
Mark Sanchez is a terrible quarterback and I will not admit the possibility. And I really don’t know what you want me to tell you that isn’t already public knowledge. I’m watching every Jets game, he can’t complete passes, he’s whiney, he’s older than most people realize, he has weapons around him, his ceiling is Jim Zorn.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 21, 2012 9:31 AM PST up reply actions
All I wanted was an actual response
The first one was ESPN post worthy. The second one was FG worthy. I enjoy your work and respect your opinion, so I expected the second response, not the first.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Well, I wasn't trying to make fun of you or anything. I've just publicly bashed him for a couple years now, so he'd be the last person I want on Seattle.
He has his moments, but he’s also pretty terrible. Other quarterbacks that got better after a few years of sucking showed more promise. As Billy Beane or Brad Pitt would say…
There’s the good quarterbacks
There’s the bad quarterbacks
Then there’s 50 feet of shit
Then there’s Mark Sanchez.
follow @casetines
by Kenneth Arthur on Jan 21, 2012 9:48 AM PST up reply actions
I can't refute anything you are saying about him
But at one time he was widely considered a first round talent and one of the top college backs in the nation even when playing in a pro system. That may have been his peak, but if PC thinks that he can get him to reach his potential, then I would be excited because there used to be potential there.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
He had the ideal environment
and he topped out at “mediocre”. I’m not interested.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 21, 2012 9:39 AM PST up reply actions
That was my thought too.
They bought the best offensive line in football, were a run first team, collected some very good receivers for him to throw to and had a defense that gave him good field position and kept him from playing behind too often. I can’t see any way Seattle would be a better environment that what he’s already had.
I've been trying to find stats on throws per quarter
My eye test says that they don’t have him throw till the end of the game, not allowing rhythm, but that’s still not the greatest excuse.
they took turns pissing into the bitch's ocular cavities.
This way to the cafeteria!
Question for Danny - Window of opportunity
In the article, you state “window of opportunity is closing by the day and the stars will need to align soon so the Hawks can win it all.”
I just re-read the entire article and this conclusion stood out to me. Essentially the article starts out discussing long term sucessful winning teams and how the Seahawks could emulate them without an elite QB. But, this statement in the conclusion seems to state the opposite in that there is a limited window of opportunity.
Maybe I am missing the link, but this brings up two points. 1. Why would the 2nd youngest team in the NFL have such a limited window and 2. Does a single player really have that much influence on the window of a team?
Either I missed the point of the article entirely or cannot see the link to a game managing QB and a window of opportunity.
The window of opportunity really just relates to
… The team’s control of Earl Thomas, Russell Okunkg, maybe Kam Chancellor, Sidney Rice, Zach Miller and the pillars of talent on the team. Ideally you’d like to make your super bowl run when these players are in their prime. It’s just a vague idea though, not set in stone. Obviously Pete wants to “win forever” so he might not be as worried about this window of opportunity, so to speak.
Understand
Okay, I understand your point. I think the window of opportunity for Pete is smaller than the window for those players, unless Pete plans to “coach forever”.

by 


































