1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Just how important is "clutch", really?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Pauly, May 30, 2016.

  1. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    The thing about pressure, too, is that many times the pressure is actually put on us by our own psyche, more than by anything else. So, just because we look at a playoff game as having more pressure, because we think it should, doesn't mean the players feel that same pressure. They might, the first time they play in a playoff game. However, and you hear players say these sorts of things, after the first couple possessions, they get into game mode, and it's business as usual. Muscle memory takes over, and they're just playing football. Another example is second or third year quarterbacks talking about how the game has slowed down. Has the game actually slowed down? No, players are still moving at the same speed. They've just become accustomed to the increase in pressure at the NFL level. The ones who don't become accustomed don't usually last long in the league.
     
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I agree with your description up to a point. My disagreement comes with thinking muscle memory takes over during the whole time. Since we talked about piano playing earlier, I think you know that just because you've developed "muscle memory" and have been playing well for the first 10 minutes of some piece in a concert doesn't mean you suddenly aren't aware of a difficult passage coming up, leading to temporary loss of that muscle memory.

    It happens, even to the best of them (they just improvise out of it). And it happens even if you played it perfectly many times in practice. Point is, I don't think every person who has experienced pressure situations often is so used to it that pressure no longer affects them at some points during the performance, in a way that should be visible through stats.
     
    Brasfin and resnor like this.
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Agreed. Which is why even the great QBs aren't perfect. However, again, just because someone "chokes" doesn't mean that someone is "clutch." Well, I guess it does using your definition, but, again, I don't think the average person talking about "clutch" means it the way you've defined it.

    With the piano thing, I remember playing certain songs with parts that I knew really well, and after practicing them for awhile, it was borderline impossible for me to play those parts slowly. Memory took over, and I played them fast. It was actually pretty weird. Haha.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  4. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    As long as we agree on that last sentence, I don't think there's any serious disagreement between us on the "clutch" thing.
     
    resnor likes this.
  5. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    If you believe choke exists then you must believe clutch exists. If 9 out of 10 are chokers then how do you describe the one non-choker?

    If something is not hot then its fair to say its cold.
     
    Finster and jdang307 like this.
  6. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    But FT and FGs are simple tasks. There are no decisions to be made post snap. The kicker knows exactly what he has to do before the ball is snapped. They know they are on the outside hash or in the middle, which way the wind is blowing, how far the posts are.

    For a QB, they've got a million things to dissect presnap, and then a million more post snap. A lot more room for mistake.

    Free throws same thing, it's the exact same motion every single time, thousands of times over a career. The rim is the exact same height, the line is the exact same distance. It's all muscle memory with no decisions to be made.
     
    Pauly and cbrad like this.
  7. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,517
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Well, that remains to be seen as to which metrics we use and how we weigh them. Personally, I think actual QB stats in the last 6 minutes of close games is a much, much better indicator than overall team results in close games and Peyton gets the decided edge there. Their respective regular season-playoff passer rating differentials are essentially the same. Their 4th Q comeback and Game Winning Drives show a slight edge for Manning but are essentially the same accounting for years played. So which are the clutch stats you feel give Brady a decided edge that are not team stats instead of QB stats?
     
    resnor likes this.
  8. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,517
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    That's the point. On the FGs and FTs the only real variable is the pressure level and that seems to have no effect. Yet human nature being what it is, pressure usually affects people most when they have time and opportunity to dwell on it. that's what you have with FGs and FTs.

    Yes, there's much, much more going on with QBs. Which is why it is virtually impossible to separate the impact of pressure from the impact of the other 13,000 variables. And in the heat of the game, these guys tune out the outside world and its distractions. I'm pretty sure that while moving around in the pocket trying to keep eyes focused downfield and avoiding 320 behemoths, none of these guys are getting distracted by whether their wife is cheating on them, their bills, or much of anything else. Which is why pressure (non-pass rush pressure) isn't much of a factor for them. They are out there playing and doing what they've been doing since they were kids.
     
    resnor likes this.
  9. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    I describe him as the one guy not choking. Playing to norms is not what most people mean when they say "clutch." We have plenty of evidence that many supposed "clutch" players are actually playing worse than normal in pressure situations, or, are at best playing to their normal level.

    It may be "clutch" when compared to others who choke, but it's really just good players doing what good players always do.

    Choking does not mean that there has to be clutch. This isn't Unbreakable, where the Glass Guy knew there had to be an unbreakable guy as his nemesis.
     
  10. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Like I said before.. depends on the question you're trying to answer.

    If the question is which QB you want on your team in that situation, then absolute performance level is more important, though I'd try to remove the effect of as many other variables as possible from that "absolute" performance level before comparing (e.g. you could look at strength of opponents, or YPC in the running game, and once you know how those relate to the QB stat in question, you adjust for it).

    If the question is whether there is a statistically significant difference in how that QB handles pressure vs. non-pressure situations, then you use DPUP.
     
  11. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I wasn't comparing their relative numbers, I was just pointing out that during his time he was a good QB, he was the first, and only QB to throw for 4000 yds in a 14 game schedule, he was a player that helped change the QB position.

    There are quite a few HoFers that have thrown more INTs than TDs, Sammy Baugh, Jim Finks, George Blanda, Otto Graham, Bobby Layne, Ken Stabler, YA Tittle, Norm Van Brocklin and Bob Waterfield, and I'm not sure if that's all of them, then there's guys like Fouts and Bradshaw, and quite a few others that are just about even in that category.

    A lot of these guys are in the HoF because of their impact on the game, Namath included, and like I said, I think Namath was overrated, but on the eve of the SB, when his upstart Jets were playing the world beating Colts, he guaranteed a victory, and delivered, that will always get a lot of attention when David guarantees a victory over Goliath and delivers.

    Don Shula and Bill Walsh thought he was a position changing talent, and he was fearless before his knees were destroyed, and as I pointed out before, he was putting up big numbers at the time, on a lousy team most of his career.

    Manning is one of the best regular season QBs ever, but, and I think Jdang would agree with this, that and a token will get you a ride on the subway, his postseason failures are why he's very overrated imo, because if you can't be counted on in the playoffs, what good are you.

    At the end of the day, I'd rather have Eli, because he doesn't fold up like origami when the chips are down, Peyton got way more talent, but Eli got way more clutch, and I'll take that any day over regular season accolades.
     
  12. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I think was matters most is not how you play in the playoffs.. it's how many Super Bowls you win (if you had to choose just one thing).

    Forgetting the contribution of the rest of the team for a moment, let's note that Peyton was so good in the regular season he got his teams in the playoffs 15 out of 17 years!! Namath, only 2 out of 13. Whatever the playoff drop-off is, the odds are much higher you'll win more SB's doing it Peyton's way, and indeed he won 2 SB's vs. Namath's 1.

    And regarding the contribution of his surrounding cast, let's first note that Peyton's passing stats are generally above average in the playoffs. It's just that he's no longer that elite QB. Point is, the surrounding cast couldn't have been that great on average if with an above average playoff QB they win only half their playoff games. I know one can legitimately argue it was his team that won him his last SB, but there are other years where Peyton was not the reason they lost (all averages out).

    In any case, you're right there are other HoF QB's that don't have great stats. For me that just means the threshold isn't high enough. Peyton for me is on a relatively short list of greatest QB's in history while Namath I wouldn't give a second thought to.

    Well.. it's not that important an issue for me, but that's how I feel (just don't like seeing Peyton dissed too much).
     
  13. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Let's not act like Eli has been magical in the Super Bowl. It took a miraculous catch by David Tyree to win the first one.
     
  14. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Peyton Manning, one of the greatest regular season QBs ever, has never carried his team on his back to a Super Bowl win, despite having what, 15 playoff appearances? The two Super Bowls he's won, he owes to his defense and it's not even close. I don't need to discuss this past year we know how he performed. But even in 2006, against KC he throws 3 INTs but the defense keeps KC to 8 points. Against Balt he doesn't even throw a TD. The team doesn't score a TD. 5 FGs to win it.

    The gutsiest win he's had in his entire career, leading to a SB would have to be against NE, where it came down to late drives between him and Brady. Of course Brady had better receivers with Benjamin Watson, Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney, while Manning had to make do with Dallas Clark, Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison.

    That said, that was the only time in his career, where he kinda sorta carried his team on his back en route to a super bowl. One marquee game, in twenty something games. He actually hurt his team this past year.

    He's never had a run like Brady did in 2014 where he was fantastic through 3 games and beat the team that demolished Manning the year before. He had a great superbowl in 2003, and then a fantastic run in the playoffs in 2004.

    You can just compile all of their stats and compare them, but it won't reveal what looking at each season, one by one will. Brady benefited from a good defense before, Manning owes both his rings to his defenses. If Bob Sanders didn't come back from injury in 2006 they likely don't win a ring that year. All those years, and Manning never went on a run that Brady has, that Flacco did, that Eli did twice.

    Manning is not clutch. He's been a liability in the playoffs and he has two rings thanks to defense. He's Trent Dilfer. Flacco carried his team. Eli has. Brady has. Manning will retire, never carrying his team to a superbowl based primarily on his efforts.
     
    Finster likes this.
  15. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I can totally respect all of that, I actually loved watching Peyton play, he was a master technician.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  16. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Well Eli has a better playoff rating than regular season, and a better rating than Peyton, and in both his SBs, he had a better rating than his regular season rating, including a 103 rating in his last SB.

    The guy has been clutch.
     
    Fin-O and jdang307 like this.
  17. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    If that was Tannehill the excuse would have been the d-line was on him and 1.5 seconds and there was nothing he could do. ELI made a miraculous escape and throw.
     
  18. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,517
    113
    Jan 5, 2008

    Marino never carried a team on his back to a Super Bowl win. Nor have most HOF QBs.

    Manning's overall playoff stats are essentially identical to Brady's. A few of Brady's SB wins are due to defense too. He threw for 145 yards in his first but the defense held that great Ram offense to 17 pts. Malcolm Butler's play won the one against Denver. Vinatieri FGs were the difference in each of his first 3 SBs. Every QB relies on other aspects of the team, which is why it is silly to attribute wins, or close game wins, to the QB. Without those FGs and defensive plays, Brady could be 0-6 in Super Bowls doing the exact same things he did in those games. Would he be clutch if he was 0-6 in Super Bowls?
     
  19. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I think the debate about the best QBs has Peyton well above Marino now. Marino was the greatest passer we've ever seen, but as a QB, he's bee passed up. He's no longer in the running for single greatest of all time.

    Again you keep harping back to "overall playoff stats." To do so, you have to combine wildcard performances, with Super Bowl performances, even though those are not weighted the same. You are even twisting the argument. Peyton's two Superbowl rings, owe largely to his defense. He had one decent performance in 2006, the first two were horrid. Without a top tier defense they never make it past the first two rounds. 1 TD, 3 INTs, but the defense held KC to 8. No offensive touchdowns against Baltimore. And we saw how "good" he was in 2015.

    Are you really implying Brady would be 0-6? Manning has NEVER been lights out in the Super Bowl. In Brady's 2nd SB against Carolina, he had over a 100 rating, 3 TDs, and 1 INT. The 32 completions at the time, were a record, remember this is pre-2004 Manning Rule changes - remember they started enforcing the 5 yard touch rule because Peyton cried to the media.

    Brady's teams, with his help (he didn't dominate all of the SB's, but he's not hurt them either) have been in position to win all 6 SBs, and only crazy catches derailed two of them, and almost this last one too.

    Peyton has never dominated a Super Bowl. When he was awarded the MVP in 2006 Super Bowl, everyone was screaming for it to be given to Rhodes. Hell Rhodes and Addai should have been co-MVP but there was no way Manning was not going to get it without being negative in his stats.

    Brady has elite numbers in the Carolina game, very efficient in Philly SB (hell that whole offseason) and smashed the Seattle defense, the best passing defense the league has seen in a while, the very same one that made Manning look foolish the year before.

    You can try to pin point a play here or there and take away what Brady has done to help his team win, but you can't pinpoint any performance by Manning that was integral to their Super Bowl wins. He is the most prolific passer in league history. Where is his 3-4 TD, 0-1 INT, 100+ rating Super Bowl? Brady did this against Carolina, and Seattle, two of the best D's in the league when he played them (Seattle being the best D we've seen in a while)

    Where is Peyton's signature performances in the SB?
     
    Finster likes this.
  20. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Dude, all you do is troll.

    It was a miraculous catch.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  21. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,517
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    He's had some good games and good plays in the playoffs. But he's had those in the regular season too. And he's had some playoff stinkers too. In terms of late and close performance, he's pretty average (81.5 rating). His overall 4th quarter stats are average.

    Truth is his playoff stats are still a pretty small sample size. All of his good games came in 1 of 2 runs. They were nice runs, but if you remove any one of 2-3 of those games his playoff numbers pretty much go back down to his regular season average. That's not to say one should remove them, only to point out that its a pretty fragile state. If he has a bad game in his next playoff game, it could easily bring his playoff numbers back to his regular season average.
     
  22. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    These are their ratings per round


    Mannings numbers are before this year's superbowls. Keep in mind then, that 81 rating you see in Superbowls are even lower now with this historic 56.6 rating. So his SB ratings are somewhere in the 70s.

    So you can sit there all day and claim Manning and Brady have similar passer ratings in the playoffs. But that's not going to fool anyone who understands stats. And that you are equating his 102 rating in the wild card rounds, as the same weight as games in later rounds, and that's just not true. If you weight the rounds appropriately, and I don't even care what weight you want to give each round, Brady comes out ahead by a country mile.

    Manning gets much worse the deeper in the playoffs he goes (when his teams do go deep ... which isn't often). Brady's best performances are in the Super Bowl. Brady's teams go deeper because his play is more steady.

    According to those users, the standard deviation for passer rating (before this year, so it might be worse) for Brady was 23.5 and Manning 32.1 (before this Super Bowl, so it could be worse).

    Manning is hot and very cold and his teams lose because of it. And this is with HOF talent around him often. Is Clayton or Duper HOF without Dan? They're not even HOF with Dan. He plays with Harrison and Wayne all of those years he'd have better success IMO. How much better is Brady with Wayne, Harrison and Edge, in a dome? How about Dan? I'd wager better than Manning.

    Manning is proof clutch exists, because he's the opposite of it.
     
    Finster likes this.
  23. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    It was both. The 2 guys had his jersey in their grasp, 3 or 4 times. The escape was amazing, the catch more so.

    [video=youtube;NSUJQmIeVBo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSUJQmIeVBo[/video]
     
    Fin-O, Finster and roy_miami like this.
  24. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,517
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    As I've said, I don't care a bit about the Brady/Manning debate. I don't think either is clutch as some suggest and I don't think either are chokers. The perceived success for both of them is largely based on the players around them, as Brady could easily be 0-6 in SBs and Manning could be 3-1 if the ball bounced a bit differently. They are both great QBs and they have both played about the same in the playoffs. Your distinction between wildcard and other playoff games doesn't mean much. Some wildcard teams have great defenses. Indeed, Brady's 2 Super Bowl losses came at the hands of a wildcard teams. So did his 2 poor performances in losses to Baltimore in 2009-10 and 2012-13. So did his loss to the Jets in 2010-11.
     
  25. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Brady has a 95.2 rating across 6 SBs, no matter how many words you put to paper you can't change that, he brings it in the big games against the best competition in the NFL.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  26. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015

    Odds Ryan would've escaped that pressure? 0.001%
     
  27. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    No Qb elevates his play from reg season to the playoffs more than Eli Manning.
     
  28. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    lol.. we may have to add "luck" (as separate from "unlikely due to chance") as an explanation for some (team) stats that make it look like an individual is clutch (I mean this only half seriously, but damn.. the example below pushes you in that direction).

    So, going back to soccer for a moment (after talking about Messi losing in 4 finals of major tournaments with the national team - one World Cup and 3 Copa Americas), Fineas asked about Ronaldo, the only other guy compared to Messi, to which I said his surrounding cast with Portugal makes it much less likely he'd even get to a final in such a major international tournament.

    OK.. today Portugal just won the Euro championships, the most important soccer tournament for European teams outside the World Cup. Check this out.. they were arguably in the weakest group in group stage, they couldn't win a single game in that group (3 draws), by pure "luck" almost all the big soccer powers somehow went over to the other side of the bracket in single-game elimination (I mean.. big powers Germany, Italy, Spain, France, and even England somehow ALL on one side of the bracket??? with only Belgium to face them in the other), then tiny Wales beats Belgium so that Portugal doesn't face them, and France beats WC champion Germany so that Portugal faces France in the final.

    Literally ONE tough match the entire tournament (final against France).

    So what about Ronaldo? In the final, he collapses early in the game based on what looks like a not too serious hit and has to be carted off the field, meaning he didn't even play the final for the most part. But it will be on his record that he has a Euro championship win.

    Those looking to dissect individual games instead of just looking at summary stats have got to put this Euro 2016 Portugal run at the very top of their list. Like I said, it almost pushes you to try and define "luck" as separate from "unlikely due to chance" after seeing this craziness haha.
     
  29. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    He hurt his knee, didn't he? I didn't see when he got hurt, but I got a bunch of the second half, and extra time, and Ronaldo was hobbling around on the sideline pretty good.
     
  30. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,327
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Yeah, I'm not saying Eli didn't perform a crazy feat to get that pass off, but it took a miraculous play by Tyree to complete the play. If Tyree didn't make that insane circus catch, we wouldn't be talking about that crazy "clutch" play by Eli.

    Which also, coincidentally, is why we've been arguing for years about why passer rating isn't a purely QB stat.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  31. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah.. it's at the very beginning of this highlights video:
    http://www.espnfc.us/report?gameId=438154

    Didn't look serious at the time.. it took awhile before his teammates and players from the opposing team came over to ask if he was OK. I guess he's getting a bit old because you see hits to the knee like that (or worse) a lot and people may fake an injury but then they're fine after the foul is given.
     
  32. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    I agree pretty much with this.

    Another important point is that the perception of Manning has suffered from 2 factors.
    1) Brady has generally had better overall support from his coaches and team mates.
    2) Brady has been the all time best in win% in close games, so even though Manning is top 5 all time he suffers by being compared to the number 1 all time.
     
  33. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Although, in Cricket, one of the best ever players, Keith Miller, was a night fighter pilot in WW2. His view on pressure in playing the highest international level of sport:
    “Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse, cricket is not.”

    The criticism of Keith Miller's game wasn't that he folded under pressure, just that he didn't feel pressure so he often played loose and aggressive when he should have played tight and conservative.
     
  34. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    It's football. Nothing is a pure "XYZ" stat. yards per carry depends on the oline, the passing game, the QB. You play that game then you won't use any stat to rate any player. For some reason if Tanny had the highest passer rating of all time I'm not sure you'd be arguing that point so relentlessly.

    Catches, yards and TDs aren't purely a WR stat. throw that out. Today, we declare, no stat is a pure stat, so no stat will be used to rate players. Ever.
     
    Finster likes this.
  35. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Or you could just be a rational person and realize that these stats point in a direction but aren't the gospel truth as you guys act like they are. And understand there are actual things that can affect those stats that might not be all on the QB. Which you don't nor have you done.....unless its to defend a QB you like, like Brady or Wilson or Notannehill.
     
    resnor likes this.
  36. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,517
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    And Brady has a 96.4 career rating, so he's the same guy in the Super Bowl as he is in the regular season. Not better, not worse. Not clutch and not a choker.
     
  37. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,517
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Yes, luck/random chance are huge factors. Peyton Manning got two Super Bowl wins in games in which he didn't play especially well. Others have too. Kurt Warner has lost two Super Bowls in games in which he averaged almost 400 yards and had an overall 100+ passer rating. As I've said far too many times to count, W/L is not a QB stat and is not a good measure of clutch.
     
    resnor likes this.
  38. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,517
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Before that play happened, the odds that Eli would've escaped that pressure? 0.0001%
     
    Fin-O and LI phinfan like this.
  39. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    11,375
    11,392
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    True.

    It was quite clutch.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    roy_miami and cbrad like this.
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Super Bowl ratings are really hard to use as evidence of anything, clutch-wise, even using DPUP. I just compared the passer ratings in the SB vs. passer rating in THAT regular season for every starting QB in the SB (winner and loser) the last 10 years. The variance is massive!!

    On average you have a drop-off of 6.43 passer rating points with a variance of 22.9. So unless the QB has a SB rating almost 30+ points greater than his regular season rating (in that year.. that 30 is added to the 6.43 btw), you get no real statistical significance from this one stat alone.

    That happened only once in the last 10 years btw.. with Flacco in 2012. His regular season rating was 87.7 but he had a 124.2 rating in the SB. So for Flacco in that one year you can make an argument he did something statistically speaking too unlikely to explain by chance.
     
    Pauly likes this.

Share This Page