He didnt miss a read on the play. Marshall was #1 and as soon as he cleared the safety Henne threw the slant, trusting Marshall to beat his man to the inside. Credit Cromartie for making a good play, or blame Marshall for not getting across his face, but I see no issue w/ Henne. Anytime Marshall is singled up in the red zone Henne would be a fool not to go to him.
No, Henne never should have been on Marshall to begin with, because of Cromartie's technique. He should have got off that read immediately. But thats OK to miss the pre-snap read. Its another thing to compound your mistake by throwing an ill-advised pass that the defender had a better shot at catching than the receiver.
You obviously do not understand what Henne was looking for if you believe that was the correct read. Cromartie did nothing special on that play, and Marshall had no chance.
The fact that you're comparing Chad Henne to Mark Sanchez proves enough. Hell, why not throw Alex Smith in there for good measure.
Ummmm...what thread are we in? I could have sworn that this was the "Sanchez compared to Henne" thread.
[video=youtube;8Ki0j3GL2cY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ki0j3GL2cY[/video] Have fun "proving" Dan Marino wasn't a clutch player with your stats. Nothing you say will change my mind.
Would you like to compare henne's first 2 full seasons with someone else's first 2? Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
Dolphin fans are the only ones who will Nationally call that man clutch and a winner even with his "team's" come from behind wins. Nationally, he's seen as inferior to John Elway and Joe Montana because he "couldn't get it done".
Again, there is no such thing as "clutch". That isn't a slight on anyone. It's just a fact. Really quick: Post season: 255ypg average, 58% comp,TD% 4.6, INT% 3.1 regular season: 253ypg, 59% comp, TD% 5.0, INT% 2.9 No difference in play.
Goes to show you that data means S@@@ ,He was thrown in as a rookie and has been in the playoff 2 times . Thats the only data that matters to me.
So, when a QB puts up numbers like Sanchez, but his team makes the playoffs, he's good. However, when another QB puts up slightly better numbers, but his team misses the playoffs, he sucks? I always love this type of thinking. "Data means ****!" Somehow, in your world, a guy can have 0 TD passes, 4 INT's, and if his team wins against a team who's QB throws 4 TD's and 0 INT's, the "winning" QB is better. Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
What a burden it must be for you to have such a brilliant football mind. I don't agree with finserg's mentality of judging QBs so heavily based on team wins but it's easy for anybody to see how condescending your posts tend to be. This one might be the crown jewel.
Wow, another one of these... let me add some data that has relevance to the outcome... Regular Season= Sanchez in 31 games (started and completed) had his team only 11 times (35% of games), behind in the end of the first half... The team WON 5 of those games (or 16% of total games played)... Post Season= Sanchez in 6 games had his team only 2 times (33% of games), behind in the end of the first half... The team WON 1 of those games (17% of total PS games played)... Regualr Season= Henne in 26 games (started and completed), had his team only 11 games (42% of games), behind in the end of the first half...The team WON 4 of those games (or 15% of games played)... EDITED---Don't know if clutch has any relevance... byt the way here are other interesting data points relevance to this discussion... During the first 5 years of their career... Peyton Manning= Regular Season, out of 80 games, his team was behind (in the first half) in 35 games (44% of games played)... The team WON 10 of those game (or 13% of games played)... Post Season= Out of 19 games played, his team had 7 games (37%) that they were behind in the first half... The team WON 2 games (or 11% of games played)... Dan Marino= Regular Season, out of 73 games, his team was behind (in the first half) in 25 games (34% of games played)... The team WON 7 of those game (or 10% of games played)... Post Season= Out of 18 games played, his team had 12 games (66%) that they were behind in the first half... The team WON 4 games (or 22% of games played)... Tom Brady= Regular Season, out of 78 games, his team was behind (in the first half) in 25 games (32% of games played)... The team WON 9 of those game (or 12% of games played)... Post Season= Out of 19 games played, his team had 5 games (26%) that they were behind in the first half... The team WON 2 games (or 11% of games played)...
No such thing as "clutch"? You must be joking. Clutch isn't a matter of higher playoff stats than regular season. Clutch is a matter of coming through in those key moments that determine the outcome of a game, or at least factor in mightily. To say that there is no such thing as clutch is ludicrous. If you want to see "clutch" in action, go to the above video clip of Marino and the Dolphins vs the Patriots, 1994. Go to 3:45 and you'll see clutch.
If a player is good, he's good. Jay Fiedler wasn't clutch because he wasn't good. There is a correlation between all time greats and so called clutch because all time greats are just that, "all time greats". Of course with the game on the line, Marino would play well. That's because in the previous 58 minutes, he was playing well. Show me one ****ty player who can be described as clutch. One guy who could play like **** most of the game, then at the end of the game turn it on. Correlation, Causation. No lie, the education curriculum really needs a course on this.
Kingmo explained it perfectly, so i won't say much. But no, I'm not joking. "Clutch" is a media made up myth in order to sell the story. Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
I've heard it all now. Claiming clutch is a myth to defend Henne. Clutch is a player who performs well even when the pressure is on. He deosn't have to perform magically better (but can). Adam Vinataeri. Clutch. Anti-clutch? Vanderjagt. Tiger Woods is another guy who isnt' "clutch" he's just damn good but he has yet to come from behind in a major. Maybe never will. You see it in Closers in baseball. For some of them, If it's a save situation they're brilliant yet throw them in a non-save situation and they look like a minor league pitcher. Some people are wired differently. Some perform very well in tense situation some don't. You know who else isn't clutch? Kobe Bryant. He'll never be MJ because MJ made the shots to win. KB made the shots that missed that his teammates rebounded to win, last year. Game winning or tying shots is a tense situation. The clutch guy will take the shot, and make them more often than others. You cannot sit here and tell me Robert Horry isn't clutch. regular season averages of 7.2 points, 4.9 rebounds, 2.2 assists per game. Does that look like a guy who makes big time baskets during big time games? Hell no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Horry#Notable_playoff_clutch_shots The media didn't make that up. Robert Horry did. He owns the all time record for 3's in the finals. At 7.2 ppg he isn't owning anything in the regular season.
Well said, saved me the trouble of a lengthy response, Horry is the biggest example I can think of as well. Guy was a huge part of many championship winning teams yet really was never a great player, just a clutch player that you could always count on for a big shot.
Thank you. I got about half way through a similar post, but didn't bother finishing it. When these jokers are willing to drag Dan Marino's name through the mud to defend Henne then it's reached the point of absurdity.
I'm surprised you still believe in magic, jdang. Lol Search "clutch baseballprospectus". That's just one empirical study out of many that show clutch is nothing more than myth Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk
The concept of being clutch is a myth. This has been proven in multiple psyche studies. The ones I recall mostly focused on experiments with golfers, but I've also seen the analysis using baseball stats. This has nothing to do with Henne. This is basically considered fact among any psychologists who have studied this. If you're arguing the "clutch" you might as well be arguing the world is flat.
I can say this...from a player's perspective clutch absolutely exists. If the media invented clutch to sell papers, then clutch is the new love-bug. I played with guys that absolutely thought about and talked about it. There were guys that you didn't want to see up in certain situations, and other guys you did. It was that simple for us. Some guys do a much better job of being able to handle the situation, while others aren't. I think it absolutely exists. And it absolutely exists when one is standing on either side of the fence. It can either eat at you or really build you up.
Basically what you and others in this thread are saying is that there's no such thing as people who perform better under pressure than someone else? I guess it really all depends on what your definition of clutch is. I'm not surprised that statistics or psyche studies would demonstrate that most players do not perform better in "clutch" situations. But there are absolutely players who do not let pressure situations affect their performance. We see this in all walks of life. Office deadlines, public speaking, sports, etc. And yes, I still believe there are a rare few who seem to perform better in clutch situations. Statistics will always try and disprove things like this. As a statistician myself, I understand the errors in the studies trying to disprove these things. Mostly, the identification of what is and what isn't a clutch situation. I notice most of the evidence given in this thread is baseball. It would be almost impossible to define a clutch situation in football in a manner where you could identify a positive, negative, or nonexistent correlation.
When it came to professional athletes the studies found that was rarely the case probably b/c the skills were practiced so often that it was more muscle memory than anything else. The stats and studies basically concluded that it came down to opportunities and luck. I always think of Montana leading the 49ers to that winning TD in the SB against Cincy. This is one of those moments that cemented him as one of the "clutch" players of all time. What most people forget is that on the play before the TD Montana threw a pass that hit the defender right between the numbers. It was either a bad read, a bad pass or both. The Cincy player dropped that gift and the rest is history. If he had caught that easy pass would Montana suddenly not be clutch? Of course not. He simply got lucky and as a great player he was able to perform when he got another opportunity. Most people remember the Michael Jordan Failure commercial where he says that he's missed the game winning shot 26 times. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-EMOb3ATJ0 I saw a compilation once that said Jordan had made 25 game winning shots. Basically he's about 50/50. Not surprisingly, his career shooting percentage is 49.7%. If you look at all the baseball studies, that's what becomes evident. Most players perform at about their career percentage regardless of the situation. But anybody who has any understanding of statistics knows that averages assume a large number of attempts. If you flip a coin 10 times in a row you may get heads 10 straight times, but given a large enough sample the ratio will be 50/50. The studies found that the same occurs with baseball players. They looked at players who were considered clutch and those that were considered chokers in the post-season early on in their careers (fewer attempts). Among the ones that had multiple opportunities (I don't recall the exact minimum number they used), the players ended matching their career averages in the post-season. In other words, the clutch ones performed worse and the chokers performed better. You saw the same thing with Lebron James. Before these playoffs he was not clutch (despite the fact that Kobe, who is clutch actually had a worse percentage in game winning situations). Against Boston and Chicago LBJ went on a historic run and he suddenly became clutch. Now he didn't score at the end of last night's game and he's no longer clutch. That's all media and fan hype based on nothing more than incomplete anecdotal evidence.
The simple fact of the matter is, check a guy who comes through in the "clutch". Was he having a bad game before that? Was he stinking up the game? Is he consistently bad in every other game besides the last two minutes? Or, is he a damn good player who just takes it as another play to execute? I'm pretty sure if you ask a "clutch" player why he's clutch, it's because they don't think of it as being clutch. They don't put any idiotic pressure on themselves by calling it crunch time. They just play because that's what they're paid to do. Do you think Dwyane Wade gets the ball in the last 30 seconds and says: "Man, I better be clutch in crunch time", or "Okay, the play calls for an Iso where I drive to the basket. Jason Kidd has shown he's weak on the help defence this whole game so I'll attack him like before".
So you're saying there's athletes that respond better to pressure situations than others? That's exactly what makes them a "clutch" player.
I don't know if you want to call it clutch or not. I do know that some turn pressure into stress, and do not respond well to it. Others seem to get an extra shot of adrenaline or increased focus, and thrive on the pressure. It's not only in sport.
The definition of clutch is performing well during tense times. Not necessarily performing better. If one is an all time great, and is still great during the crunch times, than that is clutch. if one is an all time but shrinks during crunch time (peyton cough cough) then you are not clutch. Jordan shot 50% average normally, and 50% during crunch time. That is clutch. Kobe one of the most prolific scorers of all time, Kobe Bryant has a career average of 45%, shoots the most crunch time shots (last 24 seconds, team tied or down less than 2) yet only hits 25%, which is way below many other stars. Jordan is clutch. Kobe not. Period. Call it what you want, you're just putting a different name on what we all know, Jordan is clutch, Kobe not.
