[VarlosZ]

Clarkmeister:

I don't want to get into one of those things were we each reply to 20 different parts of the others posts, so I'll just stick to a few things that stick out. If you really want more responses, let me know.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In '03, the Colts lost to an excellent Patriots team that went on to win the Super Bowl. Manning threw four INTs in what was his only bad playoff game of the last three years.

[/ QUOTE ]
So somehow this game doesn't exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Of course it exists, that's why I included it in the list and called it a bad game. WTF? My point is that Manning has this reputation of sucking balls in the playoffs, but in the last three years he's had six playoff games, and this is the only one you could point to as simply a bad game.

[ QUOTE ]
First, "the Colts outplay the Steelers for most of the game". WTF were you watching??

[/ QUOTE ]

Think before you speak. The Steelers dominated the first quarter and got two touchdowns out of it. For the rest of the game, the Colts outgained the Steelers 285-156 and won the turnover battle 2-0. It just wasn't quite enough to overcome the awful start.

[ QUOTE ]
By all rights the game should've been a 4 score blowout.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the game, the Colts outgained the Steelers and won the turnover battle by two. But tell me again about the 4 score blowout?

[ QUOTE ]
Given an amazing opportunity to salvage the season of a team that some thought good enough to go undefeated, he completely mismanages the 2-minute drill and leaves them with a longer than desireable FG attempt. Also telling, he doesn't even really attempt to try and actually win the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Argggghhhhh!!!

The Colts had 2nd and 2 on the 28 yard line with about 23 seconds left. At that point, he "really attempts to try and actually win the game" by throwing two passes to the end zone. Given that he has the most accurate kicker in NFL history waiting in the wings, and that a win in overtime is no sure thing, this was probably the right decision.

I think Manning did the right thing at the end, but if you disagree with what he did you can criticisize him for not getting into better field goal position. If you somehow don't think those passes count as trying to win the game, then you can criticize him for not trying to win (I guess). You cannot criticize him for both, which is exactly what you did, somehow.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's performed well in big games

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, I guess we have different definitions of "well". This isn't Trent Dilfer. This is arguably one of the best QB's of all time. 27/42 0TDs, 1INT is not a "mediocre" day for him. It's horrid. 22-38, 1TD, 0INT at home as a 2TD favorite when trailing and trying to come from behind isn't a "pretty good day", it's poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the past three years, Manning has played in six playoff games. Five of them have been against opponents whose defenses ranged from "very good" to "excellent," and three of whom wouldn't be stopped by anyone that year. In those six games, he posted a QB rating of 103.1 . . . and yet everyone talks about how Manning can't get it done, and how he's a choker. But, cripes, look at the numbers; don't you think there might be something else going on here?

This really is "truthiness" in action. I feel it to be true, thereofore I know it's the truth, in spite of what the facts say.

[ QUOTE ]
See, we get carried away with crap like "variance" because this is a poker forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's much more likely to be the other way around. Poker is a game whose mechanics we understand completely, so we're able to see exactly hom much variance is involved in short-term results. Football is a game with more abstract mechanics, but that doesn't mean that variance plays any less of a role. It just means that we can't see the variance nearly as well, and in those cases it's always more fun (and thus more intuitive) to explain events in terms of ability rather than luck.

Say Manning has a 35% chance to beat the Patriots in '03, a 40% chance in '04, and a 60% chance to beat the Steelers in '05. If he loses each game, is it because he's a choker, or because that's going to happen about 16% of the time no matter what? Or what if Manning plays six very tough playoff games in three years, and the odds say he should expect win about about half of them. If he actually does win half of them, how does that make him a choker?

Again, imagine, for the sake of argument, that every NFL player is exactly as clutch as every other player. Due to variance, there are still going to be a handful of players who seem to "choke" in big spots, and these players would get killed for not being clutch, even if that had nothing to do with it. How do you know that this isn't what you're doing to Manning? Because he looks unhappy when he's losing?