Clutch QB's (Article from ESPN the Mag) I was suprised...

[jksmith269]

Patriots fans had no fear. Their team trailed Buffalo 24-13 with 5:32 left in the first Monday night game of 2009, but that was a minor obstacle to overcome. After all, Tom Brady was back behind center. And sure enough, Mr. Clutch led two touchdown drives down the stretch to win it 25-24, aided by an improbable kickoff fumble recovery. It was just the latest example of how Brady raises his game when it matters most.

Or does he? Patriots Nation might be surprised to learn that in 2007, Brady's passer rating was 8.3 points lower in the clutch (when the score was within seven points in the fourth quarter, or in overtime) than it was overall. In 2006 it was 21.8 points lower. In 2004 it was 27.4 points lower. This is not to say Brady is a choke artist; his passer rating was higher in the clutch in 2002, 2003 and 2005. It's just to say that over the long haul, Brady in the clutch is pretty much the same quarterback he is the rest of the time: really darn good.

Baseball analysts have generally dispelled the idea of the clutch hitter, a player who routinely raises his game in late and close situations. Now it's time to retire the myth of the clutch quarterback. We looked both at conventional NFL passer rating and our advanced metrics, and there was no year-to-year correlation in the difference between a quarterback's overall performance and his performance when the game was on the line. It apparently matters not that clutch situations in the NFL feature an element that baseball players don't have to worry about: clock management. Bad QBs overall, such as Kyle Orton, are bad in the clutch. Good QBs overall, such as Ben Roethlisberger, are good in the clutch. Same goes for backs and receivers.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, and in the NFL that exception is Manning. No, not Peyton -- Eli. He's the only active QB whose passer rating has been higher in the clutch for five straight seasons. The difference is very small in most of those seasons, although Manning was insanely good in the clutch last year (132.6 rating vs. 86.4 overall). But Manning aside, clutch QBs don't exist for the same reason clutch hitters don't: If a player could truly elevate his game at will, why wouldn't he play that way all the time?

 

[CowboyMike]

Doesn't Romo have the highest QB rating in the 4th quarter the past three years or something?

 

[Big Blue Joe]

Not much of a surprise. The biggest mistake the Cowboys made on Sunday was giving the ball back to Eli with over 2 minutes left on the clock.

 

[CowboyMike]

Not much of a surprise. The biggest mistake the Cowboys made on Sunday was giving the ball back to Eli with over 2 minutes left on the clock.

Well it's not like we had much of a choice. We scored after pretty much running the whole series. That's what people forget. They say Garrett didn't stick with the run. Well, that series was all run and we scored.

 

[skinsscalper]

Doesn't Romo have the highest QB rating in the 4th quarter the past three years or something?

In fact he does. But, that is a little misleading. Romo, like the rest of the Dallas Cowboys roster, is an excellent "front-runner". He (as they) is (are) excellent once the game seems to be in hand. It's when they must rally on offense or defense to make the plays to win when they fall short.

That's not to say that it happens all the time. Romo has had his share of 4th quarter comebacks. The defense has had it's stops as well. The unfortunate thing is those heroic comebacks/stops are getting farther and farther in the rear-view mirror.

There is a reason Romo is viewed as a choke artist and the defense as undisciplined. The homers will rally around and claim media bias and blah,blah, blah. The fact of the matter is, if the shoe were on the other foot and it was the Commanders, Eagles, or Giants that seemed to choke the way the Cowboys have (as of late), it would be in bold letters in their sig lines. But since it's the Cowboys and ANYONE says ANYTHING regarding the shortcomings of Romo or the Cowboys, in general, it's an "anti-Cowboys" in the mean ol' media.

Now, I think we all know, the Cowboys=ratings. So of course anything we do is going to be analyzed and over-analyzed. But, in case you haven't noticed, the media isn't exactly championing the Commanders (and they shouldn't). Does that mean that there's an anti-Commanders bias? Some of the homers just can't stand the fact that some reporters and ex-players, etc. call it like they see it. And some see Romo (personally) and the Cowboys (collectively) as the most overhyped, overrated team in the entire league. And guess what? The Cowboys haven't done a damn thing to prove them wrong. There might be a reason why. Maybe all these "haters", so far, are right. If you live anywhere but Dallas Cowboys Homerville U.S.A it might be crystal clear. Or maybe just the negative reporting has hindered the Cowboys from playing to their full potential. That's it. We've got it. Now we can blame EVERYTHING on the media. Whew!

With that being said, Go Cowboys. I still love my 'Boys.

 

[AdamJT13]

In fact he does. But, that is a little misleading. Romo, like the rest of the Dallas Cowboys roster, is an excellent "front-runner". He (as they) is (are) excellent once the game seems to be in hand.

Romo has a 115.4 career rating in the same situations the article was talking about. He has had a rating of at least 105.5 in those situations EVERY season so far. Try to find another QB with a rating of at least 105 in those situations every year for the past three. You can't. Most quarterbacks don't even have one season like that, let alone three straight. (Working on four, given his 127.1 rating in the clutch so far.)

And that little bit about Eli being "the only active QB whose passer rating has been higher in the clutch for five straight seasons"? (Never mind that a lot of quarterbacks haven't even been playing for five seasons yet, including Romo.) In 2007, Eli's rating in the clutch was a whopping 78.3. In 2006, it was 82.9. In 2004, it was 61.7. Boy, what a clutch QB. Congrats, Eli, on improving from abysmal to terrible in the clutch.

Also, as far as Brady's 2007 rating being worse in the clutch than overall? So what? It was 108.9! And don't you think quarterbacks are more likely to spike the ball to kill the clock in those situations? The difference between Brady's rating in the clutch and overall could be no more than a handful of spikes (five such spikes over the course of the season would do it).

That article is complete garbage. A rating of 61.7 is "clutch," but a rating of 108.9 is not? Please.

 

[masomenos]

Fantastic response, Adam.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Romo has a 115.4 career rating in the same situations the article was talking about. He has had a rating of at least 105.5 in those situations EVERY season so far. Try to find another QB with a rating of at least 105 in those situations every year for the past three. You can't. Most quarterbacks don't even have one season like that, let alone three straight. (Working on four, given his 127.1 rating in the clutch so far.)

And that little bit about Eli being "the only active QB whose passer rating has been higher in the clutch for five straight seasons"? (Never mind that a lot of quarterbacks haven't even been playing for five seasons yet, including Romo.) In 2007, Eli's rating in the clutch was a whopping 78.3. In 2006, it was 82.9. In 2004, it was 61.7. Boy, what a clutch QB. Congrats, Eli, on improving from abysmal to terrible in the clutch.

Also, as far as Brady's 2007 rating being worse in the clutch than overall? So what? It was 108.9! And don't you think quarterbacks are more likely to spike the ball to kill the clock in those situations? The difference between Brady's rating in the clutch and overall could be no more than a handful of spikes (five such spikes over the course of the season would do it).

That article is complete garbage. A rating of 61.7 is "clutch," but a rating of 108.9 is not? Please.

Complete ownage.

 

[skinsscalper]

Romo has a 115.4 career rating in the same situations the article was talking about. He has had a rating of at least 105.5 in those situations EVERY season so far. Try to find another QB with a rating of at least 105 in those situations every year for the past three. You can't. Most quarterbacks don't even have one season like that, let alone three straight. (Working on four, given his 127.1 rating in the clutch so far.)

And that little bit about Eli being "the only active QB whose passer rating has been higher in the clutch for five straight seasons"? (Never mind that a lot of quarterbacks haven't even been playing for five seasons yet, including Romo.) In 2007, Eli's rating in the clutch was a whopping 78.3. In 2006, it was 82.9. In 2004, it was 61.7. Boy, what a clutch QB. Congrats, Eli, on improving from abysmal to terrible in the clutch.


Also, as far as Brady's 2007 rating being worse in the clutch than overall? So what? It was 108.9! And don't you think quarterbacks are more likely to spike the ball to kill the clock in those situations? The difference between Brady's rating in the clutch and overall could be no more than a handful of spikes (five such spikes over the course of the season would do it).


That article is complete garbage. A rating of 61.7 is "clutch," but a rating of 108.9 is not? Please.

This is why I hate stats. They prove absolutely nothing. O.K. so Romo has better clutch stats than Brady, Manning, and Rothlesberger. Yet, Rothlesberger, Brady, and Manning have actually come up big, in the clutch, when it actually mattered most. They've willed their teams to, not only, December and January success but to Super Bowl championships. Yes, it was a team effort to get the job done. But, when their team needed them most, the aforementioned stepped to the front and LEAD their teams to victory.

We can all bash on Ely until we're blue in the face. The fact of the matter is, he's a better quarterback. He may not be a better passer or scrambler, but he's a better quarterback. That's been clear to anyone who has been paying attention. Sunday was just more evidence. Ely didn't, once, put his team in a bad position with poor decisions or inaccuracy.

This isn't a "bash Tony Romo" post. I was pissed as hell after Sunday's loss and placed a lot of the blame squarely where it belonged. Right atop Romo's shoulders. I won't hide the fact that I thought he should have been benched. I also won't sit here and say he doesn't give THIS team, RIGHT NOW the best chance to win. He does. To think otherwise is ludicrous. But that doesn't change the fact that, unlike the aforementioned counterparts, Romo falls woefully short when it matters most. There's not a stat in the world that changes that. Spin it with all the numbers you want. It doesn't change the fact that over the past 18-20 games Romo AND the team itself has shown a pattern to crumble when it matters most. Spin away. Twist all the numbers into any magic helix shape you wish. It won't change a thing until Romo AND the team stop talking about it and start doing it. Until then, they are what they are. A group of choke artists.

 

[ddh33]

That's why I come to this place. Great stuff, Adam. Thanks.

 

[Daudr]

We can all bash on Ely until we're blue in the face. The fact of the matter is, he's a better quarterback. He may not be a better passer or scrambler, but he's a better quarterback. That's been clear to anyone who has been paying attention. Sunday was just more evidence. Ely didn't, once, put his team in a bad position with poor decisions or inaccuracy.

Sorry, but there isn't one ounce of "fact" in your statement. It's entirely your opinion, and one I completely disagree with. His team helped win the Superbowl, and despite a bad game by Romo, the Cowboys still almost won that game.

 

[skinsscalper]

Sorry, but there isn't one ounce of "fact" in your statement. It's entirely your opinion, and one I completely disagree with. His team helped win the Superbowl, and despite a bad game by Romo, the Cowboys still almost won that game.

Well, of course, other than the FACT that he's actually performed in the clutch. You know, playoffs, Super Bowl, and such. Otherwise, you're 100% correct! But don't let that blind you. You're right. It was clear that, when both hit the field this last week, Romo and his 29.whatever QB rating was far superior. Play Homerama all day long. The fact is Romo put his team in a hole (that his running game ALMOST pulled him out of) and Eli led his team to a victory.

Don't let this little secret get out, but, the reason we were even IN the game to begin with was because of a stout redzone defense and a dominating running game. Romo had little to do with either.

 

[Displaced Cowboy]

what is defined as a clutch situation?

 

[AdamJT13]

This is why I hate stats. They prove absolutely nothing. O.K. so Romo has better clutch stats than Brady, Manning, and Rothlesberger. Yet, Rothlesberger, Brady, and Manning have actually come up big, in the clutch, when it actually mattered most. They've willed their teams to, not only, December and January success but to Super Bowl championships. Yes, it was a team effort to get the job done. But, when their team needed them most, the aforementioned stepped to the front and LEAD their teams to victory.

As I've said many times, saying Romo hasn't won enough in December and January is a fair criticism. But claiming that he only plays well in the fourth quarter "once the game seems to be in hand" is complete hogwash. Over the past three seasons, nobody has been better in the clutch -- in the fourth quarter of close games -- than Romo.

Fell free to keep bashing him for not winning a Super Bowl yet, but don't go making up stuff.

And here's a question I've been asking Romo-bashers all week without getting a single response -- Would you consider Romo to be a better quarterback than he is right now if he had held onto that snap in Seattle and Gramatica had kicked the winning field goal?

We can all bash on Ely until we're blue in the face. The fact of the matter is, he's a better quarterback. He may not be a better passer or scrambler, but he's a better quarterback. That's been clear to anyone who has been paying attention.

That's your opinion, and plenty of people who have been paying close attention disagree with it, including many people in the NFL.

Sunday was just more evidence. Ely didn't, once, put his team in a bad position with poor decisions or inaccuracy.

How did Eli do in the playoffs last year? How about last year in Dallas, in December? What are those games evidence of?

 

[AdamJT13]

what is defined as a clutch situation?

Fourth quarter or overtime, with the score within seven points either way. That's how STATS LLC defines it, and those were the splits used in the ESPN article.

 

[superpunk]

This is why I hate stats. They prove absolutely nothing. O.K. so Romo has better clutch stats than Brady, Manning, and Rothlesberger. Yet, Rothlesberger, Brady, and Manning have actually come up big, in the clutch, when it actually mattered most. They've willed their teams to, not only, December and January success but to Super Bowl championships. Yes, it was a team effort to get the job done. But, when their team needed them most, the aforementioned stepped to the front and LEAD their teams to victory.

This is why I hate broad, sweeping generalizations and confusing individual play with team play.

Take a moment and try to think of the games where Romo with his fantastic fourth quarter play put us in position to win a game, and we found a way to blow it? The QBs you're talking about play with defenses, who, when the stakes are highest step up and make the plays to end the game. Romo hasn't had that since he started.

His first year, he leads us into FG range against the Skins. Blocked. A return and personal foul later, the Skins are setting up for the game winner. In the Seattle game, he led us into FG range, and while ultimately it was his gaff that lost the game, his QB play got us there - and our defense couldn't keep Seattle from getting a first down.

In the 2007 playoffs, he play well in the first half, we have all the momentum going into halftime, but our defense falls apart and the Giants get back in the game and eventually take the lead despite being dominated.


There are more. Those "successful" QBs you mentioned made plays to put their teams in position to win - but it was their DEFENSES that slammed the door in the opposition's face and said "Hey, thanks for the lead - we'll finish em off."

We and Romo have never had that during his time as starter. So don't confuse wins and losses with individual clutch-time performance.

 

[masomenos]

what is defined as a clutch situation?

Typically, a clutch situation can be defined as any situation in which Tony Romo plays poorly.

 

[Clove]

what is defined as a clutch situation?

Win or go home games, games where the score is really tight, Super Bowl.

 

[joseephuss]

We can all bash on Ely until we're blue in the face. The fact of the matter is, he's a better quarterback. He may not be a better passer or scrambler, but he's a better quarterback. That's been clear to anyone who has been paying attention. Sunday was just more evidence. Ely didn't, once, put his team in a bad position with poor decisions or inaccuracy.

That is not true. He was inaccurate and made some poor decisions during the game. The Dallas defense did not capitalize on those mistakes by Eli.

He threw a ball that Mike Jenkins should have picked deep in Dallas territory. Jenkins knocked the ball down, but should have had the interception.

Spencer dropped a possible interception. I don't know how Eli missed Spencer just standing in front of his intended target, but he threw it right to him. Again another blown interception by Dallas.

Bradie James was also in a position to get an interception deep in Dallas territory. He made a poor break on the ball.

Ratliff batted a ball that then went straight to the wide receiver. Had Rat not got his hand on the ball who knows where that pass was intended to go.

Eli made some mistakes. Dallas could not make him pay for those mistakes. That happens sometimes. A good defense playing at the top of their game would have made Eli play. Dallas is struggling right now on the defensive side.

Eli, Romo and every QB has had a game where they made some poor decisions, but got lucky bounces or poor defensive play that didn't hurt the team. They have also had games where they make the right reads and throws, but for some reason the ball takes a funny bounce and gets intercepted or the receivers get the dropsies.

 

[skinsscalper]

As I've said many times, saying Romo hasn't won enough in December and January is a fair criticism. But claiming that he only plays well in the fourth quarter "once the game seems to be in hand" is complete hogwash. Over the past three seasons, nobody has been better in the clutch -- in the fourth quarter of close games -- than Romo. [quote/]

And in the Pittsburgh game that was on full display.

Fell free to keep bashing him for not winning a Super Bowl yet, but don't go making up stuff.

And here's a question I've been asking Romo-bashers all week without getting a single response -- Would you consider Romo to be a better quarterback than he is right now if he had held onto that snap in Seattle and Gramatica had kicked the winning field goal? [quote/]

No

That's your opinion, and plenty of people who have been paying close attention disagree with it, including many people in the NFL.[quote/]

Disagree all you wish. All I know is that I watched Eli march his team down the field, in the Super Bowl, to win win the game. Yes his defense kept the game close. Yes the defense was the #1 reason they were in the game to begin with. But, when it was time for Eli to step up, he stepped up and led his offense and his team to a championship. All Romo has done in similar situations of magnitude is stunk it up. There's not a stat in the world that changes that.

How did Eli do in the playoffs last year? How about last year in Dallas, in December? What are those games evidence of?

Well he actually managed to get there. But don't let that little fact get in the way.