Giving Credit Where It's Not Due (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Sorry for the ramble here. I've got a thought you guys can help me develop here.

I was listening today to this week's Bill Simmons podcast. Sal said something along the lines that Ben Roethlisberger was Santonio Holmes with one of the greatest catches in Super Bowl history and a few Seattle holding calls away from being a 3 time Super Bowl loser.

This got me thinking.

I've always hated our tendency as sports fans to let a super small sample size color our overall judgement of a player.

First off, Football is such a team dependent game. With QBs, so much of what gets attributed to the QB is absolutely out of his control. The receiver obviously has a huge impact on him. As does a great defensive player and of course the rest of the offense. And it works both ways. Holmes helps Roethlisberger with a fantastic catch a few years ago. James Jones kills Aaron Rodgers with a terrible drop this year. Both of those plays could have easily gone the other way with the QB having done nothing different.

It seems to me that we put way too much emphasis on a few plays. And not enough on the entire body of work. It seems like poor statistical methodology. But I fully and completely understand the "big time players deliver in clutch moments" thing too. So I can see both sides.

Thoughts on this?

J

 

[habsfan]

Totally agree. The reality is, perspective and context fade away but "rings" and "moments" stand out forever.

It reminds me of the thread awhile back on the games and plays that could be identified by a couple of words (eg. "The Catch"). That's what tends to survive in the minds of many.

As a hockey goalie, I relate to QBs and kickers as sharing the same occupational hazard - you get more credit for wins than you deserve and more blame for losses. People remember the big save or conversely, the one that went between your legs.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think too it's plays or games where the player did his job, yet he is judged by how the other players around did (or did not do) their job.

A QB trailing by 1 drives his team down the field in the last two minutes and gets them in position for a 40 yard FG. Kicker makes it and the QB is clutch. Kicker misses it and the QB choked.

That kind of thing. Seems to me that we put way too much small picture focus on this sometimes and don't look big picture enough.

J

 

[belljr]

I agree and people also tend to forget are the plays that did/did not happen. For example, the Holmes catch "helped" Roth. but no one mentions the perfect throw he made the play before where Holmes blew it.

If you are going to put a player into perspective of "greatness" shouldn't we judge the plays "that they made" yet failed because of another player.

 

[Bri]

Yeah it's very odd. Many Supe MVPs (or big play guys) seem to have quickly ended their supposed promising careers like Larry Brown.

David Tyree had this unique popularity as being such a special teams gem. Like Steve Tasker, he was adored for what he did. It's sadly ironic that he always wanted to be a WR, makes one big catch (very few otherwise) and his career is basically over then.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Sorry for the ramble here. I've got a thought you guys can help me develop here.

I was listening today to this week's Bill Simmons podcast. Sal said something along the lines that Ben Roethlisberger was Santonio Holmes with one of the greatest catches in Super Bowl history and a few Seattle holding calls away from being a 3 time Super Bowl loser.

This got me thinking.

I've always hated our tendency as sports fans to let a super small sample size color our overall judgement of a player.

First off, Football is such a team dependent game. With QBs, so much of what gets attributed to the QB is absolutely out of his control. The receiver obviously has a huge impact on him. As does a great defensive player and of course the rest of the offense. And it works both ways. Holmes helps Roethlisberger with a fantastic catch a few years ago. James Jones kills Aaron Rodgers with a terrible drop this year. Both of those plays could have easily gone the other way with the QB having done nothing different.

It seems to me that we put way too much emphasis on a few plays. And not enough on the entire body of work. It seems like poor statistical methodology. But I fully and completely understand the "big time players deliver in clutch moments" thing too. So I can see both sides.

Thoughts on this?

J

Odds are if they were a 2 time SB loser heading into this season, after the Bathroom Gate by BigBen I think Pitt would of let him go

 

[RUSF18]

It's very accurate, but it's a reflection of our society...and really, the media/personalities who paint the picture in the easiest, most convenient way possible. Bottom line is don't let your own opinions be formed by others, and don't be afraid to have them. Just argue them with the understanding that it is actually an opinion and others may feel differently from you.

Big Ben has 2 rings: fact.

Big Ben is the most/least clutch: opinion.

 

[Clarence the barber]

Humans remember moments like this because that's how our brain works. It's beyond sports, but every facet of our lives is divided into small chunks of time like this. IMO this is part of the reason why the NFL has grown in popularity so quickly recently. Each play is defined as a 5-20 second long moment, easily processable by our brains.

 

[az_prof]

Sorry for the ramble here. I've got a thought you guys can help me develop here.I was listening today to this week's Bill Simmons podcast. Sal said something along the lines that Ben Roethlisberger was Santonio Holmes with one of the greatest catches in Super Bowl history and a few Seattle holding calls away from being a 3 time Super Bowl loser.This got me thinking.I've always hated our tendency as sports fans to let a super small sample size color our overall judgement of a player. First off, Football is such a team dependent game. With QBs, so much of what gets attributed to the QB is absolutely out of his control. The receiver obviously has a huge impact on him. As does a great defensive player and of course the rest of the offense. And it works both ways. Holmes helps Roethlisberger with a fantastic catch a few years ago. James Jones kills Aaron Rodgers with a terrible drop this year. Both of those plays could have easily gone the other way with the QB having done nothing different.It seems to me that we put way too much emphasis on a few plays. And not enough on the entire body of work. It seems like poor statistical methodology. But I fully and completely understand the "big time players deliver in clutch moments" thing too. So I can see both sides.Thoughts on this?J

Yes and No. Football is a game of big plays. Seven times out of ten, a game is close enough that one or two big plays decide it. So, in this sense, the players who make big plays consistently are the players who make a real difference. They tend to be the stars.On the other hand, you are correct that statistics are skewed by the outliers. One place we do this as fantasy players is by over valuing players based on playoff and SB production. I suspect there will be people who think Jordy is all that just because of the SB--and he isn't. There are people who are all over Starks because of his playoff production--but it isn't at all clear that he showed he is a featured back.

 

[Reepicheep]

It's a fair enough point. Flipping it from Ben to Rodgers - should we view Rodgers any differently now that he has a ring than we would if the Steelers had scored a TD on the final drive and won? On Sunday night Rodgers was as advertised - top-notch ball placement and decision making that led to multiple TDs, no picks, and a nice yardage total. Sure, it's the biggest stage in football, but it's not as if Rodgers went out there and did anything he hasn't been doing his whole career, right?

 

[Joe Bryant]

It's a fair enough point. Flipping it from Ben to Rodgers - should we view Rodgers any differently now that he has a ring than we would if the Steelers had scored a TD on the final drive and won? On Sunday night Rodgers was as advertised - top-notch ball placement and decision making that led to multiple TDs, no picks, and a nice yardage total. Sure, it's the biggest stage in football, but it's not as if Rodgers went out there and did anything he hasn't been doing his whole career, right?

Exactly.I think one should view Rodgers absolutely the same whether or not PIT scored and won on that final drive.

But if Roethlisberger had handed the ball off to Mendenhall on that last play and the RB broke away for a TD, I think today most people would be viewing Roethlisberger and Rodgers differently than they are today. And I think that's wrong.

J

 

[Amused to Death]

It's a fair enough point. Flipping it from Ben to Rodgers - should we view Rodgers any differently now that he has a ring than we would if the Steelers had scored a TD on the final drive and won? On Sunday night Rodgers was as advertised - top-notch ball placement and decision making that led to multiple TDs, no picks, and a nice yardage total. Sure, it's the biggest stage in football, but it's not as if Rodgers went out there and did anything he hasn't been doing his whole career, right?

Exactly.I think one should view Rodgers absolutely the same whether or not PIT scored and won on that final drive.

But if Roethlisberger had handed the ball off to Mendenhall on that last play and the RB broke away for a TD, I think today most people would be viewing Roethlisberger and Rodgers different. And I think that's wrong.

J

Its wrong because its fresh and we remember the circumstances. But long term, its a results-driven league. No one remembers why Jim Kelly and Buffalo lost 4 Super Bowls, but everyone knows they lost. History won't remember the details, just the results fair or not.

 

[sho nuff]

Interesting thread.

It was mentioned in another thread somewhere but the difference between a team that won the Super Bowl not even making the playoffs, finishing as the wild card, or getting a first round bye were microscopic.

Had Calvin's week 1 TD not been overturned...GB wins that division and ends up the 2 seed.

Had Desean Jackson not returned that punt and NY wins that game, GB doesn't even make the playoffs this year (I think).

Just things that could have changed how everything went. Its part of what makes the NFL great...things can be so close from game to game.

 

[njherdfan]

It's a fair enough point. Flipping it from Ben to Rodgers - should we view Rodgers any differently now that he has a ring than we would if the Steelers had scored a TD on the final drive and won? On Sunday night Rodgers was as advertised - top-notch ball placement and decision making that led to multiple TDs, no picks, and a nice yardage total. Sure, it's the biggest stage in football, but it's not as if Rodgers went out there and did anything he hasn't been doing his whole career, right?

Exactly.I think one should view Rodgers absolutely the same whether or not PIT scored and won on that final drive.

But if Roethlisberger had handed the ball off to Mendenhall on that last play and the RB broke away for a TD, I think today most people would be viewing Roethlisberger and Rodgers different. And I think that's wrong.

J

Its wrong because its fresh and we remember the circumstances. But long term, its a results-driven league. No one remembers why Jim Kelly and Buffalo lost 4 Super Bowls, but everyone knows they lost. History won't remember the details, just the results fair or not.

Very true. If Marlon McCree goes down after intercepting Tom Brady in the 2006 playoffs, there's probably a different narrative of Brady's career, and Schottenheimer might still be the coach in SD. But, the fact is that people tend to take a very macro view of results, and base their judgments off that, whether it's fair or not.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

Bill Parcells was a few feet away from being just another coach with 1 Super Bowl victory.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

It's a fair enough point. Flipping it from Ben to Rodgers - should we view Rodgers any differently now that he has a ring than we would if the Steelers had scored a TD on the final drive and won? On Sunday night Rodgers was as advertised - top-notch ball placement and decision making that led to multiple TDs, no picks, and a nice yardage total. Sure, it's the biggest stage in football, but it's not as if Rodgers went out there and did anything he hasn't been doing his whole career, right?

Exactly.I think one should view Rodgers absolutely the same whether or not PIT scored and won on that final drive.

But if Roethlisberger had handed the ball off to Mendenhall on that last play and the RB broke away for a TD, I think today most people would be viewing Roethlisberger and Rodgers differently than they are today. And I think that's wrong.

J

In most every football game, there are at least a dozen or more plays that easily could have turned out differently but for an inch or two, or a split second's difference. There were several good examples on Sunday, with defenders barely missing finger-tip deflections of two huge Jennings completions, drops, gray-area penalty calls either made or not made, etc., etc. I think football is much more about luck, happenstance and the randomly bouncing ball than most of us care to admit. However, over time, luck will generally even itself out somewhat. Therefore, I think I agree with what I see as your conclusion - that focusing on a small sample size can be very misleading, while looking at results over time gives a more accurate picture. That said, Ben made a great, historic play on that pass to Holmes and on the drive that lead to it. That's a pass that not many QB's could make or would have the balls to even try. In a sense, therefore, I think we also have to acknowledge the old adage that if you get up to bat often enough and always swing for the fences, you're eventually going to hit a grand slam homerun. Roethlisberger and other great QB's have failed many times as well - taken their shot and come up empty - but they've been there and put themselves in that position often enough and taken enough shots that they've hit on a few great ones, and those are the moments that make history for these guys.

 

[MarshallRob]

It's a fair enough point. Flipping it from Ben to Rodgers - should we view Rodgers any differently now that he has a ring than we would if the Steelers had scored a TD on the final drive and won? On Sunday night Rodgers was as advertised - top-notch ball placement and decision making that led to multiple TDs, no picks, and a nice yardage total. Sure, it's the biggest stage in football, but it's not as if Rodgers went out there and did anything he hasn't been doing his whole career, right?

Exactly.I think one should view Rodgers absolutely the same whether or not PIT scored and won on that final drive.

But if Roethlisberger had handed the ball off to Mendenhall on that last play and the RB broke away for a TD, I think today most people would be viewing Roethlisberger and Rodgers different. And I think that's wrong.

J

Its wrong because its fresh and we remember the circumstances. But long term, its a results-driven league. No one remembers why Jim Kelly and Buffalo lost 4 Super Bowls, but everyone knows they lost. History won't remember the details, just the results fair or not.

Very true. If Marlon McCree goes down after intercepting Tom Brady in the 2006 playoffs, there's probably a different narrative of Brady's career, and Schottenheimer might still be the coach in SD. But, the fact is that people tend to take a very macro view of results, and base their judgments off that, whether it's fair or not.

It works the other way for Brady too. If there's a sack rather than a Helmet Catch in Super Bowl XLII, then Brady is 4-0 in Super Bowls, with three separate game-winning 4th quarter drives to his credit. Brady played unspectacularly in that game and only led his team, one of the greatest offenses to ever take the field, to 14 points. But since he led the Patriots to a late go-ahead TD there's no doubt that had New England held on then Brady would have been hailed as the greatest clutch QB of all time, surpassing Montana and anybody else. He had no control over what the Giants did with the ball after Moss' score, yet the Giant's last-minute TD completely changed how people would have viewed Brady. It cost him the chance to be considered the greatest QB ever.

 

[Fensalk]

Sorry for the ramble here. I've got a thought you guys can help me develop here.I was listening today to this week's Bill Simmons podcast. Sal said something along the lines that Ben Roethlisberger was Santonio Holmes with one of the greatest catches in Super Bowl history and a few Seattle holding calls away from being a 3 time Super Bowl loser.This got me thinking.I've always hated our tendency as sports fans to let a super small sample size color our overall judgement of a player. First off, Football is such a team dependent game. With QBs, so much of what gets attributed to the QB is absolutely out of his control. The receiver obviously has a huge impact on him. As does a great defensive player and of course the rest of the offense. And it works both ways. Holmes helps Roethlisberger with a fantastic catch a few years ago. James Jones kills Aaron Rodgers with a terrible drop this year. Both of those plays could have easily gone the other way with the QB having done nothing different.It seems to me that we put way too much emphasis on a few plays. And not enough on the entire body of work. It seems like poor statistical methodology. But I fully and completely understand the "big time players deliver in clutch moments" thing too. So I can see both sides.Thoughts on this?J

I think its because everyone knows that handling pressure and making critical split-second decisions correctly are very important, and there's no other way to measure that ability than to look at the biggest moments in a player's career to see if they succeeded or failed.

 

[njherdfan]

It's a fair enough point. Flipping it from Ben to Rodgers - should we view Rodgers any differently now that he has a ring than we would if the Steelers had scored a TD on the final drive and won? On Sunday night Rodgers was as advertised - top-notch ball placement and decision making that led to multiple TDs, no picks, and a nice yardage total. Sure, it's the biggest stage in football, but it's not as if Rodgers went out there and did anything he hasn't been doing his whole career, right?

Exactly.I think one should view Rodgers absolutely the same whether or not PIT scored and won on that final drive.

But if Roethlisberger had handed the ball off to Mendenhall on that last play and the RB broke away for a TD, I think today most people would be viewing Roethlisberger and Rodgers different. And I think that's wrong.

J

Its wrong because its fresh and we remember the circumstances. But long term, its a results-driven league. No one remembers why Jim Kelly and Buffalo lost 4 Super Bowls, but everyone knows they lost. History won't remember the details, just the results fair or not.

Very true. If Marlon McCree goes down after intercepting Tom Brady in the 2006 playoffs, there's probably a different narrative of Brady's career, and Schottenheimer might still be the coach in SD. But, the fact is that people tend to take a very macro view of results, and base their judgments off that, whether it's fair or not.

It works the other way for Brady too. If there's a sack rather than a Helmet Catch in Super Bowl XLII, then Brady is 4-0 in Super Bowls, with three separate game-winning 4th quarter drives to his credit. Brady played unspectacularly in that game and only led his team, one of the greatest offenses to ever take the field, to 14 points. But since he led the Patriots to a late go-ahead TD there's no doubt that had New England held on then Brady would have been hailed as the greatest clutch QB of all time, surpassing Montata and anybody else. He had no control over what the Giants did with the ball after Moss' score, yet the Giant's last-minute TD completely changed how people would have viewed Brady. It cost him the chance to be considered the greatest QB ever.

Very true. I think we're kind of agreeing that the context of individual games is often lost and only the final results are remembered, for better or for worse.

 

[Sam Quentin]

Fact: most people are too lazy to think, so they make unfair snap judgments. Because most people are stupid and do this also, they avoid looking like an idiot when they do.

 

[Fensalk]

Fact: most people are too lazy to think, so they make unfair snap judgments. Because most people are stupid and do this also, they avoid looking like an idiot when they do.

People who are too lazy to think are more likely to just seek out the "conventional wisdom" of the moment and agree with that. The problem is the conventional wisdom of the moment is usually based on some unfair snap judgement that snowballed.

 

[Doug B]

First off, Football is such a team dependent game. With QBs, so much of what gets attributed to the QB is absolutely out of his control.

Along these lines, "QB wins" and "QB winning percentage" are among the worst "stats" in sports.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Sorry for the ramble here. I've got a thought you guys can help me develop here.I was listening today to this week's Bill Simmons podcast. Sal said something along the lines that Ben Roethlisberger was Santonio Holmes with one of the greatest catches in Super Bowl history and a few Seattle holding calls away from being a 3 time Super Bowl loser.This got me thinking.I've always hated our tendency as sports fans to let a super small sample size color our overall judgement of a player. First off, Football is such a team dependent game. With QBs, so much of what gets attributed to the QB is absolutely out of his control. The receiver obviously has a huge impact on him. As does a great defensive player and of course the rest of the offense. And it works both ways. Holmes helps Roethlisberger with a fantastic catch a few years ago. James Jones kills Aaron Rodgers with a terrible drop this year. Both of those plays could have easily gone the other way with the QB having done nothing different.It seems to me that we put way too much emphasis on a few plays. And not enough on the entire body of work. It seems like poor statistical methodology. But I fully and completely understand the "big time players deliver in clutch moments" thing too. So I can see both sides.Thoughts on this?J

I think its because everyone knows that handling pressure and making critical split-second decisions correctly are very important, and there's no other way to measure that ability than to look at the biggest moments in a player's career to see if they succeeded or failed.

I think the way that this thread morphed is really the way I wanted it to read. I think we attribute way too much to players (especially QBs) for things they absolutely didn't do.The question of what if Mendenhall had taken the last play of the game for a long rushing TD is exactly the scenario I'm talking about.We likely would be thinking of Roethlisberger as a 3 time SB winner on the brink of entering the super elite level of QBs while Rodgers would be a guy with a very bright future that played well but couldn't escape the Favre shadow. Many would likely be talking about them very differently than we are today - but they would have done the exact same things on the field.That's mainly my point I think now that I've thought about it. I still think we focus too much on small sample size but the "credit for things totally out of their control" is really where I'm landing.J

 

[Andrew Garda]

Absolutely in our star driven culture (and that can apply to much more than sports) we focus on the obvious guys who we see out there the most. The fact is that a good offensive line is as critical to the performance of a Super Bowl team in many (not all) cases as a QB. Few QBs, after all, can perform while on their back or constantly under pressure - ask Manning and Brady this post-season.

By the same token, you are also right - often a mistake gets highlighted during a loss when =- as a whole - the entire team had chances to win.

That's why Tomlin was right by saying Big Ben's INTs didn't help but weren't the whole reason they lost. (In fairness, Mendenhall has had his fair share of hate for his fumble, which was the result of a great play more than poor ball security IMO).

As people become more familiar with the role players (The Mangolds, the Pounceys) perhaps that will be less so - but the faces we see the most - the stars - are the 'skills' players..... and so they get more attention and more praise and hate than the rest.

 

[Jason Wood]

I think about this stuff a lot Joe, and agree that it fascinates me how moments can make or break a person's image forever. I know you and I used to laugh about this with Peyton Manning. As though he somehow because "clutch" or legitimized himself as a QB when he got a ring (which funnily enough came in a postseason where he didn't play up to his usual expectations). I'm seeing that same thing now with Tony Romo. He's now seemingly the next guy with "great" regular season stats but is going to be labeled as a pretender because he hasn't done it in the playoffs. I love that Aaron Rodgers called Colin Cowherd out on this because Cowherd was always talking about how Rodgers hadn't done it when it counted. Now that he's won that Super Bow he's elite? Some magic switch happened?

But I think where it gets complicated is that we remember the minutiae NOW, but we remember the headlines later. What I mean is, 20 years from now when our kids are debating football somewhere (probably in a 3-D holodeck with buddies), they're not going to remember those moments when a guy ALMOST won the Super Bowl or ALMOST led their team to a division title in Week 17. I think we all try to project how someone will be perceived after their careers are over by thinking about what they've done so far. That's nigh impossible, but we do it all the time.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I love that Aaron Rodgers called Colin Cowherd out on this because Cowherd was always talking about how Rodgers hadn't done it when it counted. Now that he's won that Super Bow he's elite? Some magic switch happened?

That was the best part of the Pack winning the Superb Bowl. It was hilarious and might have developed a mancrush on Rodgers for it.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

With football being the most team dependent sport, players' reputations do rely on their teammates more than in the other big sports, but it isn't completely isolated. Football has the great debates of "how would Emmitt Smith have done in Detroit and Barry Sanders in Dallas behind that O-line" and "how can he be the best cornerback if no one throws to that side" discussions.

Baseball has it too - look no further than last year's Cy Young in AL with Felix Hernandez having great personal stats but only 13 wins. Nolan Ryan once led the league in ERA but was 8-16 on a terrible Houston team.

Teams are remembered for big wins and big moments. If big names are in those moments, their reputations get a boost (see Joe Montana in The Catch, Elway in The Drive, etc.). If they are role players (Tyree's helmet catch, for one) they become trivia answers.

Sports fans want to put a name to a winning moment. Often in the NFL that's the QB as he is often the face of the franchise. In today's SportsCenter highlights moments era, QBs are king.

 

[dgreen]

I still think we focus too much on small sample size but the "credit for things totally out of their control" is really where I'm landing.

In a way, I agree with much of what you're saying. We tend to use a small sample size as our "proof". But, I think we only do that when there's a decent amount of evidence built up in our minds prior to that moment.Take Roethlisberger and your Mendenhall TD example. First, I think people would be going crazy over Mendenhall if that happened. He'd be getting a ton of credit right now. But, I think that would have more to do with the recency affect than some "single-play" affect. I agree, though, that Roethlisberger would be viewed differently today had Mendenhall scored such a TD. But, not because he would get credit for that rushing TD. It would be because we'd be more likely to remember how he overcame his two INTs and an 18-point deficit to have his team in the game. And, it would also be based on the fact that he's done that before. He's known for his play late in games. That's not just based on one game. That's based on his career so far. And, yes, it is likely magnified because he did it once in a SB.Remember when Brady won his first SB. People were talking about how he drove them about 30 yards into FG position, but I don't remember people going overboard at that point and praising him because Vinitieri made a FG. The Brady love built up more and more as he did things like that more and more.What about Eli Manning. I don't think he gets too much credit based on his SB winning drive. I think most people who watched the game will bring up Tyree's catch before they'll talk about Manning's drive or TD pass. I think that's because Roethlisberger and Brady have better track records of performing in crucial moments.Or, on the flip side, look at Doug Williams and Timmy Smith. NOBODY gushes over them and they arguably had two of the best individual performances in Super Bowl history. Their careers and our view of their overall abilities don't seem to be tainted by one game.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Nice to know that you listen to the Sports Guy's podcasts. The ones with Cousin Sal are top-notch.

JAAAAAAAASH FREEMAN!!!

 

[Doug B]

I love that Aaron Rodgers called Colin Cowherd out on this because Cowherd was always talking about how Rodgers hadn't done it when it counted. Now that he's won that Super Bowl, he's elite? Some magic switch happened?

Great point.I'll go ahead and say it: in evaluation of individual players, being on Super Bowl-winning teams is immensely overrated. Even for QBs.

It's often stated as "So-and-so WON three Super Bowls already". No, he didn't. The teams he was on won three Super Bowls. And yes, IMHO, there's a huge and meaningful difference between those two statements. The absolute best you can say is that "So-and-so quarterbacked three Super Bowl-winning teams."

Everybody LOVES the Herman Edwards quote "You PLAY to WIN the game!". Too many people apply that quote to all kinds of contexts. Well, IMHO, in evaluating individual players, "playing to WIN the game!" doesn't matter -- one guy can do no more than execute his assignment. One guy -- even a QB -- can't "WIN the game!" If you, as an individual player, execute awesome, but the rest of your squad blows, your team will be an also-ran even while you are playing at an elite level.

 

[The Berry Man]

Special players make special plays in special games. Or they don't and their legacy is tarnished forever. I'm not sure I'd want it any other way.

I wonder how much $ Simmons & Sal lost on the Super Bowl, sounds like they took a real beating.

 

[Illegal Pants Downfield]

I love that Aaron Rodgers called Colin Cowherd out on this because Cowherd was always talking about how Rodgers hadn't done it when it counted. Now that he's won that Super Bow he's elite? Some magic switch happened?

That was the best part of the Pack winning the Superb Bowl. It was hilarious and might have developed a mancrush on Rodgers for it.

There was a lot of those same arguments a few weeks ago in the Eagles-Packers pre-game thread in the week leading up to the wild card round game. Somehow, despite throwing for 400+ yards and 4TDs in his only playoff appearance (last year's 51-45 wild card loss to the Cardinals), Rodgers "couldn't win the big game".He performed about as well as he could've. But because the Packers defense couldn't stop Warner & Co., and because the Cardinals' defense made one clutch play (the sack-fumble-TD in overtime), Rodgers was on the hook as the 'loser' of that game...doesn't make sense to me at all.

 

[The Berry Man]

I love that Aaron Rodgers called Colin Cowherd out on this because Cowherd was always talking about how Rodgers hadn't done it when it counted. Now that he's won that Super Bowl, he's elite? Some magic switch happened?

Great point.I'll go ahead and say it: in evaluation of individual players, being on Super Bowl-winning teams is immensely overrated. Even for QBs.

It's often stated as "So-and-so WON three Super Bowls already". No, he didn't. The teams he was on won three Super Bowls. And yes, IMHO, there's a huge and meaningful difference between those two statements. The absolute best you can say is that "So-and-so quarterbacked three Super Bowl-winning teams."

Everybody LOVES the Herman Edwards quote "You PLAY to WIN the game!". Too many people apply that quote to all kinds of contexts. Well, IMHO, in evaluating individual players, "playing to WIN the game!" doesn't matter -- one guy can do no more than execute his assignment. One guy -- even a QB -- can't "WIN the game!" If you, as an individual player, execute awesome, but the rest of your squad blows, your team will be an also-ran even while you are playing at an elite level.

Quarterback is the single most important and influential position in team sports, and there isn't even a close second. Most of these discussions about "he won X Super Bowls" happen when comparing the truly great players at the position. Being great is what gets the quarterbacks into the door for these discussions, and Super Bowl rings is one of the most important points to consider when comparing a great to another great.That's why the "OMG I GUESS TRENT DILFER IS BETTER THAN DAN MARINO" mock comments are so stupid. You have to be a great quarterback to get into the discussion, and Dilfer, quite obviously, was not even close to great. I think people are intelligent enough to know the context of the "how many rings does he have" conversations, but obviously it's not always so.

 

[TommyGilmore]

Special players make special plays in special games. Or they don't and their legacy is tarnished forever. I'm not sure I'd want it any other way.I wonder how much $ Simmons & Sal lost on the Super Bowl, sounds like they took a real beating.

They made a big bet on Pittsburgh to win the Super Bowl before the season even started (I think Pittsburgh was 10-to-1 at the time). They considered hedging on Green Bay to basically break even for the year, but they decided to ride it out and go for the big payoff.

 

[The Berry Man]

Special players make special plays in special games. Or they don't and their legacy is tarnished forever. I'm not sure I'd want it any other way.I wonder how much $ Simmons & Sal lost on the Super Bowl, sounds like they took a real beating.

They made a big bet on Pittsburgh to win the Super Bowl before the season even started (I think Pittsburgh was 10-to-1 at the time). They considered hedging on Green Bay to basically break even for the year, but they decided to ride it out and go for the big payoff.

They had PIT 12 to 1 and also bet on AFC -1.5 at the beginning of the year. I just wonder how much $ they put down.Oh and they also had Rodgers for regular season MVP and the Packers to win their division. So close, yet so far away.

 

[B Maverick]

I have a thought for you all.... What two players touch the ball on ALMOST every offensive play? The center and the QB. Now i agree that winning is a team effort, especially since the defense plays half the game, but why not give credit to the man that controls the offense? The guy that takes the snap and makes sure to throw it to the proper place, hand it the correct way to the RB, etc?

At this level, all players are good enough to be there. Does Holmes get credit for his catch thus making Ben a 2 time winner? Of course. But the QB is the man responsible for delivering. He has to put his team in a position to win. Where as yes, if Santonio doesnt make the catch, ben isnt given this love. But Ben did his part, put his team in a position to win and his teammates came through for him.

Elway and Marino are beloved QBs who struggled to win the SB. Elway went 0-3 before winning 2. Most media types talk about how they didnt have a run game, or didnt have the team around them to win. So it does get acknowledged.

A team needs a great QB to win in most cases. Dilfer is the exception since he had one of the greatest defenses and really was going vs Kerry Collins, who isnt great either.

But basically, i can understand why they get the credit, they touch the ball on nearly every offensive play and are responsible for the execution.

 

[Da Guru]

I think too it's plays or games where the player did his job, yet he is judged by how the other players around did (or did not do) their job.A QB trailing by 1 drives his team down the field in the last two minutes and gets them in position for a 40 yard FG. Kicker makes it and the QB is clutch. Kicker misses it and the QB choked.That kind of thing. Seems to me that we put way too much small picture focus on this sometimes and don't look big picture enough.J

What bothers me is that the game is 60 minutes long, that is the whole body of work. Players can screw up all they want in the first half..but fumble, throw a INT, get burned for a long TD or miss a FG in the fourth quarter they call you a choker.The mistakes that happen in the first three quarters are what puts teams in the positions they are in the fourth.

 

[coolnerd]

I think more than anything the near makes and near misses highlight how close people are from being great to just another guy. the difference between a 50% passer and 60% passer over 30 passes is three more completions. 65 catch and 80 catch WR is one per game. And those are separations of average to good. From Goodness to greatness is even less..i.e. those handful of plays that one guy (or team) makes and another does not. I think the line is just that close.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

Quarterback is the single most important and influential position in team sports, and there isn't even a close second. Most of these discussions about "he won X Super Bowls" happen when comparing the truly great players at the position. Being great is what gets the quarterbacks into the door for these discussions, and Super Bowl rings is one of the most important points to consider when comparing a great to another great.

I would argue a pitcher has far more influence and is also less reliant on other players. It is the only position that I can think of that can literally win games all by itself (Babe Ruth being close to such an example).

 

[Joe Bryant]

Nice to know that you listen to the Sports Guy's podcasts. The ones with Cousin Sal are top-notch.

JAAAAAAAASH FREEMAN!!!

His Monday podcasts with Sal are my #1 thing to listen to every week. He's excellent.J

 

[Ice Cream Man]

I think the way that this thread morphed is really the way I wanted it to read.

I think we attribute way too much to players (especially QBs) for things they absolutely didn't do.

The question of what if Mendenhall had taken the last play of the game for a long rushing TD is exactly the scenario I'm talking about.

We likely would be thinking of Roethlisberger as a 3 time SB winner on the brink of entering the super elite level of QBs while Rodgers would be a guy with a very bright future that played well but couldn't escape the Favre shadow.

Many would likely be talking about them very differently than we are today - but they would have done the exact same things on the field.

That's mainly my point I think now that I've thought about it. I still think we focus too much on small sample size but the "credit for things totally out of their control" is really where I'm landing.

J

It's an information problem."Visible" players (such as the QB, in this case) are easily identifiable proxies for onfield accomplishments. And proxies, by definition, will be imperfect [especially with a game like football]. That is to say, we can only digest and retain a certain amount of information at once. By having some way of incorporating a vast amount of information into just a single name, slogan, or numbers (like stats) -- even if some nuances are lost in translation -- can make it easier to understand the world. This is precisely how we remember feats that occurred 10 years ago -- through this simplification process.

And even if we could retain an unlimited amount of information, we would probably still use these proxies to make sense of it all.

In a way is a bit like stereotyping -- we generalize from past experience to facilitate future decisions. In other ways, its a bit like movie ratings, where numbers (like "2 stars") tell us about its quality [yes, I know there are other reasons for movie ratings]. All around us we have simple things to characterize a vast amount of information. Just think of the price you pay for gasoline. The price you pay at the pump is a number reflecting all kinds of information (market conditions, scarcity, geo-political changes, weather, tastes and preferences, expectations) that no one man could conceivably understand or process by himself. [incidentally, this is why a free flowing price system is critical to economic growth]. Trying to tease all the information out of just one quarter of football is an equally daunting task.

Some proxies are better than others [and much of the debate here and elsewhere reflects that]. But all serve the same purpose.

What makes something "visible" or identifiable? It depends on the circumstance. In the case of sports, it's often a flamboyant player talked up a lot in the press, other times its an important position player (like a pitcher or QB). Numbers are frequently good choices. Sometimes its a slogan (song, banner, etc) to recall information from the past.

To me, as an economist, this is an entirely normal process.

The only "problem" -- or the reason for your dilemma -- is that talking about stats, reading stats, watching NFL talk shows, reading online bulletin boards [which they do just because they love the game] can lead some people to read into proxies more than that ought to. In other words, our expectations about the usefulness of our chosen proxies can be distorted as a side effect to pursuing some of these activities.

To sum up what I'm trying to say here, proxies are a tool to disseminate and simplify information to make sense of the world. Under some conditions, we develop expectations that our proxies to be better than they really are, forgetting why we have them in the first place.

 

[Novice2]

If only Jordy had got in the endzone instead of out of bounds at the 3 and maybe even hauled in that endzone pass attempt for a 3 TD game then poor Aaron wouldn't have been Super Bowl MVP.

 

[Drink G2]

Totally agree. The reality is, perspective and context fade away but "rings" and "moments" stand out forever.It reminds me of the thread awhile back on the games and plays that could be identified by a couple of words (eg. "The Catch"). That's what tends to survive in the minds of many.As a hockey goalie, I relate to QBs and kickers as sharing the same occupational hazard - you get more credit for wins than you deserve and more blame for losses. People remember the big save or conversely, the one that went between your legs.

Also a hockey goalie here. And I agree completely. People have simple minds. The very good or very bad stand out and people pick up on it, and remember it. The rest is a blur.Because of this line of thought where people "over-value" (for a fantasy perspective) players who made plays like Holmes did, I tend to under-value too much. Its a sticky web to weave.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Chase wrote an article that looks at this (at least I think so).

It accounts for the level of support a QB got in his playoff games and compares how often they won games at varying levels of support. There are unwinnable games (literally no one ever wins if the defense gives up X pts and the rushing game only gains Y yards) and there are gimmes (where the other QB faced an unwinnable game).

It's the area in-between that tells you something. Dan Marino? Godlike. Roger Staubach? Meh.

But don't take my word for it. Just read it. One of the best things ever written about QB playoff performance in my opinion.

 

[Biabreakable]

I think more than anything the near makes and near misses highlight how close people are from being great to just another guy. the difference between a 50% passer and 60% passer over 30 passes is three more completions. 65 catch and 80 catch WR is one per game. And those are separations of average to good. From Goodness to greatness is even less..i.e. those handful of plays that one guy (or team) makes and another does not. I think the line is just that close.

Agreed.When I was criticizing James Jones for dropping passes in the playoffs it is not because I am only looking at those few passes he dropped. It is because I have seen him make the same mistakes during regular season, last season and seasons before that.Then you compare Jones play to Donald Drivers. Both players physically may be about the same or Jones has a slight advantage now due to Drivers age.But Driver has proven season after season that he will make those plays 9 times out of 10 or whatever it is compared to Jones only making those plays 5 out of 10.A few plays are the difference in the game.I also totally agree that QBs get too much credit/blame for their performance when football is a team sport.The thing is with QBs is that the onus is on them to find a way to win. By whatever means they have available. And a QBs performance does have an effect on the entire team. If the QB is not getting it done the rest of team sees/feels that and that can bring down the effort of the entire team when that happens.

 

[meatwad1]

It is pretty foolish to break down one or two plays and put them out as reason s for winning or losing a football game. I mean, sure James Jones has dropped a few passes..he has also made some great plays to help them win! As a matter of fact, in the Detroit game Jennings had a pass that went right off his hands that would have been a huge gainer for a score and ended up being a score for them in a 10 - 3 loss. Great players show consistency over time...I have watched enough of Big Ben to know that he makes a ton of great plays and it does not do any good to think of what could have happened if...

Once somebody wins a super bowl, it elevates them...that is the bottom line. If Jim Kelley would have won a couple, that would have made him that much better...that is why people love sports, the winning and losing defines who you are. That is the way it should be. People who think against that are usually the spineless, everyone should be a winner types.

Sorry friends, but everyone is not a winner. That is precisely why winning championships in anything is compelling theater.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I've always hated our tendency as sports fans to let a super small sample size color our overall judgement of a player.

First off, Football is such a team dependent game. With QBs, so much of what gets attributed to the QB is absolutely out of his control. The receiver obviously has a huge impact on him. As does a great defensive player and of course the rest of the offense. And it works both ways. Holmes helps Roethlisberger with a fantastic catch a few years ago. James Jones kills Aaron Rodgers with a terrible drop this year. Both of those plays could have easily gone the other way with the QB having done nothing different.

It seems to me that we put way too much emphasis on a few plays. And not enough on the entire body of work. It seems like poor statistical methodology. But I fully and completely understand the "big time players deliver in clutch moments" thing too. So I can see both sides.

This isn't really a new thing, as any Ben Roethlisberger thread is full of 50 people saying it.Really though, it drives me nuts how people are so hypocritical about small sample sizes. If a player has a of couple great games people disregard it as too small a sample size to draw any real conclusions off of, even just compared to his peers for one season. But if a player makes a of couple great plays at the right time people are willing to compare them to the all-time greats.

Perhaps even more frustrating is how much people are willing to change their opinion of how good a player is based on what happens when they're not even on the field. Remember, before Big Ben's drive in the Super Bowl a few years ago Kurt Warner had led the Cardinals down the field with 3 minutes left for the go ahead score. Had Arizona's defense held, Warner would have won another Super Bowl (in game ending drive fashion) and you know the threads on here the next day would have been about him ranking among the all-time greats. Instead, the Cardinals' defense didn't hold, and no one mentions Warner in that category. People's opinion of how good a player he is was changed radically based on what happened while he was standing on the sidelines watching.

People always respond with "well I base my opinions on what actually happens, not a bunch of what-ifs". But that's exactly my point, many of these "what-ifs" are things that don't even involve the player we're judging. How is Kurt Warner any better or worse a player based on what the Cardinals' defense did on that possession? He's exactly the same player either way. He did the exact same thing in the game either way.

You can say a similar thing with field goal kickers affect on QBs. If a QB leads a drive to set up a game winning FG and he makes it (a la Vinatieri in the playoffs twice) then he's clutch. If the QB leads them on that exact same and his kicker misses it (a la Vanderjagt against Pittsburgh in the playoffs) then he's a choker for not scoring a touchdown instead.

 

[inca911]

I judge players (and others) based on 4 criteria:

1. Integrity

2. Intent

3. Skills and Capabilities

4. Track Record of Success

Without integrity, it is unlikely that the person will be thought of highly by anyone. They don't do what they say they will do, and few people generally like those who lie, cheat, steal, rape, etc. Think BigBen, Pete Rose, Ty Cobb, etc.

Without the right intent, and for football this really comes down to doing what's best for the team at all times, it's hard to see someone as being a part of something bigger than themselves. Does this person really care about me, or about what I feel is important? Are they in it for both of us, or am I just an afterthought? A player like TO seems to be in it only for himself. He has a much smaller following of supporters because of it.

I see a lot of the discussion in this thread alternating between the areas of "skills and capabilities" and "track record of success". One also needs to use both of these criteria in addition to the first two in order to measure performance. If someone has been lucky a couple times but doesn't have the skills and capabilities to have established a lasting track record of success, then they will fall short on how great a player they are perceived to be. If they have all the skills but haven't been highly successful, their image is similarly affected.

I believe each of us as an individual has a different weighting criteria for each of these 4 areas, and that the weighting is different based on our primary personality type. That means that given the exact same information, a rational/theorist type of person will likely downplay integrity and intent and focus on the skills/capabilities and track record. An idealist will likely downplay the skills and capabilities and put more emphasis on what the person accomplished overall--both on and off the field. In the end, what you value as a person outside of the lines impacts what you value and how you rate those who play on the field.

 

[DeCleater]

Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser.

--- General George S. Patton

Winning isn’t everything, it’s the ONLY thing.

--- Vince Lombardi

Winning makes all the difference. Ask Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, or Ron Jaworski. Would anyone remember Joe Namath if the Colts win SB III. He would be Steve Grogan and not in the HOF.

I consider John Elway the best QB of all-time, but there is no way he could be considered that without back to back SB wins his last 2 years. He carried 3 teams to the SB on his back early in his career but he didn’t win, so he was not thought of as worthy of the greatest label.

America is about winning and sports is the last place where people can define who is a winner and who isn’t. And yes, QBs get more credit when they win and more blame when they lose but that is what drives kids to that position. They want the chance to stand on the podium and hold up the Lombardi, it’s the greatest position in sports, and it comes with the most pressure. You know that going in if you succeed you will be immortalized and if you fail you will be considered a bum.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I think too it's plays or games where the player did his job, yet he is judged by how the other players around did (or did not do) their job.A QB trailing by 1 drives his team down the field in the last two minutes and gets them in position for a 40 yard FG. Kicker makes it and the QB is clutch. Kicker misses it and the QB choked.That kind of thing. Seems to me that we put way too much small picture focus on this sometimes and don't look big picture enough.J

I think that's the result of being unable to take in the big picture without relying on subjectivity.Take the issue of WR drops.What would it take to give the QB appropriate credit for his throws that the WR bungled? But if we do that, shouldn't we also, to be fair, take a little away when he completes a lucky hail mary where the ball bounces off a defender and into a WR's hands?But to do this, it means someone sitting down with game film and analyzing every pass attempt in every game. And why do this with only one or two QB's?So to give appropriate credit and debit, it would take huge amounts of man hours, and that doesn't even get into the question of whether the person breaking down the film is judging the play of Brett Favre by the same standard as the guy who is judging the play of Aaron Rodgers.So while I agree that QB's get too much credit and blame depending upon the situation, it's probably impossible to correct the measuring stick in any practical way.