Baker Mayfield: Fire The Cannons

[bs80]

Here's a take that I totally understand is going to sound crazy and I know I'm gonna get killed for it -- the ability for a QB to lead a drive when trailing in the 4th quarter is overrated.

Let me be clear, I DO believe that being clutch enough to avoid consistently choking in these situations is the hallmark of an elite QB, and I really wish Baker was able to have more clutch moments on his resume.

But I just went through the data for all 55 Super Bowl winning postseason runs. Some of the data, especially trying to find details about when exactly a drive started, gets pretty spotty, but this is what I came up with. Of those 55 Super Bowl winners, 28 of them never at any point in their postseason run, started a drive at any point in the 4th quarter while trailing. In 24 instances, it happened in one of their playoff games. The remaining three champs had to overcome such a deficit in two of their playoff games (Pats the year they picked of Russ at the goal line, Giants the second time they beat Brady, and the Giants when Norwood missed the FG as time expired). Maybe this doesn't come as a surprise to many, but because of all of the clutch moments by legends that are burned into our memories, I would've thought that in the playoffs when shit gets tight, a Super Bowl winner would on average face at least one of these moments on their title run.

Clearly, I'm gonna sound like Capt. Obvious here, but way more often than not, the formula to winning is to get off to a strong start and not have the defense shit the bed. First and foremost, I want my QB to be consistently efficient and effective from the start of the game, rather than to have the clutch gene that could lead a comeback if the game is still tight in the 4th quarter. A lot of the memorable clutch moments are a result of trailing late in games because the offense hadn't done jack shit up until the end of the game. Having a QB that is both consistently effective AND clutch would be fan-fucking-tastic, but those types are borderline generational guys.

I'm fine admitting that the way Baker has played outside of some of his big baller moments his rookie season and the back half of 2020 is not going to be enough to lead us to the promised land without a good amount of luck or a significant improvement by the defense. I'd bet that Baker would say so himself. He obviously needs to play better, and after that clunker in Minnesota, I was pleased to see him do much better in LA. I'm hopeful that the arrow is still pointed in the right direction -- we sure as hell need it to be.

TL;DR: Just over half of all Super Bowl winners never needed their QB to lead a come-from-behind drive that started at any point in the 4th quarter of any of their playoff games. I suspect that number is a lot higher than one would expect.

 

[Man Called X]

Here's a take that I totally understand is going to sound crazy and I know I'm gonna get killed for it -- the ability for a QB to lead a drive when trailing in the 4th quarter is overrated.

Let me be clear, I DO believe that being clutch enough to avoid consistently choking in these situations is the hallmark of an elite QB, and I really wish Baker was able to have more clutch moments on his resume.

But I just went through the data for all 55 Super Bowl winning postseason runs. Some of the data, especially trying to find details about when exactly a drive started, gets pretty spotty, but this is what I came up with. Of those 55 Super Bowl winners, 28 of them never at any point in their postseason run, started a drive at any point in the 4th quarter while trailing. In 24 instances, it happened in one of their playoff games. The remaining three champs had to overcome such a deficit in two of their playoff games (Pats the year they picked of Russ at the goal line, Giants the second time they beat Brady, and the Giants when Norwood missed the FG as time expired). Maybe this doesn't come as a surprise to many, but because of all of the clutch moments by legends that are burned into our memories, I would've thought that in the playoffs when shit gets tight, a Super Bowl winner would on average face at least one of these moments on their title run.

Clearly, I'm gonna sound like Capt. Obvious here, but way more often than not, the formula to winning is to get off to a strong start and not have the defense shit the bed. First and foremost, I want my QB to be consistently efficient and effective from the start of the game, rather than to have the clutch gene that could lead a comeback if the game is still tight in the 4th quarter. A lot of the memorable clutch moments are a result of trailing late in games because the offense hadn't done jack shit up until the end of the game. Having a QB that is both consistently effective AND clutch would be fan-fucking-tastic, but those types are borderline generational guys.

I'm fine admitting that the way Baker has played outside of some of his big baller moments his rookie season and the back half of 2020 is not going to be enough to lead us to the promised land without a good amount of luck or a significant improvement by the defense. I'd bet that Baker would say so himself. He obviously needs to play better, and after that clunker in Minnesota, I was pleased to see him do much better in LA. I'm hopeful that the arrow is still pointed in the right direction -- we sure as hell need it to be.

TL;DR: Just over half of all Super Bowl winners never needed their QB to lead a come-from-behind drive that started at any point in the 4th quarter of any of their playoff games. I suspect that number is a lot higher than one would expect.

Honestly a really good look at it. And where I'd think we'd all preferably be anyway. At least in my opinion, it can't be done. It just feels like in today's era of the NFL, you're going to need to be clutch, because everything is a fucking shootout.

The days of contests being won 7-3 and low scoring affairs aren't as common place as they used to be. Just like the NBA made rule changes to increase the scoring and get rid of the slugfests of the 90s, so to has the NFL continued to expand offensive production and lessen the impact defense can have.

I watch these young QBs and notice the scoring around the league feels increased. And I think that clutch gene is just going to be more necessary moving forward. It feels like watching games of Madden where we were combining for 90+ points every game.

*Eat that ass*

It has

https://wizardofodds.com/wizfiles/img/2221/points-per-game.jpg

 

[WellYouNeednt]

Honestly a really good look at it. And where I'd think we'd all preferably be anyway. At least in my opinion, it can't be done. It just feels like in today's era of the NFL, you're going to need to be clutch, because everything is a fucking shootout.

The days of contests being won 7-3 and low scoring affairs aren't as common place as they used to be. Just like the NBA made rule changes to increase the scoring and get rid of the slugfests of the 90s, so to has the NFL continued to expand offensive production and lessen the impact defense can have.

I watch these young QBs and notice the scoring around the league feels increased. And I think that clutch gene is just going to be more necessary moving forward. It feels like watching games of Madden where we were combining for 90+ points every game.

*Eat that ass*

It has

https://wizardofodds.com/wizfiles/img/2221/points-per-game.jpg

Another problem is — at what point do players get too big and fast? I would love to see the stats on injury numbers in the last 10 years. Seems like guys are dropping like flys every game.

At some point they are going to have to make a size limit and i am not talking about cocks! The BIGGER the better!

@The Oi knows what i am talking about!

Cum get sum!

 

[I'mWithDan]

Here's a take that I totally understand is going to sound crazy and I know I'm gonna get killed for it -- the ability for a QB to lead a drive when trailing in the 4th quarter is overrated.

Let me be clear, I DO believe that being clutch enough to avoid consistently choking in these situations is the hallmark of an elite QB, and I really wish Baker was able to have more clutch moments on his resume.

But I just went through the data for all 55 Super Bowl winning postseason runs. Some of the data, especially trying to find details about when exactly a drive started, gets pretty spotty, but this is what I came up with. Of those 55 Super Bowl winners, 28 of them never at any point in their postseason run, started a drive at any point in the 4th quarter while trailing. In 24 instances, it happened in one of their playoff games. The remaining three champs had to overcome such a deficit in two of their playoff games (Pats the year they picked of Russ at the goal line, Giants the second time they beat Brady, and the Giants when Norwood missed the FG as time expired). Maybe this doesn't come as a surprise to many, but because of all of the clutch moments by legends that are burned into our memories, I would've thought that in the playoffs when shit gets tight, a Super Bowl winner would on average face at least one of these moments on their title run.

Clearly, I'm gonna sound like Capt. Obvious here, but way more often than not, the formula to winning is to get off to a strong start and not have the defense shit the bed. First and foremost, I want my QB to be consistently efficient and effective from the start of the game, rather than to have the clutch gene that could lead a comeback if the game is still tight in the 4th quarter. A lot of the memorable clutch moments are a result of trailing late in games because the offense hadn't done jack shit up until the end of the game. Having a QB that is both consistently effective AND clutch would be fan-fucking-tastic, but those types are borderline generational guys.

I'm fine admitting that the way Baker has played outside of some of his big baller moments his rookie season and the back half of 2020 is not going to be enough to lead us to the promised land without a good amount of luck or a significant improvement by the defense. I'd bet that Baker would say so himself. He obviously needs to play better, and after that clunker in Minnesota, I was pleased to see him do much better in LA. I'm hopeful that the arrow is still pointed in the right direction -- we sure as hell need it to be.

TL;DR: Just over half of all Super Bowl winners never needed their QB to lead a come-from-behind drive that started at any point in the 4th quarter of any of their playoff games. I suspect that number is a lot higher than one would expect.

I think it is probably somewhere in the middle.

I don't know that you need your QB to be a God late in games.........there's far too few of those guys........but you need good enough......and good enough at the right times. You also need to not feel an awful sense of dread, if the game is being put in their hands.

As @Man Called X mentioned, the football landscape is also just dramatically shifting and doing so at a very rapid pace.

As scoring increases, being the last team with the ball seems to have far greater finality, as the chances of scoring are just dramatically higher than they were in the past.

I'm sure we'll see that data evolve as time goes on.

 

[bob2the2nd]

Honestly a really good look at it. And where I'd think we'd all preferably be anyway. At least in my opinion, it can't be done. It just feels like in today's era of the NFL, you're going to need to be clutch, because everything is a fucking shootout.

The days of contests being won 7-3 and low scoring affairs aren't as common place as they used to be. Just like the NBA made rule changes to increase the scoring and get rid of the slugfests of the 90s, so to has the NFL continued to expand offensive production and lessen the impact defense can have.

I watch these young QBs and notice the scoring around the league feels increased. And I think that clutch gene is just going to be more necessary moving forward. It feels like watching games of Madden where we were combining for 90+ points every game.

*Eat that ass*

It has

https://wizardofodds.com/wizfiles/img/2221/points-per-game.jpg

Repeat after me, there is no such thing as "clutch". On a large enough data scale everything reverts back to the mean.

 

[Surge]

Where are "Moxie," "Gets Us," and "It Factor" on your fancy adding machines, huh? HUH?

 

[I'mWithDan]

Repeat after me, there is no such thing as "clutch". On a large enough data scale everything reverts back to the mean.

So is it your view that all QB's are equally capable over a large enough data set? Just all things being equal?

And if so, is there some sort of article or study you can share? As I'd love to read about it.

There seems to certainly be a rather large gap of separation from the top group and everyone else.......but I would kind of anecdotally buy QB's 6-20 could all be the same on a large enough scale.

 

[bob2the2nd]

So is it your view that all QB's are equally capable over a large enough data set? Just all things being equal?

And if so, is there some sort of article or study you can share? As I'd love to read about it.

There seems to certainly be a rather large gap of separation from the top group and everyone else.......but I would kind of anecdotally buy QB's 6-20 could all be the same on a large enough scale.

No my view is that all players across all sports will eventually revert back to their average with enough data points. Clutch is completely made up

 

[bs80]

No my view is that all players across all sports will eventually revert back to their average with enough data points. Clutch is completely made up

What if instead of "clutch," we said "less likely to choke?" While I sort of understand the "no such thing as clutch" side of the argument, I absolutely believe that some players are way more susceptible than others to cracking under intense pressure.

 

[I'mWithDan]

No my view is that all players across all sports will eventually revert back to their average with enough data points. Clutch is completely made up

So Aaron Rodgers isn't clutch, he's just good?

So it makes sense that he is also good late in games, like he is good at all other times?

But he isn't capable of being better than he is, when the situation is higher leverage, he's just as good as he has always been?

Or maybe Rodgers is better at just playing to his maximum potential when it matters?

I get why clutch is kind of a dumb phrase but it seems like there is enough data that shows certain players get the most out of their potential when it matters, while others do not.

 

[bob2the2nd]

So Aaron Rodgers isn't clutch, he's just good?

So it makes sense that he is also good late in games, like he is good at all other times?

But he isn't capable of being better than he is, when the situation is higher leverage, he's just as good as he has always been?

Or maybe Rodgers is better at just playing to his maximum potential when it matters?

Honest question do you not think the first three and a half quarters of a game matter?

Because that seems to be what you're implying.

 

[I'mWithDan]

Honest question do you not think the first three and a half quarters of a game matter?

Because that seems to be what you're implying.

How did you infer that I don't think the first 3.5 quarters matter from what I said?

That isn't even a leap, it is just something made up out of thin air.

I'm asking if you think players can play to their maximum potential more often than others.

 

[DJTJ]

How did you infer that I don't think the first 3.5 quarters matter from what I said?

That isn't even a leap, it is just something made up out of thin air.

I'm asking if you think players can play to their maximum potential more often than others.

To be fair, your original post says that Rodgers plays to his max ability “when it matters”.

I know you’re not implying the rest doesnt, but that seems to be the crux.

I don’t give a fuck about the fourth quarter if we win the first three handily, and that is what this team is largely designed to do.

Doesn’t mean that Baker doesn’t need to perform well, but league wide, I don’t think any team WANTS to have to be in a position to come back and win.

 

[bob2the2nd]

How did you infer that I don't think the first 3.5 quarters matter from what I said?

That isn't even a leap, it is just something made up out of thin air.

I'm asking if you think players can play to their maximum potential more often than others.

Dude, seriously. you just spouted all sorts of shit about clutch performances in previous posts and then starting talking about aaron rodgers and "his maximum potential when it matters" or "when the situation is higher leverage". im just quoting you and your ranting and raving about certain QBs being better at certain periods of time during the game.

Clutch doesnt exist, its made up. I know its a great concept for fans. That when in the heat of the moment or in the playoffs player X is going to be able to hit the ball further, shoot the ball better, sack a QB at the exact right moment to win the game, specifically because its the end of the game or in the playoffs. But this is the real word and that doesnt happen, clutch doesnt exist. With enough data points everything will and does go back to the average. Its why its called "the average". So no there is no such thing as a player maximizing his potential more often than others, because at the end of the day all it does it slightly change his average.

Tom Brady, Probably the greatest QB of all time, has almost identical numbers in the regular season as in the playoffs.

Regular season: has completed 64.1% of his passes
Post season: has completed 62.7% of his passes

Regular season INT%: 1.8
post season INT%: 2.2

Regular season TD%: 5.5%
post season: 4.7%

Regular season Y/A: 7.5
Playoffs Y/A: 7.1

Regular season QB rating: 97.5 ***
Playoffs QB Rating: 90


***cool story Mayfield's QB Rating this year and last is almost identical to Tom Brady's career QB rating. 97 versus 97.5

 

[I'mWithDan]

Dude, seriously. you just spouted all sorts of shit about clutch performances in previous posts and then starting talking about aaron rodgers and "his maximum potential when it matters" or "when the situation is higher leverage". im just quoting you and your ranting and raving about certain QBs being better at certain periods of time during the game.

Go wider lens then if you take issue with with a specific point in time.

How would you explain the difference in performance of these three players. Aren't these enormous data sets looking at their careers?

Aaron Rodgers

Career QB rating:103.9

Leading: 107.5
Tied / Trailing: 101.2
Diff: -6.3

Drew Brees

Career QB rating: 98.7

Leading: 107.1
Tied / Trailing: 94.1
Diff: -13.0

Tom Brady

Career QB rating: 97.5

Leading: 100.6
Tied / Trailing: 94.8
Diff: -5.8

Set aside clutch or even playoffs and just look at a broader situation. So seeing something like this doesn't lead you to believe that Rodgers or Brady was more capable of playing to their potential, regardless of game situation? Like is it at all a skill attributed to a player?