MNF Week 1: PIT @ NYG, TEN @ DEN

[pugsnotdrugs19]

Monday night doubleheader to cap the week...

Pittsburgh starts at 6:10 CT, Denver at 9:20 CT.

[Brody Wa]

The Steelers def looked petty damn good... but I don’t they can stop Helaire,Kelce,Hill,Watkins and Mahomes. And they played the Giants which isn’t saying much.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DRM08

There was 1 where a Texans guy caught it at the back of the end zone and was only able to get 1 foot down. Refs called him out of bounds. I think it might have been called back for a penalty as well, not sure.

There was 1 where he threw into about triple coverage and the guy picked it, but they called defensive pass interference. Pretty lucky call from the refs.

And there was one where there was miscommunication with receiver and perhaps a bit of an overthrow as well. Dropped by Texans guy.

Yeah, the one in the back of the end zone was what I was thinking. That wasn't a 'should've been picked' ball, IMO - it was a free play and he threw it out there where only Kelce could've actually caught it. My memory is that Kelce was patting his chest as he went back to the huddle as well. Kelce had cut his route off but if he'd have kept going, he was the only guy with the size to go up and catch that ball in-bounds. It was at the end of the half w/ zero real risk, IMO.

I mentioned the triple coverage one. It's fair to point out that it was a 4th down play so you give the guy a bit of a pass there as it's a turnover if he doesn't pull something from thin air (on a play the Texans had covered up nicely).

I don't remember the miscommunication. He and Watkins were a little off on a play near the goal-line, but that was all I can recall apart from the play to Kelce.

I don't think he was reckless beyond what the situation called for at all on Thursday.

[DRM08]

Originally Posted by O.city

If you wanted to really argue that Wilson is the best QB in the NFL, I don't know that you couldn't atleast make a case. I don't agree, but I'm a chiefs fan.

He's phenomenal.

Yeah, I got no problem if people rank Wilson at #1. He is really great, and was underrated during the Legion of Boom years. He has always shown a clutch factor even in his early years.

I had a co-worker who is a Cowboys fan try to claim that Prescott will end up the same as Wilson because their stats were pretty much the same on paper for their first few years in the league. But I don't see the clutch factor with Prescott, whereas you did see it with Wilson very early in his career and it has continued to this day.

The stat sheet can be very misleading, especially nowadays where everyone seems to have a 100+ passer rating. The eye test can be a better indicator with these guys.

[NWTF]

Originally Posted by DRM08

Yeah, I got no problem if people rank Wilson at #1. He is really great, and was underrated during the Legion of Boom years. He has always shown a clutch factor even in his early years.

I had a co-worker who is a Cowboys fan try to claim that Prescott will end up the same as Wilson because their stats were pretty much the same on paper for their first few years in the league. But I don't see the clutch factor with Prescott, whereas you did see it with Wilson very early in his career and it has continued to this day.

The stat sheet can be very misleading, especially nowadays where everyone seems to have a 100+ passer rating. The eye test can be a better indicator with these guys.

Wilson and Prescott arent even close. Prescott has a lot more to work with too. Honestly I dont think much of Prescott. He aint bad but he doesnt belong in the top tier conversation. I dont get why people keep putting him up there. Hes closer to Derek Carr than any the top tier guys, but he plays for the Cowboys so thats worth a few extra points to some people.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DRM08

Yeah, I got no problem if people rank Wilson at #1. He is really great, and was underrated during the Legion of Boom years. He has always shown a clutch factor even in his early years.

I had a co-worker who is a Cowboys fan try to claim that Prescott will end up the same as Wilson because their stats were pretty much the same on paper for their first few years in the league. But I don't see the clutch factor with Prescott, whereas you did see it with Wilson very early in his career and it has continued to this day.

The stat sheet can be very misleading, especially nowadays where everyone seems to have a 100+ passer rating. The eye test can be a better indicator with these guys.

No offense to you my good sir, but when i hear "clutch factor" I immediately tune said person out.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by Brody Wa

The Steelers def looked petty damn good... but I don’t they can stop Helaire,Kelce,Hill,Watkins and Mahomes. And they played the Giants which isn’t saying much.

Their philosophy isn't going to be trying to stop all of those guys, there's no way. It'll be trying to get to Mahomes before he can do anything.

That's what makes Mahomes dangerous, just the way he can run around and throw off his back foot. But if you're going to want a chance to beat Mahomes you'll definitely need a pass rush. The Steelers pass rush is fierce.

[DRM08]

Originally Posted by O.city

No offense to you my good sir, but when i hear "clutch factor" I immediately tune said person out.

You don’t believe it’s a real thing? I think 3rd down stats is maybe the best way to look at all these guys in an era where general passing stats are heavily inflated compared to earlier decades.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DRM08

You don’t believe it’s a real thing? I think 3rd down stats is maybe the best way to look at all these guys in an era where general passing stats are heavily inflated compared to earlier decades.

I think the idea that some people get better in big situations is a myth.

But the idea that many get worse isn't.

So I'd say it's less about guys like Wilson and Mahomes being 'clutch' than it is guys like Dak and Rivers being choke-artists.

One could argue it's 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other, I suppose.

[DRM08]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I think the idea that some people get better in big situations is a myth.

But the idea that many get worse isn't.

So I'd say it's less about guys like Wilson and Mahomes being 'clutch' than it is guys like Dak and Rivers being choke-artists.

One could argue it's 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other, I suppose.

I think that's true for sure.

But there are also examples of elite guys stepping up later in games after looking pretty awful earlier in the game. Mahomes in the Super Bowl is an example. He's got other games like that during his career as well. I've seen a lot of comments on here about how Elway would do that to the Chiefs. Play like crap for 3 quarters and then do incredible stuff in the 4th quarter to win the game.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DRM08

I think that's true for sure.

But there are also examples of elite guys stepping up later in games after looking pretty awful earlier in the game. Mahomes in the Super Bowl is an example. He's got other games like that during his career as well. I've seen a lot of comments on here about how Elway would do that to the Chiefs. Play like crap for 3 quarters and then do incredible stuff in the 4th quarter to win the game.

Shooters shoot. Great players may not be great all the time, but sooner or later they'll get to their level.

Mahomes didn't take his game to a higher level in the Super Bowl - he simply got to his regular level of performance.

Same general argument really - players will eventually play to the back of their baseball card. A great player over any long enough timeline will eventually start playing great. It isn't that they 'rose to the occasion' is just that they're really damn good and eventually were able to prove it.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I think the idea that some people get better in big situations is a myth.

But the idea that many get worse isn't.

So I'd say it's less about guys like Wilson and Mahomes being 'clutch' than it is guys like Dak and Rivers being choke-artists.

One could argue it's 6 in one hand, half dozen in the other, I suppose.

Yeah this was always a big topic in baseball with the increase in analytics, and I always disagreed with people saying there's no such thing as clutch. There may not be such a thing as clutch, but there's no way you could have watched any sports the last 30 years and think there aren't guys who struggle with pressure in big moments.

[DRM08]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Shooters shoot. Great players may not be great all the time, but sooner or later they'll get to their level.

Mahomes didn't take his game to a higher level in the Super Bowl - he simply got to his regular level of performance.

Same general argument really - players will eventually play to the back of their baseball card. A great player over any long enough timeline will eventually start playing great. It isn't that they 'rose to the occasion' is just that they're really damn good and eventually were able to prove it.

Very good points.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by tk13

Yeah this was always a big topic in baseball with the increase in analytics, and I always disagreed with people saying there's no such thing as clutch. There may not be such a thing as clutch, but there's no way you could have watched any sports the last 30 years and think there aren't guys who struggle with pressure in big moments.

Yeah - and even the guys who struggle are a little bit overblown in how they're criticized.

For the vast majority of them, it's a sample size issue and a lot of that stuff cleans up as the sample size gets bigger and the signal/noise drops. You'll see less and less of those arguments as post-season fields get bigger and bigger and guys have more opportunities to amass 40 or 50 or 60 post-season games and can eventually get to their natural level.

But historically a lot of guys only got a handful of cracks at it and if they didn't come through - that was that. They were chokers rather than guys who simply never got the sample size to even out their performance.

[Megatron96]

I don't know, fellas. I've seen people come up big too many times to discount the idea of the "clutch" phenomena. Hell, I've experienced being "in the zone" dozens of times in a variety of situations since I was just a kid, which I would classify as being "clutch."

Just off the top of my head, I can think of multiple times I saw the clutch gene/factor on full display.

MJ, who was a 32% 3-point shooter, hitting 7 in a row.

Efren Reyes just about every time he played a big match. The man reeked of clutch-ness.

Bob Munden hitting a 6-inch target at 700 yards with a .44 mag S&W 629. Stock iron sights.

Joe Cool a bunch of times, but specifically, against the Bengals back in '89, down 3, 3:00 on the clock, from his own 7 or 8 yard-line. Goes 8 for 8 or something like that, 93 yards, throws the game-winning TD to Taylor with 20 something seconds left on the clock, and never broke a sweat. And his overall playoff stats speak for themselves.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah - and even the guys who struggle are a little bit overblown in how they're criticized.

For the vast majority of them, it's a sample size issue and a lot of that stuff cleans up as the sample size gets bigger and the signal/noise drops. You'll see less and less of those arguments as post-season fields get bigger and bigger and guys have more opportunities to amass 40 or 50 or 60 post-season games and can eventually get to their natural level.

But historically a lot of guys only got a handful of cracks at it and if they didn't come through - that was that. They were chokers rather than guys who simply never got the sample size to even out their performance.

And then there's Rivers. LOL

Philip Rivers in the last 10 years in the final 6 minutes of one-score games: 50.2%, 9 TDs, 23 INTs, 53.5 passer rating.