"We have been watching and waiting, but I wouldn't say we intend to continue to do that. I think you watch and wait to try and assess a situation and act accordingly. It might involve more waiting. It might involve moving in one direction or another. We've done plenty of watching and waiting. If we can move in a particular direction, we might do that."
Sandy Alderson: 2011.
I love when Yosef opens his mouth and looks stupid
What. A. Loser.
Is MTM on suicide watch?
To some, he was just a boy. A boy who played football, a football player that grew to be a man. A man that took over a city, a city that he made his own, a city that stands behind him in hopes of becoming one of that cities all-time greats. To some, 2013 was a fluke. To some, he can't do it again. To some, he got lucky.
To us though, to the Philly faithful, that QB is Nick Foles. To us, that's our QB.
Talk about in denialOriginally Posted by WadeKobe:24919110
If down 3 with the ball with 3 minutes left and having all 3 of your timeouts at your disposal and you throw a third interception on a swing pass IN COVERAGE with your season and a playoff birth on the line. if thats not a choke job Than i dont know what is
First Sim League Title!
I know, I've already used my brain and logic too much for most posters, but I just don't give a **** what anyone else things. I'll explain it and move on.
(1) If the Cowboys are already out of contention, or if the Cowboys already locked up a playoff spot, and the same exact game was had by Romo with the same exact outcome, it wouldn't be considered a "choke". It'd just be a bad game. Yet, there is no methodology for concluding the game was anything more than a bad game. That is to say, there is no methodology for coming to the determination that leverage caused the poor performance. It's simply assumed given a media narrative. It's a choke because of the situation he was in, and nothing else. However, the narrative would have us believe that the performance was due to the situation he was in, without establishing a methodology for proposing that such is the case.
So, as I stated in (1) leverage is given too much credit without legitimate evidence/methodology for determining the credit due to the leverage.
(2) It is a product of circumstance and the credit given to leverage is not applied consistently. If another QB, in another game, not the final game of the year, had a poor game in a must-win game, no one says a word about "choking", especially if they aren't a "choker" QB, or if they're "clutch". Take, for example, Eli Manning's Week 16 game against the Baltimore Ravens. It was a must-win for them. They controlled their own destiny, and all they had to do was win out. Yet, Eli threw 4 INT and gave Baltimore the game, all but killing NYG playoff chances.
But that wasn't a choke. Why? Because it wasn't the last game of the year, and because Eli is "clutch".
The concept of "clutch" and "choke" in the NFL is a product of:
(1) Leverage being given more credit than it deserves, without a valid methodology for determining it
(2) Leverage not being applied consistently
(3) Small sample sizes.
It's nonsense. If you ask me, throwing 4 INT in a game you need to win is just as much of a "choke" as anything Romo has ever done. But we won't talk about that.
I disagree. Eli's performance against Baltimore was a choke job. It was a game the Giants needed. Not an elimination game (we all know his history in those types of games compared to Romo's, and since the science of psychology is, in fact, legitimate, it stands to reason that one man is better than handling the heaviest pressure than the other), but a game he needed to perform at a high level in, nonetheless. Still it's difficult to speak of a man who has led two SB winning drivings as a "choker." (see where I put the period, WVK? INSIDE the quotes. Learn how to punctuate smart guy.)
Last edited by Mr Haha; 12-31-2012 at 12:54 PM.
This is all a symptom of a larger sickness for some though: the failure to see what is plainly before them, and to seek out obscure and contrived numbers to try to convince themselves otherwise.
That third pick was Sanchez-esque.
But you've proven incapable of deep, critical thought on this subject for a long time. I'm not going to waste my time with you, here.
Last edited by Mr Haha; 12-31-2012 at 12:48 PM.
Way to go PSD's Tony Romo.
Enough with this psycho-babble crap. The guy BLEW it. He had a chance to win the game and threw a horrendous interception in a critical portion of the game. You can call it choking or any other adjective you want to use. Either way he had a passer rating of 55 and failed again in crucial spots.
You can throw ten dollar words out all day to make yourself feel better but it won't change the fact that the guy does not perform well in big games.