Underrated and unappreciated

[NYSPORTS98]

Instead of posting the team's W/L record why not post his individual stats?

Not everybody does backflips or evaluated players soley on statstics. If that were the case, Troy Aikman wouldn't be in the HOF.

[Giants #1 Fan]

if Adrian Peterson doesnt win the MVP, he'll be both the bets back in the NFL and underrated

Tony Romo MVP

[Giants #1 Fan]

Talk to me after he comes back and wins this thing

This has to be the biggest fail since Twilight dark moon

[behnke2017]

I love when Yosef opens his mouth and looks stupid

[ChaseHamels]

What. A. Loser.

[BDawk4Prez]

Is MTM on suicide watch?

[Riveramk2]

You guys are ****ing laugh jobs. You wouldn't know the definition of choke of it bit you.

Talk about in denial

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

[WadeKobe]

Talk about in denial

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

The fact is that there is no legitimate standard for determining if it's a choke job. Leverage is given way too much credit, when (1) there is no evidence for it in these scenarios and (2) it isn't applied consistently.

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.

[Mr Haha]

The fact is that there is no legitimate standard for determining if it's a choke job. Leverage is given way too much credit, when (1) there is no evidence for it in these scenarios and (2) it isn't applied consistently.

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.)

[Mr Haha]

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.

[Mr Haha]

That third pick was Sanchez-esque.

[WadeKobe]

[/B]

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.

There has been no valid methodology for applying psychology as a broad field to specific individuals in a sport, and assumed high-leverage situations. So, no, the fact that Psychology as a broad science is legitimate means absolutely nothing here. It doesn't stand to reason that one man is better at handling the pressure than the other, because that isn't a basic axiom of psychology. You use that line all the time about psychology, but you don't seem to understand that it doesn't assume what you assume. Psychology would tell us that it is a mere possibility, nothing else. Psychology also wouldn't take for granted the high-pressure nature of the situation itself.

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.

[Mr Haha]

There has been no valid methodology for applying psychology as a broad field to specific individuals in a sport, and assumed high-leverage situations. So, no, the fact that Psychology as a broad science is legitimate means absolutely nothing here. It doesn't stand to reason that one man is better at handling the pressure than the other, because that isn't a basic axiom of psychology. You use that line all the time about psychology, but you don't seem to understand that it doesn't assume what you assume. Psychology would tell us that it is a mere possibility, nothing else. Psychology also wouldn't take for granted the high-pressure nature of the situation itself.

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.

If you can't see the difference between two SB winning drives, plus countless other elimination game heroics, versus Mr. 1-7, then you are missing an undeniable trend.

Sorry that you're wrong, again. It must suck to be so wrong about so much, so loudly.

[Mr Haha]

Way to go PSD's Tony Romo.

L.O.L.

[ChaseHamels]

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.