My apoligies, as I should have clarified "my" criteria. That's why I said I wanted to see the list, so I could see the situation and opponent. I want us to win and am not impressed by big moments against losing teams. I want to have confidence that we will be facing a quality opponent and I know my QB will get it done. I don't have that because that rarely has occured in those situations. When we needed to come back and get a score against the Saints 2 weeks ago, the thoughts in the back of my head weren't the instances where we drove the field on a team that won 5 games, but the instances where we were facing a quality opponent and something always seemed to go wrong. I hope I have done a better job of explaining my position. I understand yours as far as looking at a must win game and appreciate you taking the time to put the list together. But I don't see anything on the list to inspire me to have faith in Matt against good opponents. I think he is a good QB, not elite.
But the debate isn't whether he's better (or worse) than other QBs but whether he's able to pull-off a "clutch" drive - the document overwhelmingly proves that he can and has. Repeatedly.
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll find some way to say that one doesn't count, either. The evidence is all on the table now. What conclusions people draw from it at this point, I'm really not concerned with anymore. Go Matt and Go Texans.
You listed 10 games as legit (well, technically 9 - but I'm throwing in the Chiefs game as they went 10-6 and to the playoffs). Of those, they indisputably won 3 and lost 2 because of him. There was 1 they lost that should have been an indisputable win (Jets). And another loss (Chargers) in which... while he did throw a pick, it was 100% the WR's fault - a game that exists in a total gray area because he was robbed of an opportunity to finish it off (or fail to finish it off). So I'm going to give him a 4-2 record as a performer with a INC on the Charger game. This final category requires the open mind because it's trickier. Two of the games (Arizona and Indianapolis) featured huge Schaub mistakes that he overcame and was still able to put his team in position to tie the game as time expired. Isn't that something we *want* from our top QBs? Never mind they lost both - that was a component of others not executing pretty routine NFL assignments. He did his job. Others didn't. The other game (Baltimore) is one of those... I mean, there is no "close and late" situation without what was a truly breathtaking performance by him in the 4Q. The pick is absolutely on him - bad pass, etc. But......... I don't know if that pick alone invalidates how "clutch" he was in the 4Q. Two HUGE drives, big plays, a 2-point conversion........ So in 10 games against "legit" teams, he has 2 flat-out, awful games and another incomplete. Meaning he delievered in the other 7 games. Seven of 10 - I would argue that's a pretty impressive resume. He wasn't good in the 4Q of the Saints' game... but he did overcome that HUGE INT by driving his team back and putting up what were potentially the game-winning points. He handed the defense a lead with 4:13 remaining. I mean... if he was a consistent mess against good teams, would he have done even that? Doesn't his day pretty much end after the INT? I think he's being held to way too high a standard. Against good teams, in must-win games.... he has delivered far more often than not. It's common to draw a conclusion and remember only the instances that confirm that conclusion but that's not being open-minded, IMO.
i think we're all basically in agreement but just aren't able to agree on the definition of clutch. i think ric pinned it when he said schaub is just being held to too high of a standard. if the only way schaub can prove his clutchness to you is to consistently (i.e., more often than not) lead the team to comeback wins over great teams, then yes, he isn't clutch. but please tell us who does fit this definition? based on the way you are defining clutch, tom brady and peyton manning are the only guys who can really make the list in my book. i understand that you aren't hating, just criticizing, but it's the kind of criticism that won't accomplish anything because like others said, there's only a handful of guys better than schaub and we aren't getting any of them anytime soon. will i take tom brady over matt schaub? in a heartbeat. so what can we do about that? nothing. picking on schaub because he isn't as clutch as tom brady is like picking on brian cushing because he isn't clay matthews. at some point you have to appreciate what we have because nobody can assemble a dream team.
Thanks. And here's a good example of that: No coach, QB, et al, throws in that situation. None, Not a single one, elite or otherwise. You're in FG range without having to advance the ball a single yard and you can drain their timeouts and make them score a TD while driving the length of the field. When I mention too high a standard - there ya go.
Icehouse, the basic point is that Matt has come up short in some games, but he's placed the texans in winning positions more. Now, whether or not the texans ended up winning that game is a different story because there were cases when either the defense failed to get a stop or there was a missed FG. Hell, if Vinatieri had missed those FGs to give the Pats their superbowl wins would you still not give credit to brady? It seems you are being too selective and making and exception with every valid argument point, either because you don't understand the situation fully or you are just not willing to concede the argument.
Two Minutes left in the game. The Opponent has a playoff worthy defense What QB do you want? Who do you trust? Brady [esp if they on the Tape] Rivers Brees Roethlisberger Rodgers Manning P I think the biggest thing about being 'clutch' is playing within yourself. I think Peyton Manning can be Farve-ish and try to thread needles and get too big headed and end up losing games where a simpler play would have worked I think Schaub can be like that but I blame more of his short comings on Kubiak than on Schaub himself Rocket River
I repeat, Aaron Rodgers has only beat a team via 4th quarter comeback one time since the first start of his career. And they were sitting all their starters.
that doesn't mean they never trailed in the 4th. Look, the point is clear and well substantiated if one is reasonable enough to see.
The only way I'm being selective is by narrowing down the examples to winning teams. I'm using winning teams because that seems to be the best way to define a team as good or not. I'm concerned about how he performs in those situations. I'm not impressed with being clutch against bad teams, although I do recognize those examples on the list. But it's funny that most of the examples against good teams show exactly what I am criticizing him for. Do you deny that? I'm saying the examples look pretty shoddy against good teams. It seems like you and Ric are the ones being selective by taking his "clutch" performances against bad teams and completely dismissing the mistakes against the good ones. Address those. If being clutch against scrubs gives you confidence that he can do it against non scrubs, even though the proof says otherwise, more power to you. But at least you can admit the proof says otherwise. Ric, where are you getting 10 from? Most of those games were against bad squads. I'm almost certain the majority of good squads on the list ended with a loss and a critical Schaub mistake. My apologies for not beings direct as possible and noting the concerns were against good teams..the kind of teams we have to beat to be considered a contending team. I thought that was a given in a discussion about being clutch. We didn't become "clutch city" until we stepped things up against top notch teams on the way to a title run, right? Look at Dwight Howard as another example. He can dominate but often struggles against other good bigs that can contain him 1-1. Would you list him as elite like Shaq or Dream based on him dominating a league of scrub bigs, when the proof shows he takes a L and isn't as effective when he has to see a legit frontline (look at the playoff losses)? When folks say he can be contained 1-1 how would I look listing all the games where he is dominating scrub centers, and dismissing the times he sees the Bos or LA frontline and gets contained? I'm only mentioning this to highlight why I'm not putting as much emphasis on being clutch against losing teams as you, especially when the evidence is do bad against the good ones.*
I know Donkey I know....but what I have found out is you can not expect a reasonable conversation when you are talking about fandom. Some people are going to defend their team regardless of whather the discussion has merit. Nothing wrong with that, it is what it is.... DD
I've already broken this down for you: 1. October 12, 2008 Miami Icehouse: They finished 11-5. Legit! 2. October 11, 2009 @ Arizona Icehouse: They finished 10-6. 3. November 8, 2009 Indianapolis Icehouse: They finished 14-2 4. November 29, 2009 Indianapolis Icehouse: Another perfect example. 5. January 3, 2010 New England Icehouse: Legit, as NE finished 10-6. 6. November 7, 2010 San Diego Icehouse: They finished 13-3. 7. November 21, 2010 @ New York Jets Icehouse: They finished 11-5. 8. December 2, 2010 @ Philadelphia Icehouse: They finished 11-5. 9. December 13, 2010 Baltimore Icehouse: They finished 9-7. And then I added: 10. October 17, 2010 Kansas City They finished 10-6 and made the playoffs. Combined record of the 10 teams: 113-47. I think they undoubtedly match your criteria. And of those 10, he uniformly failed in a "close and late" situation in just 2 of those 10 games (second Colt game; Eagles). We have; repeatedly. In 8 of the 10 games matching your criteria, he undeniably made clutch, game-winning plays. Repeatedly. Even in games where there was undeniable failure (Arizona, Baltimore) - you cannot deny that prior or post error, he made huge plays, in close and late situations. And, btw - if you're prone to be overwhelmed by a moment, the opponent is irrelevant. They can make the task more difficult, sure - but any degree of choking is almost universally internal - you either rise to the occassion or shrink from it. So those games against "bad" teams are absolutely relevant and help paint a larger picture of Schaub repeatedly not being overwhelmed by crucial moments. If, as you suppose, he shrank, we'd see evidence of it throughout his career, opponent be damned.
