Just wondering how Pats nation feels about the ability to come up "clutch". Do you think there is actually such thing as clutch? Or do you think that it is merely a lot of hoopla about a very small sample pool. For example, Tom Brady was considered highly "clutch" in his first three Super Bowls and not as "clutch" during the last two. However, there was very little that was different about Brady's actual play. In all five Super Bowls, he's been cool in the pocket, thrown accurate passes, and taken what the defense has given him. He may have gotten too much credit for the first three, and his legacy will probably receive too much blame for the last two. But the bottom line is that every SB was decided by 3-4 points, and the law of averages suggests that 3-2 or 2-3 is a likely outcome. Joe Montana is considered the most "clutch" quarterback in NFL history, but in his third Super Bowl against the Bengals, he threw a sure interception that was dropped by a Bengals defender just before he threw the game winner. Had Montana thrown that same pass 10 times, it is probably intercepted 8 times. Montana is known as great SB quarterback, and he was, but the opponents were often inferior, and two of his games were blowouts. If you put Montana in five Super Bowls that would all be decided by 3 points, what do you think his record would be? Likewise, if Eli Manning only plays in two and is 2-0, is he really one of the most "clutch" QBs in NFL history, or merely a guy who wasn't good enough to get to more than 2? Is he more clutch than Brady, or just a product of luck within a small sample size. If you needed a quarterback to play in 10 Super Bowls, would you take Eli Manning (considered clutch) or Peyton Manning (considered un-clutch.)??? This extends beyond football and into other sports. Although Derek Jeter is considered "clutch", his postseason batting average is not higher than his regular season batting average. The difference is that in some crucial moments, he has made some memorable hits that stick with us. But he's also struck out in key situations many times. Alex Rodriguez is considered "un-clutch"- yet if he played as many postseason games as Jeter, wouldn't he get his share of game winning hits and have a batting average close to his career reg. season? In the NBA, a recent study showed that although star players are known for being "clutch", nearly all of them have lower shooting percentages with the game on the line, including Kobe Bryant. This was due to taking lower percentage shots, but the point was that we tend to think of players as clutch and choker, and then we tend to ignore evidence to the contrary once the assumption is made. Michael Jordan missed a ton of game winners, but we don't really think about those because he made the big ones in the big games, particularly the last Utah game- but did he make most of those shots because he was clutch, or because he was great? It is something that I think about often. What are your thoughts? How much is clutch and how much is luck?