Long-time fans, tell me why I ought to be excited about Branch.

[emoney_33]

You forget to mention Super Bowls XXXVIII (10 receptions, including the last minute, game winning FG set up while getting absolutely blown up by a DB) and XXXIX (11 receptions and MVP).

Branch = Big Game Pressure WR.

I didn't forget to mention them, I was giving examples of how those games might NEVER have happened and showing that in some EQUALLY important games Branch has not produced.

 

[Joker]

Bingo.

To Jsn, I would say that so much of a QB-WR connection is based on timing and chemistry. From day one when Branch arrived in 2002, Brady crowed about how comfortable it felt throwing to him.

Timing and chemistry.

Deion Branch will never stretch the field like Moss. He is a deep slant guy, not a post pattern or long bomb guy. He is a between the 20's WR, forget about him in the redzone. Why he makes sense for this team right now is the 3 headed monster TE squad gives them the redzone firepower. Moss, while still great, in the redzone was almost a redundancy - - we have monsters to throw the high pitches to in the redzone.

I also agree with the folks (IcyPatriot, etc.) who say this will open up the playbook alot. Between 2002-2005, most of the O "trickeration" plays involved Branch. Get ready for some more imagination on the O, it'll be fun with Branch and Edelman in at the same time.

For that very reason, I would say that it wasn't the Moss trade that caused the Branch acquisition, but the Faulk injury.

Interesting take...I agree for the most part...not so sure about the Faulk part but I haven't heard or read anything from the Patriots that would dispute it either.

BTW, I see you passed the 10,000 post mark....I think Ian should have a special designation to mark such events....like a Mauderator Emeritus icon or something...:rocker:

 

[JFK]

He and Brady share the same brain?
How many 1000yrds has he has with Brady? I think we are overrating Branch here.

 

[shmessy]

I agree, and just because I don't believe that clutchness is a skill doesn't mean I dislike Branch or anyone else. Brady is one of my favorite players of all time, he has a lifetime pass from me (unless he ever joined the jets) but even he is not magically clutch. .......in the Carolina SB with 7:38 left, up by 7 and a chance to "seal" the game. He brought them to a winning 41 yard field goal.......

.....caught by whom?

 

[aluminum seats]

The belief in clutch is more a byproduct of the human brain's necessity to rationalize everything on the spot, as well as it's relatively "limited" ability to analyze so much data. Taking baseball as an example where the "clutch" human ability would show up and there are TONS AND TONS of data, there exists maybe 1 player amongst thousands that had higher performance in clutch situations vs. non-clutch situations.

If clutch were a "skill" it would be repeatable by definition. If it were consistently repeatable it would show up in the numbers. Mr. clutch himself (vinatieri) wasn't so clutch 2005 in Denver to make it a 1 score game in the 4th. Mr. clutch Tom Brady has equally great percentage numbers in the playoffs that he has in the regular season (slightly worse but not better).

Why was Delhomme less clutch than Brady in the 2003 SB?

It's not a question of rationalization, but objectively processing what you see.

There isn't really "tons and tons" of data in baseball, because those data sets that try to categorize "clutch"--eg, batting average in tie games in the seventh inning or later--don't capture the endless nuances (of situation, circumstance) that define a moment.

 

[emoney_33]

.....caught by whom?

Are you intentionally missing the point or do you believe that I claimed Brady and Branch have never done anything successful?

Vinatieri missed a 43 yarder in Denver in 2005, he wasn't guaranteed to hit the 41 yarder in the SB. None of Brady, Branch, or Adam had anything to do with Kasay putting them on the 40. It's likely that they never get close enough to attempt a FG if Kasay doesn't kick it out of bounds. Maybe Kasay's a choker or maybe he can't control WHEN he fails or succeeds only how often he fails or succeeds.

 

[RayClay]

I'd agree that underperforming in high-pressure situations is more rational than overperforming in high-pressure situations. One could define clutch as performing equally as well no matter the situation. How rampant choking is amongst professional athletes is not something I think I've ever seen in a study.

No, clutch players perform better in clutch situations. That doesn't mean they're always in synch, but it's a pretty quantifiable thing. I could name players with very long careers in various sports that perform demonstrably better under pressure, they have more focus, in the zone, every thing seems to move slower.

There really isn't much doubt about this IMO.

That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, or have years when they are not in synch.

That also doesn't mean players who have not been clutch, don't find themselves in that "zone" in one or two instances.

Playoff games, or one and done games to make playoffs, rank way over anything else, when it comes to clutch. I wouldn't bother considering others for comparison, because then you're tempted to change definitions to fit the situation.

 

[emoney_33]

It's not a question of rationalization, but objectively processing what you see.

Which the human brain is incapable of doing with any large amount of data. This point is not unique to football or sports, it's how the human brain works.

There isn't really "tons and tons" of data in baseball, because those data sets that try to categorize "clutch"--eg, batting average in tie games in the seventh inning or later--don't capture the endless nuances (of situation, circumstance) that define a moment.

It's impossible to please the clutch believers because they will always shrink it down to the tiniest sample size and use what happened as proof that it was somehow likely or meant to happen.

For instance Brady is "clutch" for driving 37 yards in 0:59 even though he had no effect on Kasay's kick that started him at the 40. Even though ~7 minutes before that he threw a crucial INT in the endzone in a clutch "situation" and "circumstance".

 

[RayClay]

It's not a question of rationalization, but objectively processing what you see.

There isn't really "tons and tons" of data in baseball, because those data sets that try to categorize "clutch"--eg, batting average in tie games in the seventh inning or later--don't capture the endless nuances (of situation, circumstance) that define a moment.

Look at Carl Yastrzemskis statistics in must win and playoff games compared to his long career. Pretty eye opening.

 

[shmessy]

Are you intentionally missing the point or do you believe that I claimed Brady and Branch have never done anything successful?

Vinatieri missed a 43 yarder in Denver in 2005, he wasn't guaranteed to hit the 41 yarder in the SB. None of Brady, Branch, or Adam had anything to do with Kasay putting them on the 40. It's likely that they never get close enough to attempt a FG if Kasay doesn't kick it out of bounds. Maybe Kasay's a choker or maybe he can't control WHEN he fails or succeeds only how often he fails or succeeds.

Certain players have disproportionately longer resumes of clutch game performances.

Perhaps you think it is mere coincidence or luck of the draw for a Vinatieri, Brady, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, David Ortiz.....and yes, Deion Branch.

All I know is that when the chips were down, in the nervous big games, Deion Branch tended to shine.

He was not one of those dominant September/October WR's who go into hibernation when the weather got cold or the playoffs start. Branch tended to get better when the pressure amped up.

 

[emoney_33]

No, clutch players perform better in clutch situations. That doesn't mean they're always in synch, but it's a pretty quantifiable thing. I could name players with very long careers in various sports that perform demonstrably better under pressure, they have more focus, in the zone, every thing seems to move slower.

Name them. And it's quantifiably proven that you are wrong.

Derek Jeter and Tom Brady both perform equally in the playoffs and regular season.

There really isn't much doubt about this IMO.

That doesn't mean they don't make mistakes, or have years when they are not in synch.

That goes against being clutch. Because being clutch means you succeed in that situation more often than you are used to. If you are failing at the SAME rate as you are used to failing in any other situation, that is NOT over performing.

That also doesn't mean players who have not been clutch, don't find themselves in that "zone" in one or two instances.

It's not a skill though, it's evidence of what HAPPENED.

Playoff games, or one and done games to make playoffs, rank way over anything else, when it comes to clutch. I wouldn't bother considering others for comparison, because then you're tempted to change definitions to fit the situation.

Brady's playoff numbers are slightly lower than his regular season numbers (comp %, TD %, INT %, Y/A).

 

[PatsWSB47]

Which the human brain is incapable of doing with any large amount of data. This point is not unique to football or sports, it's how the human brain works.



It's impossible to please the clutch believers because they will always shrink it down to the tiniest sample size and use what happened as proof that it was somehow likely or meant to happen.

For instance Brady is "clutch" for driving 37 yards in 0:59 even though he had no effect on Kasay's kick that started him at the 40. Even though ~7 minutes before that he threw a crucial INT in the endzone in a clutch "situation" and "circumstance".

I think it's clutch to drive a team to a winning field goal as time is running out even if you start off with decent field position.

I think it's even more clutch to to be able to put behind you the interception you threw just moments before and still drive down the field for a winning field goal.

 

[aluminum seats]

Which the human brain is incapable of doing with any large amount of data. This point is not unique to football or sports, it's how the human brain works.

It's impossible to please the clutch believers because they will always shrink it down to the tiniest sample size and use what happened as proof that it was somehow likely or meant to happen.

For instance Brady is "clutch" for driving 37 yards in 0:59 even though he had no effect on Kasay's kick that started him at the 40. Even though ~7 minutes before that he threw a crucial INT in the endzone in a clutch "situation" and "circumstance".

Hmmmmm. I think you're taking what we know about the human brain currently (amazingly little) and taking an intellectual stolen base in the process.

The human brain "is incapable of doing with large amounts of data?" I think we might not be able to describe the process of how we come to certain conclusions, but it doesn't mean they're inaccurate (see Malcolm Gladwell's Blink.)

It's not a question of shrinking the sample size, just the opposite. Point is, the complexity of "clutch" moments has too many moving parts to be easily quantifiable.

 

[RayClay]

Certain players have disproportionately longer resumes of clutch game performances.

Perhaps you think it is mere coincidence or luck of the draw for a Vinatieri, Brady, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, David Ortiz.....and yes, Deion Branch.

All I know is that when the chips were down, in the nervous big games, Deion Branch tended to shine.

He was not one of those dominant September/October WR's who go into hibernation when the weather got cold or the playoffs start. Branch tended to get better when the pressure amped up.

Bill Russell? lol

Seriously, I believe scientists have studied this and it's a physiological thing whereby a player gets so focused and calm that everything seems to slow down, including heartbeat, nerves etc., not unlike those meditating Yogi's

I think everyone has had that one basketball game where everything just swished, then went back to throwing bricks. these exceptional athletes train and will themselves into a stae where they can block out all distractions.

 

[Dutchmaster617]

I don't think you 'ought' to be excited much, longterm fans are praising him for things that won't show much, maybe in key moments but that is something we have to see. I have been a fan since long before he joined and I don't see the huge fascination, good depth addition? Sure but am I screaming in joy and dusting off his old jersey? Not really.

One thing I can say about him is he has great SB numbers, that will be something if we make it and need someone mentally ready for the pressure, I think of all the active multiple SB recievers (Wayne, Ward etc.) he probably has the best stats in the SB.

 

[PatsWSB47]

I won't mind it all that much if he's just adequate all year and winds up being SB MVP in the end

 

[RayClay]

Name them. And it's quantifiably proven that you are wrong.

Derek Jeter and Tom Brady both perform equally in the playoffs and regular season.



That goes against being clutch. Because being clutch means you succeed in that situation more often than you are used to. If you are failing at the SAME rate as you are used to failing in any other situation, that is NOT over performing.



It's not a skill though, it's evidence of what HAPPENED.



Brady's playoff numbers are slightly lower than his regular season numbers (comp %, TD %, INT %, Y/A).

Brady's in a team sport. three rings is the numbers that matter. If we had the lead and ran the ball, does that make what he did to win less clutch?

Try an individual sport like baseball if you just want to run numbers.

If he passed more and lost playoff games as a result, would that make him more clutch? 10-0 in his first ten playoffs.

 

[shmessy]

Bill Russell? lol

Seriously, I believe scientists have studied this and it's a physiological thing whereby a player gets so focused and calm that everything seems to slow down, including heartbeat, nerves etc., not unlike those meditating Yogi's

I think everyone has had that one basketball game where everything just swished, then went back to throwing bricks. these exceptional athletes train and will themselves into a stae where they can block out all distractions.

Precisely. Bill Russell is probably the greatest example of this ever.

Give me a Bill Russell type over a Wilt Chamberlain type any day and twice on Sundays!

 

[RayClay]

Precisely. Bill Russell is probably the greatest example of this ever.

Give me a Bill Russell type over a Wilt Chamberlain type any day and twice on Sundays!

And no stats to prove it. Russell probably scored less in the playoffs, because he knew feeding the other four was more efficient and left him free to play devastating defense.

Baseball is the only sport where clutch can be identified statistically.

take the Brady example again. In the season where he piled on regular season statistics, the team focus and strategy was flawed to the extent our offense was decimated when it counted and provided one of our least clutch performances ever.

Passing teams can win, but

Gaudy passing statistics ? clutch performance ? playoff success.

Rams, Colts, 2007 Pats.

 

[emoney_33]

Certain players have disproportionately longer resumes of clutch game performances.

Perhaps you think it is mere coincidence or luck of the draw for a Vinatieri, Brady, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, David Ortiz.....and yes, Deion Branch.

They were all great players in the regular season and they were all consistently great at what they did, not just in the playoffs.

All I know is that when the chips were down, in the nervous big games, Deion Branch tended to shine.

Which is false as I've already pointed out. He "shined" in 50% of playoff games in 2003/2004. He had 0 impact on Bennett bobbling the pass that likely allows the Titans to tie or win that game. Each playoff game is win or go home and thus equally important. Branch had good games in the regular season too. In 2004 we had the amazing season of Corey Dillon as well. Delhomme kept bringing his team back in the 4th quarter, Proehl had some big scores against us in 2 SBs.

He was not one of those dominant September/October WR's who go into hibernation when the weather got cold or the playoffs start. Branch tended to get better when the pressure amped up.

In 2003 his best producing months were in order:

November, September, December, October. He had 1 high producing game in almost every 4 game stretch including playoffs.

His best month in 05 was October, he missed a chunk of games early in 04.

He was a good receiver with a good rapport with a HOF QB. He didn't become a different or better receiver in the playoffs, the Patriots just got him in better situations and used his always existent talent to counteract what the defense was doing.