Any doubts about CC Sabathia's ability in the clutch should have been squashed last night

Has CC silenced his detractors?

It was not too long ago that Carsten Charles Sabathia was perceived as a choker.  Some maybe still believe it.  After his laughable performance against the Boston Red Sox in the 2007 ALCS, it was hard to argue with this perception.  It didn't help CC's case when he was traded to the Brewers, posted ridiculous numbers, yet in his lone playoff game, he was shelled.  In the regular season for the Brew Crew, he posted a sparkling 1.65 ERA, 1.00 WHIP, a 128:25 K:BB ratio, and an 11-2 record in 17 starts.  He also tallied seven complete games, three complete game shutouts, and averaged nearly eight innings a start.

In the 2008 NLDS against the Phillies, he was shelled for 5 ERs in 3.2 innings.  That performance would ramp up the "CC is a choker bandwagon" to level orange.  What many continued to overlook was just how much the Brewers overworked Sabathia.  His last three starts were on three days rest.  Nope, not just one, but three!  Averaging 111 pitches per start.  So just maybe, just maybe, CC's collapse in the playoffs wasn't entirely his fault.  But that's just not a good enough excuse for his detractors.

And oh boy would those naysayers come out in droves when he signed on to play with the boys in pinstripes.  Just no way could this have been a good signing for the Yankees.  They were signing a choker they said.  CC would be a failure they said.  CC proceeded to have the best postseason run of his career in 2009.  Tag-teaming along with A-Rod to lead the Yankees to a 27th World Series title.  Briefly shutting up those critics.  It wasn't just that he was dominant, but he was doing it in one of the most gargantuan markets in sports.  But was it really surprising?  Is it that shocking that a perennial Cy Young contender put forth together a great postseason run?  At some point you knew it would happen.  The "choker" label is one of the biggest myths in sports.  A pitcher of Sab's caliber will simply get it done when it counts eventually.  It's part of the ups and downs of being a major league pitcher.  Sometimes they will dominate, and sometimes they will get shelled.  It happens to even the best of them.  Bad games just unfortunately happened too many times in the early part of CC's career.

But that wouldn't stop defamers for getting right back on CC's case in 2010.  He had a pretty average playoff run, and the Yanks would fall to the Texas Rangers in the 2010 ALCS, and people would begin to question the legitimacy his 2009 postseason run.  Maybe some of that criticism was fair.  Looking at his career up to this point, he only had one great playoff run, two horrible playoff runs, an okay start in his rookie year, and an average playoff run.  I guess you can add 2011 as another average playoff run(or horrible depending on how you define it).  Which brings us to this postseason.

If you had your doubts about CC's ability in crucial situations, you should no longer bet against him.  The man has the ability to make big pitches when it matters most.  He showed in the past that he could be hittable in playoff games, but that doesn't mean he was a "choker."  He has shown in these playoffs against a pesky Os team, that he can make big pitches and get big outs.  Just how big was he in Game 1?  The Os were 22-8 at home in August and September combined.  Winning there is no easy feat.

After giving up two runs in the bottom of the 3rd, CarCharles would settle down and pitch well.  When the bottom of the sixth came, CC got in a little trouble due to a Jeter error.  This got the crowd in it, and CC needed to get an out to put a stop to a possible rally and he would do so.  The biggest obstacle CC would face would be in the bottom of the 8th inning after a leadoff double from J.J. Hardy with the Os best hitters coming up to the plate.  Game is tied 2-2, and at this point, giving up a run is absolutely critical.  CC gets a big punchout of Adam Jones.  Gets Wieters to foul out.  Then gets Mark Reynolds to groundout.  Hardy never being moved from second base.  The Yanks would go on to break the tie while scoring 5 runs in the top of the 9th to give CC and the Yanks the win.

His biggest performance would come in last night's Game 5 elimination game.  Where he would prove to be absolutely dominant.  The Os provided little resistance for much of the night, that was until the top of the 8th inning.  Sabathia's biggest haters just knew he would squander that game away.  There was no way the Os would be denied.  A storybook season like this just couldn't possibly end on this night.  After the Os would single, walk, then single again to bring Wieters across home plate, CC would get himself in some trouble.  He would strikeout the stalwart Mark Reynolds, and Andino would follow with an infield hit to load the bases.  Score 3-1, bases loaded, one out.  This is when CC would make some of the biggest pitches of his career.  There is no room for error.  A wild pitch, flyball out, or hard groundout makes it a one run game.  A single ties the game.  Anything more could be disastrous.  CC would strikeout the nettlesome Nate McLouth, and then would face J.J. Hardy for the final out.  The same J.J. Hardy who nearly sparked a rally in CC's first start in Baltimore with the leadoff double in the bottom of the 8th.  The same J.J. Hardy that would knock in the game-winning run the night before in a 13-inning marathon.  He would weakly ground out to Derek Jeter and CC got out of the jam with a nearly flawless pitching display.  If that wasn't enough, CC would come right back out and finish the game with a clean 9th inning securing an ALCS berth for the Yankees.

Sorry boys but "chokers" simply don't perform at the level that CC displayed last night.  Getting big outs when he had to have them.  Making big pitches when they needed to be made.  He was simply flawless when the bases were loaded with only one out.  You can't say anymore that CC doesn't have the ability to be clutch.  You can't tell me he's a "choker."  There will be good times and bad times for any starting pitcher in the playoffs, but quality starters like CC will be good in playoff games far more often than they will be bad.

Dallas Cowboys vs. Baltimore Ravens

The Ravens and Cowboys will square off this Sunday at 1 PM ET.  The venue being the MT&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore, Maryland.  The Cowboys look to keep pace with the Giants and Eagles in the NFC East whereas the Ravens look to keep their comfortable lead in the AFC North and move to 5-1.

Outlook

The Cowboys look to get that two-week old bad taste out of their mouths after losing to the Chicago Bears 34-18 on Monday Night Football in embarrassing fashion.  Although losing in such a way is typical of these Romo-led Cowboys.

The Ravens look to keep momentum going before a huge showdown next week in Houston.  These aren't your little brother's Ravens defensively, but they still force turnovers(4th in the league in takeaways) and keep the other team from scoring(17.8 ppg) after 5 games. The Ravens will try like hell not to overlook these Cowboys seeing as they face the 5-0 Houston Texans next week.  But it's hardly something you would expect out of a John Harbaugh team.  Oh, and it just so happens that these Ravens rarely lose at home.  So to expect a letdown here would be unwise despite what lies ahead of them in Houston.

Keys to a Cowboy victory:

• They must force multiple turnovers.  A big key to winning road games against great teams in this league requires forcing them out of their comfort zone and into multiple mistakes.
• Conversely, they also must protect the football themselves.  The Cowboys cannot afford Tony Turnover to show up this week. 
• The running game must get back on its feet.  It has disappeared since the win in MetLife Stadium against the defending champs.
• No circus music plays.  I don't think anybody can describe this Romo-led Cowboy team in one sentence better than Stephen A. Smith can.  "The Cowboys are an accident waiting to happen."  That's essentially what I'm saying here.  I call them circus music plays.  Eliminate those plays, and they'll stand a fighting chance.

Keys to a Raven victory:

• Feed Ray Rice to set up playaction.
• Feed off the crowd's energy.
• Keep the Cowboys' running game in check.  They keep the Cowboys one-dimensional, their offense becomes highly predictable.
• Let the Cowboys beat themselves.  That shouldn't be too hard to do.  Minimize their own mistakes, and let the Cowboys implode.  It's what the Cowboys always do.

Key players for the Cowboys:

• Jay Ratliff- It's hard to believe the Cowboys have the #4 ranked defense in the NFL when Ratliff has yet to play a game this season.  He obviously makes their defense better.  He provides them with a rare versatility from the nose tackle position.  The ability to pressure the QB from up the middle as well as stopping the run.  The Cowboys desperately need Ratliff because although the defense has been stout, they haven't been able to generate much pressure up the middle to collapse the pocket.  Josh Brent filled in admirably in his absence, but he's simply not Jay Ratliff.
• Miles Austin- If Miles Austin has a big game, the Ravens are gonna have problems.  He is the best weapon the Cowboys have.  Witten hasn't been Witten so far this season and Dez cannot be trusted to properly run routes.  If Miles Austin has a big day, the Cowboys have a great chance of pulling off the upset.
• Brandon Carr- Carr was paid handsomely to improve the secondary.  To his credit, he has done that.  But after a spotty game against Brandon Marshall, he needs to bounce back and show why the Cowboys gave him that contract.  It also wouldn't hurt to get an interception.  If he got an interception, it would be the first for anyone in this secondary.  They may have the #1 pass defense in football so far, but you wouldn't think it given a player in the secondary has yet to catch an interception.  This Sunday would be a good time to start making plays on the ball for Carr and the rest of that secondary.

Key players for the Ravens:

• Ed Reed-  With an average secondary, Reed will need to be his typical self.  Romo and his receivers aren't always on the same page, but there is no denying the Cowboys' receivers are talented.  Ed Reed will need to help keep the big plays to a minimum for a pass defense that is ranked 23rd in the NFL.
• Haloti Ngata- To say the Cowboys have a suspect offensive line would be an understatement.  The fact of the matter is, the Ravens haven't generated much of a pass rush with the absence of Terrell Suggs so far this season.  They have to get creative to generate pressure.  So it is key that Ngata has a big game.  He doesn't need to get sacks, but collapsing the interior of the Cowboys offensive line and forcing Romo out of the pocket to allow blitzers to get to him will be big. As well as helping keep the Cowboys' running game in check.
• Lardarius Webb- The Ravens love to play Webb all over the field.  That will be key to stopping a guy like Miles Austin.  Austin is the Cowboys' best route runner and he can take his routes all over the field.  If Webb can keep him in check, the Cowboys' offense will have trouble moving the football.  Webb is also a great run defender for a cornerback.  He isn't afraid to make the tackle, so he will be key in helping stop the run as well.

Prediction:

I love my Cowboys, but it's hard to trust them to pull this one out.  My gut is telling me this game will be close, and the Cowboys will have a chance to win in the end.  But the Cowboys will probably make key mistakes and the Ravens will capitalize off of them.  The Ravens are also at home so it's tough to bet against them in this one.  Being good but not good enough is a microcosm of these new age Cowboys, and that will show Sunday.  I say the Ravens win 23-17 even though I'm cringing as I type this.

The NFL is upon us

Football on Sunday is back. I talk about the joys of NFL Sunday. There is nothing better. Which NFL Sunday morning show do you like to watch? Fox, CBS, or ESPN? Are you ready for some football?  For more read here.

2013 NBA Fantasy Basketball Projections

Fantasy Basketball projections for the 2012-13 season.  A look at the top 100 players and their full projections for the upcoming season.  Includes turnovers.  For more, read here.

If the Yankees did what the Dodgers did, they'd get criticized

I applaud what the Dodgers are doing.  They are trying to win now.  That was made clear after landing Hanley Ramirez from the Miami Marlins, and Shane Victorino from the Philadelphia Phillies.  But no, they wouldn't stop there.  They made yet another splash trade with the Boston Red Sox.  You can't really blame the Dodgers.  They are going all in.  Similar to how the Angels are going all in with the signing of Pujols and C.J. Wilson, and trading for Zack Greinke.

There is nothing wrong with going for it all, even if it requires spending money or taking on a lot of money.  This is what brings me to my point.  Had the New York Yankees did what the Dodgers did this season, they'd be getting criticized to no end.  Some would even go as far as bringing up "baseball needs a salary cap" discussions again.  The fact of the matter is, even though the Yanks have had one of the highest payrolls in baseball in the last decade, it has only translated to one World Series title.  So what is this notion that the Yanks just buy titles?  That argument has always been a complete fallacy.  It sounds like sour grapes to me.

Those high payrolls may translate to many playoff appearances, but it isn't buying World Series titles.  Besides that, the Dodgers, Angels, Phillies, etc. have gotten off clean in the past few years.  They've all assembled rosters with high payrolls, and there hasn't bee much criticism about it.  Yet, when the Yankees pay CC Sabathia and Mark Teixeira 20 million dollars a year, tantrums ensue.  Where I come from, that is called hypocrisy, my friends.  I can understand that the Yankees are not a likeable team, but that doesn't mean all objectivity and logicality should fly out the window when it comes to criticizing them.

If you want to criticize them, criticize them for having a high payroll and only winning one World Series title in the last decade.  Don't criticize them because they choose to spend an exorbitant amount of money on putting a winning product on the field.  Every team does it when they have the assets.  Just see the Dodgers, Phillies, and Angels.  The difference is, the Yankees' organization always has these type of assets because they are a cash cow.

Why is USC ranked #1? The AP Top 25 is terrible.

Am I missing something here?  Is this 2005?  Why on earth is this condom garbage ranked #1?  The Pac-12 is a garbage conference.  How many more times does an SEC school have to win the BCS title?  And people say the SEC is overrated?  What is this crap with USC?  So because Barkley is coming back, this team deserves to be #1 in the AP poll?  Who exactly did they beat last year besides Oregon?  And they nearly coughed up a 24-point lead in the game.  They were lucky that a missed chip shot FG kept it from going into OT.  

Their schedule was an absolute joke last year and they only beat one great team.  That one great team just so happens to be the team that got clownstomped by LSU.  There's no denying USC is a good football team, and Matt Barkley gives them a shot to compete for a national title, but #1 is going too far.  Alabama and LSU didn't lose that many players for USC to make up the difference in talent.  USC's defense is nowhere near that of Bama or LSU, and Barkley would have a tough time putting up points against either of those defenses.  Conversely, LSU or Bama would have no problem scoring on USC's defense.  That is a ludicrous ranking and speaking of ludicrous rankings.  

What is the deal with Arkansas' ranking?  Keep in mind, the Hogs lost virtually nobody, just as USC did, yet USC jumps all the way past the likes of Bama and LSU, and Arkansas falls all the way down to 10?  Ridiculous.  Sure, USC gets top recruits, but so does Bama and LSU, yet they can jump ahead of them, yet Arkansas falls to 10. Why is South Carolina and Florida St. ranked ahead of Arkansas?  I can understand losing Petrino might hurt Arkansas, but it's basically still the same offense and same team that finished #5 last season.  And they get Knile Davis back, a Heisman caliber RB.  How many more times does Arkansas have to beat South Carolina in order to get ranked ahead of them in the preseason polls?  I may be exaggerating a little, but I can't recall the last time South Carolina has beat Arkansas.  It has to be three-to-five years at least, yet every year SC is ahead of them in preseason polls.  And Florida St. completely blows in a crappy conference.  They shouldn't even be in the top 10.  I guess the AP didn't learn their lesson from last season for overrating Florida St..

Don't get me started on Georgia.  They must be paying someone under the table, because I can't recall another team that has been more overrated and has come up laughably short as much as Georgia.  #6?  Is this some kind of inside joke?  They made the SEC championship by virtually beating nobody.  Let's just not forget that they actually lost to South Carolina.  Why they made the SEC championship game and got embarrassed?  Because they didn't face Arkansas, LSU, or Alabama in the season, who were all the top 3 teams in the country at one point.  South Carolina at least had to face one of them, that was what did them.  Georgia didn't face any of them.  Georgia made the SEC championship game because they got lucky and their division was a joke.  To make matters even worse, Georgia choked a three possession lead to a garbage Michigan St. Spartans team.  Way to represent the SEC.  Yet this team is ranked #6 in the preseason polls ahead of Arkansas, and South Carolina to boot.  What a laughable joke.  The AP does it once again.

I also love the disrespect that Urban Meyer is getting.  All he does is turn teams around and Ohio St. is ranked this low.  Yet, as I mentioned, the likes of Florida St. and Georgia are in the top 10.  This #18 ranking is hilarious for Ohio St., and it's typical of the AP.  They get these rankings wrong every single year.  There's so much hypocrisy and stupidity put into these rankings.  I can't recall the last time they've been actually right.

Defining Clutch: NFL Quarterbacks Edition

In my inaugural Defining Clutch series, I will highlight the quarterback position in the National Football League.  I will breakdown what I think of the words "clutch" and "choker."

How do we define clutch?  Is there really such a thing as a "choker?"  How do we differentiate between who is a clutch QB and who is a choker?  Is Dan Marino a choker because he never won a Super Bowl?  Is Joe Montana the most clutch QB of all-time because he has three Super Bowl MVPs?  If a QB leads his team to 30+ points, but he loses the game because he threw an interception down by seven points or less, is he a choker?  Let's keep in mind that he led the team to 30+ points.  Do we just forget what he did up until the point, or do we only highlight the interception?  Was it his only interception of the game?  Did they only need a FG to tie the game?  Could they have won the game with a TD?  These are all questions that you have to ask.

Quite often, I think "clutch" is thrown around too loosely as well as "choker."  I believe that if you are an elite QB, more often than not, you will play great in the playoffs.  You'll rarely have really bad playoff games or games where you come up short.  If you are a great QB, you'll have some great playoff games, but you'll have more playoff games where you come up short than you would than if you were an elite QB.

If you are an average QB, more often than not, you'll play average in the playoffs.  Every so often, you might have a really good playoff game, but more often than not, you are average in the playoffs.  I believe you are who you are.  I don't think there is any type of magical potion that can make a person "clutch."  I also don't believe a player that is labeled a "choker" can never be "clutch."  Now I do believe that there are just some QBs who rise to the occasion more than others.  But more often than not, I believe how a QB plays in the playoffs is a reflection of the type of QB he is.

I want to use an example to prove my point.  Ben Roethlisberger has the reputation of being supremely "clutch."  Believe it or not, I've seen quite a few Steeler fans who seem to think Big Ben is more "clutch" than Peyton Manning.  Here is where I prove that theory wrong.  I believe Big Ben is a great QB, but not an elite QB like some people think.  Because he's a great QB, he's gonna have great playoff games, and some bad ones.  More bad ones than elite QBs have, and less great games than elite QBs have.  Big Ben has this reputation of being clutch.  Of course, it's hard to argue with the fact that he's 10-4 in the playoffs, and 3-1 in conference championship games.  But did you know he's had six really bad playoff games?  I'll give him a pass for his rookie season, but he played pretty horrible against Seattle in the SB, against the Jets two years ago in the AFC championship game, against Jacksonville in 2008, and against Green Bay in the Super Bowl.  He won two of those games and lost two of those games.


He's had four outstanding playoff games, two good playoff games, and two solid ones.  When you look at that body of work, this really proves my theory true.  I believe Big Ben is a great QB.  He can have really good or great playoff games, but he can also put up quite a few stinkers.  Now I will admit that Big Ben does rise to the occasion more so than other great QBs such as Philips Rivers and Tony Romo.  But what I want to know is can you definitively say that Big Ben is more "clutch" than Peyton Manning because he has more rings?  Rings are what matters the most for the QB position, but Big Ben has had his share of bad playoff games.  More so than Peyton.

Frankly, Peyton Manning was just not an elite quarterback in his first few playoff games.  Like Ben, I'll give him a pass for his rookie season.  For as much as Peyton is criticized for being a choker, he's only had two or three really bad playoff games.  Conversely, he's had six outstanding playoff games, and the other ones he was good in.

Peyton is absolutely not a "choker."  He's "clutch" if anything.  He's been at least good in 15 playoff games.  And I'm counting his SB run.  Statistically, Peyton wasn't great in his SB run, but he was better than his numbers indicated.  For instance, take into account he was facing the #1 defense in football on the road at Baltimore in cold conditions in the Divisional.  He routinely led the Colts down the field for FGs.  Obviously the Colts' defense was lights out and largely responsible for that win, but Peyton more than played his part in that win.  I thought that game was one of Peyton's most brilliant games despite what he was up against.  That was one of the best defenses of all-time he was facing.

He did throw the back-breaking pick six in the SB against the Saints, but that was not a game you can say he was bad in or "choked."  You can't just look at that game in a vacuum.  Without Peyton, the Colts are likely not in the game.  This notion that Peyton is a "choker" is hilarious to me.  If anything, Peyton is typically Peyton in the playoffs.  There is not some huge drop off from the regular season to the playoffs.  A QB rating just under 95 in the season and a little over 88 in the playoffs.  That's not some huge drop off considering playoff play is much more intense than in the season.  Single game elimination makes playoff games a much tougher environment than regular season games I'd say.

So what is this notion that Big Ben is more "clutch" than Peyton?  Peyton typically plays like an elite QB in the playoffs.  Big Ben typically plays like a great QB.  And this is not to mention what Big Ben has had around him and what Peyton has had around him.  I won't play the what if game, but there's no doubt that Big Ben has had better teams around him than Peyton.  Yet Peyton is usually elite in playoff games, and with a better supporting cast, he probably has more than one ring.  

You are who you are.  But quite often, how good you are doesn't matter in the playoffs.  Sometimes luck can play a huge factor.


Let's take a look at this video for a second:

That is the great Tom Brady of course in the controversial tuck game.  Let's not delve into whether or not the call was legitimate.  Let's look at the critical mistake Brady made.  With a blitzer coming from his strong side, he makes a rookie mistake and gets blindsided on his strong side.  Understand?  No QB should ever take the hit that Brady took on his strong side that caused a fumble.  If that happens on his blindside, that is understandable, but that should never happen coming from your strong side.  If you look closer, you can see that Brady never even noticed Woodson was coming.  That is a game-killing mistake.  Brady was bailed out by one of the more controversial calls in NFL history.  That's an example of sometimes how it's better to be lucky than good.  That also goes to show how one play can be the difference between having a "clutch" legacy or having a "choker" legacy.  

I believe in that season and playoffs, Brady was just a slightly above average QB, and it showed on that play.  Luckily for him, that didn't stain his legacy.  Had that been ruled a fumble, Brady would have been seen as a huge choker, because a high school QB can even recognize the blitz there on that play. Brady was just a little bit above average that year and it shows that just because a QB is average or a little above it like Brady was, that doesn't mean they can't play well in the playoffs and advance far in the playoffs.

For instance, let's look at Mark Sanchez.  He has great playoff numbers despite the fact that he's average for the majority of the season.  If Mark Sanchez can rise to the occasion when it matters most, then any QB can.  But is Mark Sanchez really that clutch because he has good playoff stats?  No.  Those numbers will even out at some point, and you will start to see more of the real Mark Sanchez in the playoffs.  You are who you are.  That is unless Mark Sanchez transforms into an elite QB down the road like Tom Brady did.  I don't believe there is something that changes you that much in the playoffs.  There is more pressure, and some QBs handle it better than others.

Enough of this labeling.  I've come to the conclusion that you are who you are.  If you are usually elite in the season, more often than not, you'll play that way in the playoffs and bad playoff games will be few and far in between.  If you are usually great in the season, more often than not, you'll be good in the playoffs, but more susceptible to bad playoff games than elite QBs.  If you are average, more often than not, you'll be average in the playoffs, and you'll be more susceptible to bad playoff games than good ones.  The law of averages takes care of everything.  

There are so many ridiculous perceptions out there as well.  Far too often, people look at QBs in a vacuum rather than looking at the intricacies of their situation.  Here's one of my favorites:  "Rivers is a failure and will never win anything." 

Let's just not forget that the best team Rivers had, he was just a mere rookie.  In no other year have the Chargers put a team on the field that could win enough playoff games to win a SB.  Ever since Rivers has become an elite QB he has never had teams good enough to win Super Bowls.  Far too often, observers don't realize that winning Super Bowls is a franchise sport.  It's not the easiest thing to do.

Is it just a coincidence that when Brady was not an elite QB, he won three Super Bowls, and since he's been an elite QB, he's won none?   He's lost two Super Bowls while being the favorites in both.  That tells me that winning a SB is a franchise accomplishment, and also that Brady's supporting cast isn't as great as it was when he was winning Super Bowls.  QBs absolutely have the most control over where their team goes, but it's still a franchise accomplishment.  It's hard work and 100% dedication from 53 men on the field and the guys behind the scenes such as the owner, the front office, the trainers, and so forth.

Rivers just simply hasn't had enough good teams.  The Chargers themselves haven't been a highly successful franchise.  I think it would be more fair to call the franchise a failure rather than Rivers, because they haven't won anything.  And that's dating back to long before Rivers was the QB.  So maybe Rivers doesn't ever win anything, but it won't be because of him.  The Chargers have never won anything.  Let's be fair to Rivers here.  Has he come up short?  Of course.  But the Chargers wouldn't be where they are now without Rivers.

Here's another one of my favorites, "Romo is a choker and will never win anything."  Has Romo come up short?  Absolutely.  But is all of that his fault?  Should we ignore how bad of a GM Jerry Jones has been since the Jimmy Johnson era?  Should we ignore that Bill Parcells left too soon and never had the opportunity to coach up Romo?  That really hurt Romo's progress when Parcells left.  You know who took over for Parcells?  Wade Phillips.  That's right.  The Cowboys were supposed to win a SB with a coach who's been in the league for decades and never has won a playoff game as a head coach?  He's supposed to win with that?  Was the Giants' playoff game loss really a surprise?  Many people blame Romo and Witten for that Mexico fiasco.  But has anybody once blamed the head coach?  

Let's be fair to Romo.  The Phillips Cowboys were poorly coached in that playoff game, and Wade should have never let Romo and Witten go to Mexico.  He should have had them 100% focused on football.  Was it really surprising that Romo had immaturity issues when he had Wade Phillips as coach?  The most hilarious thing to me is Romo's December record criticism.  I guess people ignore that the Cowboys were horrible in December long before Romo got there.  Perhaps the Cowboys December woes is a reflection on management and poor conditioning?  Anybody ever think of that?  The fumbled snap was absolutely hilarious, and there is no excuse in the world for that.  But that fumbled snap has somehow became all that Romo is known for.  Because of that fumbled snap, he can't erase that unfair "choker" label.

Romo deserves criticism, and so does Rivers, because they both have come up short.  Romo more so than Rivers.  However, neither of them have been in the best position to advance in the playoffs.  They've both had poor coaching, and inconsistent defenses.  They both are part of franchises that have been pretty bad for over decades.  Especially Rivers.  The Chargers  have never won anything.  The Cowboys have won 5 titles, but one playoff win in 15 years isn't exactly good at all.  The Cowboys have been on the down slope for almost 20 years.  So let's be a little bit more fair to Romo and Rivers.

Matt Ryan is also getting this type of criticism.  The Falcons have been really good since Ryan came along, but I'll say the same thing for Ryan that I said for Romo and Rivers.  The Falcons have never really put a playoff team on the field that could advance in the playoffs.  Their defense has never been good enough for a playoff setting.  They have the offense, but they've never had the defense to win many playoff games.

In the regular season, offense probably means more than defense, but in the playoffs, defense matters the most.  Games are closer, and yards are hard to come by offensively.  That makes playing great defense in the playoffs even more important.  The Falcons just haven't had that.  That was evident in every single playoff loss with Ryan.

Enough of the senseless bashing of players.  Winning championships is a franchise accomplishment.  There's a reason why Dan Marino and Dan Fouts have no rings.  Some of it was because of them, but most of it was because, more often than not, they weren't put in position to win.  I don't believe in labeling QBs "clutch" or "choker."  Some QBs rise to the occasion more than others, but that doesn't make them supremely more clutch than others who have the "choker" label.  Every team can't win Super Bowls, and far too many QBs without rings get bashed.  There are 31 failures every year.  It's not a surprise that only a handful of QBs in the league have rings.  Those just happen to also be the best ran franchises.  When you label "clutch" and "choker," start with the franchises first, not the QBs.