Week 10 Lions @ Justin Fields (-2), Noon Fox

[minnesotacubsfan]

also, has Braxton Jones really played that well? I really didnt think he had but PFF seems to think hes been decent on both run and pass blocking

[raw]

also, has Braxton Jones really played that well? I really didnt think he had but PFF seems to think hes been decent on both run and pass blocking

 

My untrained eye says he's been much better than average run blocking. He's not a good pass blocker right now, but he's not a disaster either. I don' think he's had any game as bad as Borom looked against Judon (or Week 18 last year vs Minnesota). But he seems to really struggle when everyone knows the Bears have to pass. He's helped out by play action and RPOs and TEs chipping, but when the Bears are behind DEs can tee off on him, especially if they have a spy or the other end containing Fields.

[Tim]

I'm seeing this "learn how to win" narrative everywhere today. We know in baseball that performance in close games is essentially random and reverts to overall team quality. This is in spite of "TWTW" and other false narratives over the years.

 

Can anyone provide compelling evidence there a difference in football? My guess is that games that end within a few points are essentially random. Please convince me otherwise. I will start by saying that I have no evidence for my position. However, it seems to be a more logical hypothesis than the whole TWTW or "knowing how to win", etc.

 

I have no evidence either, but I think there's something to be said for this theory from a QB perspective. There's a reason guys like Brady and Rodgers have come back to win a million times. Yes, it's mostly because they're great QBs overall, but they also operate at a high level under pressure very frequently. The team as a whole, probably not really as big of a factor but I think it's a real thing for QBs.

So..."clutch" exists in football?

[SpongeWorthy]

[Soul]

In baseball a player gets one chance typically to be “clutch.” In football the QB gets to put together a drive, can fail multiple times and still complete the comeback.

[Tim]

In baseball a player gets one chance typically to be “clutch.” In football the QB gets to put together a drive, can fail multiple times and still complete the comeback.

And the best QB's tend to do that a lot and bad QB's tend not to. That's not necessarily learning how to win or being clutch. It's just being good and having a good team & play caller.

[Tim]

I'll put this slightly differently...

 

Can anyone name a mediocre quarterback who "knows how to win"? Or a great QB who doesn't?

[minnesotacubsfan]

also, has Braxton Jones really played that well? I really didnt think he had but PFF seems to think hes been decent on both run and pass blocking

 

My untrained eye says he's been much better than average run blocking. He's not a good pass blocker right now, but he's not a disaster either. I don' think he's had any game as bad as Borom looked against Judon (or Week 18 last year vs Minnesota). But he seems to really struggle when everyone knows the Bears have to pass. He's helped out by play action and RPOs and TEs chipping, but when the Bears are behind DEs can tee off on him, especially if they have a spy or the other end containing Fields.

I guess my point is has he really been (relatively) better position wise then Fields? Fields is setting records and pff is like "meh..average"

[jersey cubs fan]

Baseball and football are not at all comparable.

[Cubswin11]

I'll put this slightly differently...

 

Can anyone name a mediocre quarterback who "knows how to win"? Or a great QB who doesn't?

Fitzpatrick is the answer to both

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"knowing how to win" isn't a real thing other than just being good at the sport you're playing, braxton jones is a bad tackle, and pff grades are rngs and everyone should stop caring about them

[CubinNY]

"knowing how to win" isn't a real thing other than just being good at the sport you're playing, braxton jones is a bad tackle, and pff grades are rngs and everyone should stop caring about them

there is a difference between learning how to win and knowing how to win. The former is an active process that can be objectively verified. The latter is a hypothetical construct and is an outcome measure of sorts.

 

Learning how to win means not making the same mistakes, or trying something different in the same circumstance where you were unsuccessful in the past. Natural ability + good planning/practice + luck are also variables.

[Tim]

"knowing how to win" isn't a real thing other than just being good at the sport you're playing, braxton jones is a bad tackle, and pff grades are rngs and everyone should stop caring about them

there is a difference between learning how to win and knowing how to win. The former is an active process that can be objectively verified. The latter is a hypothetical construct and is an outcome measure of sorts.

 

Learning how to win means not making the same mistakes, or trying something different in the same circumstance where you were unsuccessful in the past. Natural ability + good planning/practice + luck are also variables.

So "learning how to win" just means getting better overall?

[WrigleyField 22]

"knowing how to win" isn't a real thing other than just being good at the sport you're playing, braxton jones is a bad tackle, and pff grades are rngs and everyone should stop caring about them

there is a difference between learning how to win and knowing how to win. The former is an active process that can be objectively verified. The latter is a hypothetical construct and is an outcome measure of sorts.

 

Learning how to win means not making the same mistakes, or trying something different in the same circumstance where you were unsuccessful in the past. Natural ability + good planning/practice + luck are also variables.

So "learning how to win" just means getting better overall?

Sure. Like getting more reps with actual WR who can get open.

[CubinNY]

"knowing how to win" isn't a real thing other than just being good at the sport you're playing, braxton jones is a bad tackle, and pff grades are rngs and everyone should stop caring about them

there is a difference between learning how to win and knowing how to win. The former is an active process that can be objectively verified. The latter is a hypothetical construct and is an outcome measure of sorts.

 

Learning how to win means not making the same mistakes, or trying something different in the same circumstance where you were unsuccessful in the past. Natural ability + good planning/practice + luck are also variables.

So "learning how to win" just means getting better overall?

Agreed. It has more face validity and sounds fancier.

[Derwood]

The "not great but good enough to win" QB''s fall under the vaunted "game manager" category.

[jersey cubs fan]

"knowing how to win" isn't a real thing other than just being good at the sport you're playing, braxton ki jones is a bad tackle, and pff grades are rngs and everyone should stop caring about them

there is a difference between learning how to win and knowing how to win. The former is an active process that can be objectively verified. The latter is a hypothetical construct and is an outcome measure of sorts.

 

Learning how to win means not making the same mistakes, or trying something different in the same circumstance where you were unsuccessful in the past. Natural ability + good planning/practice + luck are also variables.

So "learning how to win" just means getting better overall?

No. This isn’t baseball. The result of the game is not dependent on a series of 1 on 1 easily quantified contests.

 

The clock matters. Situation matters. 2 minute offenses are not the same thing as the rest of the game. For a QB and a head coach in particular, it’s not just getting better at the sport overall, it’s learning how to win games.

[minnesotacubsfan]

"knowing how to win" isn't a real thing other than just being good at the sport you're playing, braxton jones is a bad tackle, and pff grades are rngs and everyone should stop caring about them

I've been misreading your posts for years, your actually a comedian!!

[raw]

there is a difference between learning how to win and knowing how to win. The former is an active process that can be objectively verified. The latter is a hypothetical construct and is an outcome measure of sorts.

 

Learning how to win means not making the same mistakes, or trying something different in the same circumstance where you were unsuccessful in the past. Natural ability + good planning/practice + luck are also variables.

So "learning how to win" just means getting better overall?

No. This isn’t baseball. The result of the game is not dependent on a series of 1 on 1 easily quantified contests.

 

The clock matters. Situation matters. 2 minute offenses are not the same thing as the rest of the game. For a QB and a head coach in particular, it’s not just getting better at the sport overall, it’s learning how to win games.

 

I agree with both sides here. The Bears are in a unique situation with the whole "learning how to win" thing. Because they have to figure out how to win when they are behind and everyone in the stadium knows they are throwing the ball and figure how to stop defenses that aren't going to be slowed down by playaction, RPOs and moving pockets. They have to figure out how to win by getting to the other team's QB despite 0 pass rushing talent and a very young coverage unit.

 

But part of that is getting better. Getting better at playing, coaching, and more importantly, getting better talent. I have a feeling they will be able to manage situations better when they have better players.

[UK]

I'm seeing this "learn how to win" narrative everywhere today. We know in baseball that performance in close games is essentially random and reverts to overall team quality. This is in spite of "TWTW" and other false narratives over the years.

 

Can anyone provide compelling evidence there a difference in football? My guess is that games that end within a few points are essentially random. Please convince me otherwise. I will start by saying that I have no evidence for my position. However, it seems to be a more logical hypothesis than the whole TWTW or "knowing how to win", etc.

 

I have no evidence either, but I think there's something to be said for this theory from a QB perspective. There's a reason guys like Brady and Rodgers have come back to win a million times. Yes, it's mostly because they're great QBs overall, but they also operate at a high level under pressure very frequently. The team as a whole, probably not really as big of a factor but I think it's a real thing for QBs.

So..."clutch" exists in football?

 

If clutch doesn't exist (I'm not much of a believer) then getting better in two minute drills on both sides has to happen, which was more of my angle.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The idea that athletes need to "learn how to win" comes from a combination of two human cognitive biases: The fundamental attribution error (our desire to explain other people's circumstances as a result of their innate characteristics) and the desire for narratives.

 

Justin Fields was on a Bears team that lost some games. Fundamental attribution error makes us want to believe that some trait about *him* is what caused that to happen, because we instinctively reject circumstance-based explanations for everyone but ourselves. He must not "know how to win."

 

We have a strong desire to fit sequences of events into understandable stories. "The young, talented person still needs experience to learn success" is one of the oldest stories we have. So now he needs to "learn how to win."

 

Nah, he's just played really good football on a really bad team.