Clutch gene

I agree, it's definitely too early to call Wilson "clutch", but it's not to early to notice that he could be that Clutch guy back there that we've been so desperate for in Seattle for awhile now.

i noticed that too. looking forward to seeing where this team is headed....

He might have it I am rewatching the game now and he look like he has to have it mean something to play big.

Why is it that so many people who get that "clutch" label so often screw up in the 80% of the game prior to "clutch" time, which leads to the need for them to be "clutch" in the first place?

Vinatieri kicked a game-winning FG against the Panthers in 2003, yeah. He also missed 2 FGs earlier in that game, meaning that if he had just taken care of it when he did, no "clutch" kick would have been necessary.

People talked all last season about how Tebow played late in 4th quarters and how "clutch" he was, while conveniently ignoring that he was complete garbage in the 3 quarters prior.

I think the entire "clutch" thing is overused, and the term isn't even useful anymore. What Wilson did was handle the pressure of the moment well, and he seems to excel at not getting flustered late in games.

volsunghawk":in0mdh2c said:

Why is it that so many people who get that "clutch" label so often screw up in the 80% of the game prior to "clutch" time, which leads to the need for them to be "clutch" in the first place?

Vinatieri kicked a game-winning FG against the Panthers in 2003, yeah. He also missed 2 FGs earlier in that game, meaning that if he had just taken care of it when he did, no "clutch" kick would have been necessary.

People talked all last season about how Tebow played late in 4th quarters and how "clutch" he was, while conveniently ignoring that he was complete garbage in the 3 quarters prior.

I think the entire "clutch" thing is overused, and the term isn't even useful anymore. What Wilson did was handle the pressure of the moment well, and he seems to excel at not getting flustered late in games.

Click to expand...

The fact that he is still not having "complete games" is why I hesitate to call him clutch...I think that once he gets to be consistent throughout the game (Which I believe he will do), he can become that quarterback who can win a lot of close games late in the 4th quarter with comebacks and be the definition of clutch player, not just the overused cliche clutch guy

volsunghawk":1d2g3jsf said:

I think the entire "clutch" thing is overused, and the term isn't even useful anymore. What Wilson did was handle the pressure of the moment well, and he seems to excel at not getting flustered late in games.

Click to expand...

The definition of "clutch". It doesn't matter what was done prior to the moment. In the moment, when it mattered most, he was clutch.

Fox0r":2xfrzh4m said:

volsunghawk":2xfrzh4m said:

I think the entire "clutch" thing is overused, and the term isn't even useful anymore. What Wilson did was handle the pressure of the moment well, and he seems to excel at not getting flustered late in games.

Click to expand...

The definition of "clutch". It doesn't matter what was done prior to the moment. In the moment, when it mattered most, he was clutch.

Click to expand...

Eh, it depends for me. I guess this is an offshoot of other discussions I had regarding Vinatieri's value. I think I can accept a performance being called "clutch" if the person who gets that label wasn't responsible for the team being behind in the first place, leading to the NEED for a "clutch" performance.

For example, if a QB throws 3 picks over the course of the game, leading to his team being in a 5 point hole with a minute to go, I don't see him as being "clutch" if he leads the team on a final drive for the win.

volsunghawk":1033ou37 said:

Fox0r":1033ou37 said:

volsunghawk":1033ou37 said:

I think the entire "clutch" thing is overused, and the term isn't even useful anymore. What Wilson did was handle the pressure of the moment well, and he seems to excel at not getting flustered late in games.

Click to expand...

The definition of "clutch". It doesn't matter what was done prior to the moment. In the moment, when it mattered most, he was clutch.

Click to expand...

Eh, it depends for me. I guess this is an offshoot of other discussions I had regarding Vinatieri's value. I think I can accept a performance being called "clutch" if the person who gets that label wasn't responsible for the team being behind in the first place, leading to the NEED for a "clutch" performance.

For example, if a QB throws 3 picks over the course of the game, leading to his team being in a 5 point hole with a minute to go, I don't see him as being "clutch" if he leads the team on a final drive for the win.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with what you're saying as far as any individual performance is concerned, but what do you think about the guy who consistently is able to make that game winning drive or nail that game winning FG, no matter who put them in the hole, year after year?

kidhawk":115xwvse said:

volsunghawk":115xwvse said:

Fox0r":115xwvse said:

The definition of "clutch". It doesn't matter what was done prior to the moment. In the moment, when it mattered most, he was clutch.

Click to expand...

Eh, it depends for me. I guess this is an offshoot of other discussions I had regarding Vinatieri's value. I think I can accept a performance being called "clutch" if the person who gets that label wasn't responsible for the team being behind in the first place, leading to the NEED for a "clutch" performance.

For example, if a QB throws 3 picks over the course of the game, leading to his team being in a 5 point hole with a minute to go, I don't see him as being "clutch" if he leads the team on a final drive for the win.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with what you're saying as far as any individual performance is concerned, but what do you think about the guy who consistently is able to make that game winning drive or nail that game winning FG, no matter who put them in the hole, year after year?

Click to expand...

Ah, see that's the key. I think if a guy is showing that the moment isn't too big for him and can keep his head when the intensity is ratcheted up, that's a great trait.

It's when that guy has a tendency to botch things on a regular basis during the first 3 quarters of a game that I have issues with the "clutch" moniker.

kidhawk":2ui1yq4w said:

volsunghawk":2ui1yq4w said:

Why is it that so many people who get that "clutch" label so often screw up in the 80% of the game prior to "clutch" time, which leads to the need for them to be "clutch" in the first place?

Vinatieri kicked a game-winning FG against the Panthers in 2003, yeah. He also missed 2 FGs earlier in that game, meaning that if he had just taken care of it when he did, no "clutch" kick would have been necessary.

People talked all last season about how Tebow played late in 4th quarters and how "clutch" he was, while conveniently ignoring that he was complete garbage in the 3 quarters prior.

I think the entire "clutch" thing is overused, and the term isn't even useful anymore. What Wilson did was handle the pressure of the moment well, and he seems to excel at not getting flustered late in games.

Click to expand...

The fact that he is still not having "complete games" is why I hesitate to call him clutch...I think that once he gets to be consistent throughout the game (Which I believe he will do), he can become that quarterback who can win a lot of close games late in the 4th quarter with comebacks and be the definition of clutch player, not just the overused cliche clutch guy

Click to expand...

LMAO. No, Wilson isn't clutch. He can't be CLUTCH as an unproven rook. YOutube highlights of all his game-winning drives are mere propaganda and his last minute heroics for the Seahawks are illusions.
Bevell is the true hero who instructed Wilson how to throw that slow-azz fade to Braylon with perfect timing on 4th down with the game on the line. Bevell was the one who had a hunch Rice would be open on the post route beating two defenders--all Wilson had to do was throw the ball 50 yards in the air just as Rice came out of his break. (that's sarcasm for Wilson-haters who can't discern the truth)

Seriously, does clutch mean you have to be consistent all game long? Would there be late game heroics or opportunities to be clutch then? Some of you are better off arguing the definition of "IS" than the definition of "CLUTCH" when you contend that clutch should mean being consistent throughout the game as much as holding that dagger in the end. Point is having the resolve and will to finish is all that matters in being clutch. The killer play that produces a 'W' is what matters in being clutch not 395 yards of passing. This game was a fine example for those who don't know what clutch looks like.
Consistency is the next step for this ROOKIE and based on his progress he's ahead of most (including both Brady and Brees).

Russ Willstrong":1n6mkc9l said:

kidhawk":1n6mkc9l said:

volsunghawk":1n6mkc9l said:

Why is it that so many people who get that "clutch" label so often screw up in the 80% of the game prior to "clutch" time, which leads to the need for them to be "clutch" in the first place?

Vinatieri kicked a game-winning FG against the Panthers in 2003, yeah. He also missed 2 FGs earlier in that game, meaning that if he had just taken care of it when he did, no "clutch" kick would have been necessary.

People talked all last season about how Tebow played late in 4th quarters and how "clutch" he was, while conveniently ignoring that he was complete garbage in the 3 quarters prior.

I think the entire "clutch" thing is overused, and the term isn't even useful anymore. What Wilson did was handle the pressure of the moment well, and he seems to excel at not getting flustered late in games.

Click to expand...

The fact that he is still not having "complete games" is why I hesitate to call him clutch...I think that once he gets to be consistent throughout the game (Which I believe he will do), he can become that quarterback who can win a lot of close games late in the 4th quarter with comebacks and be the definition of clutch player, not just the overused cliche clutch guy

Click to expand...

LMAO. No, Wilson isn't clutch. He can't be CLUTCH as an unproven rook. YOutube highlights of all his game-winning drives are mere propaganda and his last minute heroics for the Seahawks are illusions.
Bevell is the true hero who instructed Wilson how to throw that slow-azz fade to Braylon with perfect timing on 4th down with the game on the line. Bevell was the one who had a hunch Rice would be open on the post route beating two defenders--all Wilson had to do was throw the ball 50 yards in the air just as Rice came out of his break. (that's sarcasm for Wilson-haters who can't discern the truth)

Seriously, does clutch mean you have to be consistent all game long? Would there be late game heroics or opportunities to be clutch then? Some of you are better off arguing the definition of "IS" than the definition of "CLUTCH" when you contend that clutch should mean consistent throughout the game as much as holding that dagger in the end. Point is holding that having the resolve and finishing is all that matters to be clutch. The killer play that produces a W is what matters in being clutch not 395 yards of passing. Consistency is the next step for this ROOKIE and based on his progress he's ahead of most (including both Brady and Brees).

Click to expand...

He's had some clutch plays, I'm not saying he hasn't, but he's had some games he could have easily won at the end (Rams and Cardinals) where the "clutch" player would win. I give him props for the wins he's gotten and his late play in those games, but I think it takes more time to actually build a reputation as a clutch NFL qb than a 6 game career

Agree that his NFL career is young at 6 games. He's produced opportunities even though he hasn't finished all the time. Even the best of the best won't. To name a few legends: Favre, Manning, Brady and Brees probably had not produced as many come-back opportunities in any consecutive 6-games of their rookie season.

Russ Willstrong":13k5q281 said:

Agree that his NFL career is young at 6 games. He's produced opportunities even though he hasn't finished all the time. Even the best of the best won't. To name a few legends: Favre, Manning, Brady and Brees probably had not produced as many come-back opportunities in any consecutive 6-games of their rookie season.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to lessen any of Wilson's growing achievements. I really like his progress so far. Heck, I'm not even saying he's not clutch...I agreed with the OP that I think he has that ingrained ability. I just want to see a player (any player really) have a bit more of an NFL career before labeling them with titles like clutch or All pro or any other such titles lauded on the best of the best

Not saying he is at the level of any of these greats but Wilson has been there and done that countless times despite being a rookie. How many QB's can say they feel comfortable leading a comeback drive as a rookie? And seriously when do you declare that his body of work is sufficient to produce a reputation for being clutch if even his college games don't count?

That 'it' factor everyone is talking about is 'clutchness'. It is confidence and poise that playmakers exude... It doesn't surprise Wilson because he's been there countless times. I have doubted his talents and his preparedness many times but his courage, poise, maturity and desire to win is something i have not doubted.

If a team is down by four & the QB leads the team down the field, only for the WR to drop the GW touchdown as time expires, is the QB considered "not clutch"?

Or if a team only is down by two points/less or tied and the kicker misses the potential GW FG as time expires, is the QB considered "not clutch"?

Regarding volsunghawk's post, as for Eli and all of his GW drives/4th quarter comebacks, has anyone ever calculated his passer rating in the first three quarters compared to the fourth quarter? It would be interesting to see if he was simply "average" for the majority or actually played bad enough to hurt his team.

"Clutch gene" is something ESPN invented because their analysts don't know enough about sports to talk about what happened on the field. Brady had the clutch gene in 2002 – what did it do, wear off in 2008? The Mavericks won the championship because Lebron doesn't have the clutch gene. Wait, I got confused for a second... he just won so he has it now. It's not convenient for luck to be involved in sports because they can't sell that narrative. So when a guy makes a good play, he's clutch. If the defense makes a better play, he's not.


Some guys get flustered under pressure. They're not clutch. Ok, I can go along with that. Many more guys at the professional level do *not* get flustered under pressure. They're clutch. Great. When you start moving them around based on whether they won or lost, it loses any meaning. Honestly, I thought we already knew which kind of guy Wilson was based on his play in the first four weeks.

aku":2zik6d58 said:

"Clutch gene" is something ESPN invented because their analysts don't know enough about sports to talk about what happened on the field. Brady had the clutch gene in 2002 – what did it do, wear off in 2008? The Mavericks won the championship because Lebron doesn't have the clutch gene. Wait, I got confused for a second... he just won so he has it now. It's not convenient for luck to be involved in sports because they can't sell that narrative. So when a guy makes a good play, he's clutch. If the defense makes a better play, he's not.

Click to expand...

Exactly. And because "clutch" opportunities in playoff games are so scarce, players often remain with a "clutch" or "not clutch" label throughout their careers based on one or two games where they played better or worse than usual. John Elway used to be the guy who couldn't win the big one until he won it. Then when he won it, and Peyton Manning took that label. Then Manning won it, and Drew Brees took that label. Then Brees won it, and Aaron Rodgers took that label. And so on.