Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

NFL Thread


VanJets

Recommended Posts

I meant exactly what I said. VY has been clutch so far in his career. Noone expected the Long Horns to beat USC but he rallied his team in the 4th quarter and beat one of the greatest college teams ever. USC hadn't lost a game in 2 seasons until then. He also almost took the Titans to the playoffs last year, he had that team playing such good football in the second half of the year. Also look at his supporting cast. He's got that team winning games again this year and I think he'll play a great game and take his team into the playoffs in his second year. The guy is good and he's been clutch so far in his career, I don't get how you can say it's a fluke. Did you watch this guy in college football?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Browns probably will beat the 49ers, but as has been mentioned already, it doesn't matter for squat.

The Titans are definitely on the upswing, in all honesty I have nothing against them except that they're standing in the way of the Browns and a playoff spot.

They picked 2 or 3 wideouts in the draft last year I think. Have any of them worked out, or at least shown signs of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't buy the idea that a player suddenly becomes better or more likely to succeed depending on whether its with 8 minutes to go in the 2nd quarter or 2 minutes to go in the 4th.

Maybe what Mr. MVP meant was simply that Vince Young has come through in big situations so far, I just don't think it has anything to do with him being "clutch", its just a fluke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there is a difference between coming through in the clutch, and being a clutch player. It bothers me when people use a player coming through in the clutch previously to support the idea that the player has an increased chance of coming through in future clutch situations.

For example if A-Rod hits a game winning home run, you could say that he came through in the clutch because he got a big hit when his team needed it, but to say that this somehow makes him more likely to hit a home run the next time his team needs a big hit is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there is a difference between coming through in the clutch, and being a clutch player. It bothers me when people use a player coming through in the clutch previously to support the idea that the player has an increased chance of coming through in future clutch situations.

For example if A-Rod hits a game winning home run, you could say that he came through in the clutch because he got a big hit when his team needed it, but to say that this somehow makes him more likely to hit a home run the next time his team needs a big hit is stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...