joe flacco #74 on nfl network top 100

[wickedsolo]

and until flacco throws for 4500+ yards and 30+ TDs some fans will still point to him as the problem. Superbowls make people forget things quickly. Like how eli didnt even complet 60% of his passes until his 6 th year, now hes a champion and talked about as being "elite". The day will come for flacco.

Exactly. Good post.

[wickedsolo]

Robinson's health was not what was keeping him from 850+ yards and 11 TDs. It is as simple as that. If Robinson were on the Ravens you would be calling him "not very good."

You're right. Robinson's health and inability to get onto the field until going to Dallas had nothing to do with his lack of production. How silly of me. If he can't get on the field because he's IR'ed or injured then he's not going to be productive. As the #3 receiver in Jason Garrett's offense he was pretty damn good. Other than his rookie year he hasn't been healthy for an entire season up until playing in Dallas last year and he even replaced Miles Austin as the #1/#2 receiver when Miles Austin was down for the count.

The Ravens WR history pre-2008 isn't relevant to the debate. Unless you are defending Boller from criticism, and it seems you are, which is fine. I am not saying that the Cowboys have worse receivers than us, I am saying the difference and therefore the value of the excuse is not as great as people claim. This is because people make the claims by starting with their favorite assumption, then dismissing or highlighting the facts depending on that assumption. Boldin stats only good with Cardinals because of X,Y,Z, but he is "not very good" when he gets here. Robinson stats only bad with Rams and Falcons because injuries and/or X,Y,Z, but he is "very good" when he goes to Dallas.

You keep trying to bring stats into it. I'm not. It's impossible to compare the two offenses (Dallas vs Baltimore) simply because one is geared towards a heavily influenced aerial attack and the other is not. Jason Garrett runs a very QB-friendly offense whereas Cam, obviously, does not.

My comparison of the receiver units is simple: In my opinion (and several others) Tony Romo has had better weapons surrounding him in Dallas than Joe has had in Baltimore. I don't see what's so complicated and illogical about MY opinion on that. If you disagree, fine.

The problem with using stats in this case is that there are only two possible conclusions that have any leg to stand on, rationally: A) stats have meaning and their results tell us something (even if we dispute how much), or B) they have no meaning, in which case nothing can be concluded. The problem around here (a lot of times) is people are attempting C) they not only do not mean what they show, but somehow they mean the opposite of what they show. I am partial to A), though think their worth is limited, and could accept B) (and not argue about it), it is C) that gets me to enter the discussion.

Again, I'm not comparing stats. I'm simply making a blanket statement that Tony Romo has better weapons around him than Flacco does. I'm not saying Boldin and Torrey aren't good players, but they're not what Miles Austin and Jason Witten are. I don't see how anyone can refute that. They're perfect compliments for the offensive design that Jason Garrett is employing there, so maybe the root of all this is that Jason Garrett is better at assembling personnel than Cam is?

Regardless - it doesn't matter at all what you say - IMO, Jason Witten, Dez Bryant, and Miles Austin are better players than Flacco has ever been surrounded with.

And by "can't find ways to win games" you mean "can't get on a team where the defense carries mediocre QB play/passing game." Yes, Romo is unable to get on a team where the defense can carry the team to a win with mediocre play from the passing game. As evidenced by the Cowboys 1-4 record when Romo throws less than 2 TD passes last year; compared to Flacco's 7-3 record in such games. Not sure where Marino or Dilfer come in here, except to bolster the point that QB play and team/playoff wins do not always perfectly match.

If you can't understand something as simple as a great QB who couldn't win a championship being viewed and perceived as "The best QB to never win a SB" vs a mediocre (at best) QB who is a "SB QB", then I don't know what to tell you. This is not complicated at all. You're trying to make it complicated and it's not. Like I said, Marino said he'd give up all of his stats to be a SB champion.

The problem with this is it is pure speculation. And specifically it assumes that throwing more (and actually Flacco had more attempts than Romo last year) or relying more on your passing game means your QB benefits. This is what Joe himself implies when he compares himself and his stats to Rodgers and Brees, etc. This isn't necessarily the case. If you ask a QB to carry the team, then two things could happen, a) his stats look better because he gets the chance to put up more good stats and he is up to the task, or b) his stats look worse because he is forced to take more risks or do more and is not up to the task. It is easier to finish with a 97.1 rating by going 14/27 for 176, with 2 TDs/0 Ints than it is to finish with a 97.1 QB rating by going 28/54 for 352, with 4TDs/0 Ints. It is easier to keep to your Int total low when you are told/allowed/mandated to not take any risks, check it down, throw it away or even take a sack. If Flacco were asked to throw all game because his defense couldn't keep them in games, he could excel or look worse. We don't know, we can guess or have opinions, but it isn't a given that more responsibility/opportunity means more stats and the same success.

But it's not pure speculation when you say that if Dallas and Baltimore switches defensive units Romo wins more and Baltimore loses more?

My opinion on the Flacco/Romo comparison hasn't really been given, but let's just say I don't think your opinion has been supported by much; I am really addressing the leaps of logic that occur around here. I am addressing people choosing C) when arguing about stats.

There are no leaps of logic in here. Just opinion and discussion. I use my eyes to formulate my opinions because stats can be manipulated to suit anyone's opinion. That's why at the end of the day - to me - it's about wins vs losses. If a QB (and a team) wins more than they lose, then it's a testament to their ability to find ways to win. You can't sit there and say that it's the team that wins games and not consider the impact the QB has on the team. He touches the ball every snap when the offensive unit is on the field. It's arguably the most important position on the field at any given time simply because of that.

Whether or not you "haven't stated your opinion" is BS. You've clearly stated your opinion without coming right out and saying it.

And to prove my point, "finds a way to win" rears its ugly head. Like when Romo found a way to go 21/31 for 321, 4 TDs/0 Ints and a 141.3 QR rating against the eventual SB champs only to lose the game 37-34 because his defense is horrendous. Like that "finding a way to win?"

So what? The Giants lost both games to the Redskins last year and at one point went through a 4 or 5 game losing streak. Does any of that matter now? No. They snuck into the playoffs and ran the table.

[JAB1985]

I think whats getting lost in this or atleast what i dont understand is dallas defense at least uner wade phillips was always an above average defense in either yards or acoring (minus 2010 when romo was hurt) its not like theyre horrible in the sense that they cant do anything good. But i believe theyve been top 10-12 most years or in other words above average.

[Jayc00]

Steven A vs Skip and also who the nation thinks is the better QB. Skip makes the same old tired arguments that a lot here want to bring up.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post...acco-tony-romo

[vinny600]

I like Joe Flacco and think he is better than some give him credit for but I've got to say I think Haloti92 is totally correct in his assessment. It seems like some here are saying that Romo's personal QB rating is somehow irrelevant to guaging his performance but Flacco's win/loss record is relevant to guaging his.

To me this makes no sense. QB ratings, although not perfect, are the best indicator we have of how a QB performs. It is black and white really. When the same criteria are used to measure every QB we can feel pretty good that we have the best comparison because numbers are objective. I can't understand any argument that says Romo's 31TD 10INT is inferior to Flacco's 20TD 12INT because the Ravens won more games than the Cowboys.

Also if Romo throws a pick 6 on a 4th quarter drive down 24-28 to cause his team to lose 24-35 worse than Flacco throwing a 4th quarter pick 6 when you are up 24-14 but holding on to win 24-21? The result is worse but the INT is what it is. (This is just an example I made up, not an actual situation that happened).

In this case one Defense giving up 24 and the other only 14 led to the Loss/Win not the QB play directly, as both QB's threw pick 6's. So in my opinion to judge a QB's performance by wins/losses is less accurate than sheer numbers.

[wickedsolo]

I like Joe Flacco and think he is better than some give him credit for but I've got to say I think Haloti92 is totally correct in his assessment. It seems like some here are saying that Romo's personal QB rating is somehow irrelevant to guaging his performance but Flacco's win/loss record is relevant to guaging his.

To me this makes no sense. QB ratings, although not perfect, are the best indicator we have of how a QB performs. It is black and white really. When the same criteria are used to measure every QB we can feel pretty good that we have the best comparison because numbers are objective. I can't understand any argument that says Romo's 31TD 10INT is inferior to Flacco's 20TD 12INT because the Ravens won more games than the Cowboys.

Also if Romo throws a pick 6 on a 4th quarter drive down 24-28 to cause his team to lose 24-35 worse than Flacco throwing a 4th quarter pick 6 when you are up 24-14 but holding on to win 24-21? The result is worse but the INT is what it is. (This is just an example I made up, not an actual situation that happened).

In this case one Defense giving up 24 and the other only 14 led to the Loss/Win not the QB play directly, as both QB's threw pick 6's. So in my opinion to judge a QB's performance by wins/losses is less accurate than sheer numbers.

Valid point, both QB's are not without their issues, and yes the "W-L" argument isn't always indicative of who the better individual player is.

The problem I (and many) have with comparing stats between someone like Flacco and someone like Romo is that you can't adequately compare the two due to offensive scheme differences. Romo has been in an offensive system designed for the pass and Joe has not. Romo is in an offensive system where the design is to get multiple receivers out on the field and into open space, Flacco has not. I don't think Tony Romo in Cam's offense has anywhere near the successful production that he's had under Jason Garrett simply because of the variance in offensive philosophy. Pure speculation, I know, but based on Cam's history with QB's and based on Tony Romo working under Garrett since 2006, that's how I see it.

Until we all see what Flacco can do with another coordinator who is more willing to open up the playbook throughout the entire season then it's impossible to gauge (from stats) who is the better player. Dallas values offense more than defense and in Baltimore it's been just the opposite.

I've seen Tony Romo torch teams before, but I've also seen him completely give the game away. There aren't too many teams that Flacco has "torched", but you also don't see him giving games away either. To me, that is the most glaring difference and maybe that's because Romo is more of a gambler in the passing game, I don't know.

From my seat in the stands, I'd rather have Joe Flacco than Tony Romo as the QB.

[Jayc00]

Valid point, both QB's are not without their issues, and yes the "W-L" argument isn't always indicative of who the better individual player is.

The problem I (and many) have with comparing stats between someone like Flacco and someone like Romo is that you can't adequately compare the two due to offensive scheme differences. Romo has been in an offensive system designed for the pass and Joe has not. Romo is in an offensive system where the design is to get multiple receivers out on the field and into open space, Flacco has not. I don't think Tony Romo in Cam's offense has anywhere near the successful production that he's had under Jason Garrett simply because of the variance in offensive philosophy. Pure speculation, I know, but based on Cam's history with QB's and based on Tony Romo working under Garrett since 2006, that's how I see it.

Until we all see what Flacco can do with another coordinator who is more willing to open up the playbook throughout the entire season then it's impossible to gauge (from stats) who is the better player. Dallas values offense more than defense and in Baltimore it's been just the opposite.

I've seen Tony Romo torch teams before, but I've also seen him completely give the game away. There aren't too many teams that Flacco has "torched", but you also don't see him giving games away either. To me, that is the most glaring difference and maybe that's because Romo is more of a gambler in the passing game, I don't know.

From my seat in the stands, I'd rather have Joe Flacco than Tony Romo as the QB.

Agreed. It's funny because those that argue and and say Flacco's W/L success is mostly because of the defense dismiss the fact that Romo's success as you stated numerous times has a lot to do with his surrounding talent on offense and offensive scheme.

[Haloti92]

You keep trying to bring stats into it. I'm not. It's impossible to compare the two offenses (Dallas vs Baltimore) simply because one is geared towards a heavily influenced aerial attack and the other is not. Jason Garrett runs a very QB-friendly offense whereas Cam, obviously, does not.

I am bringing stats plus everything you are bringing into it. As for the scheme/attack, Garrett/Cam, I agree, but mentioning this, as I said does not support the assertion that the guy in the better scheme is the lesser player (the previously-mentioned "C" option)

My comparison of the receiver units is simple: In my opinion (and several others) Tony Romo has had better weapons surrounding him in Dallas than Joe has had in Baltimore. I don't see what's so complicated and illogical about MY opinion on that. If you disagree, fine.

I already admitted he had better weapons, my opinion is that the degree to which they are "better" does not absolutely account for the stat difference. I also pointed out how people support their opinion (about the quality of receivers) by twisting facts/stats/reality around to fit their preconceived ideas.

Again, I'm not comparing stats. I'm simply making a blanket statement that Tony Romo has better weapons around him than Flacco does. I'm not saying Boldin and Torrey aren't good players, but they're not what Miles Austin and Jason Witten are. I don't see how anyone can refute that. They're perfect compliments for the offensive design that Jason Garrett is employing there, so maybe the root of all this is that Jason Garrett is better at assembling personnel than Cam is?

Already addressed. My issue, as I said, is with the degree of this blanket statement being used as some kind of catchall excuse. Afterall Colt McCoy has worse receivers than Joe's, and of course Aaron Rodger's are better than Joe's and Colt's.

Regardless - it doesn't matter at all what you say - IMO, Jason Witten, Dez Bryant, and Miles Austin are better players than Flacco has ever been surrounded with.

Probably true, but this tells us nothing really. Rice is better than any RB Romo has been surrounded with, etc. It is a small piece of a larger argument, it isn't an argument-ender like it is being used. And again, it is overstated, imo, based on people's tendency to smash square pegs into round holes when it comes to defending their preconceived notion. We don't know how good Miles Austin is. We know how good he is with Romo throwing to him. Period. We can assume things, but they are not facts. When a player like Robinson looks markedly better when catching balls from Romo, it goes a ways towards arguing that Romo's (and their scheme's) contribution to the success is some amount above zero. When the reverse happens with Boldin, similar things can be concluded.

If you can't understand something as simple as a great QB who couldn't win a championship being viewed and perceived as "The best QB to never win a SB" vs a mediocre (at best) QB who is a "SB QB", then I don't know what to tell you. This is not complicated at all. You're trying to make it complicated and it's not. Like I said, Marino said he'd give up all of his stats to be a SB champion.

I understand it perfectly well, and also pointed out that it supports my argument. Nothing complicated about that fact. Marino is viewed as a better QB than Dilfer. Period. There is a reason for this, and it has nothing to do with SBs (obviously). And of course Romo and Flacco have the same number of rings at the moment.

But it's not pure speculation when you say that if Dallas and Baltimore switches defensive units Romo wins more and Baltimore loses more?

Not as pure; not nearly as pure.

For starters, I would say that the claim that Baltimore's defense if better than Dallas' defense is much much more obvious or defensible than the claim that Flacco is better than Romo.

Plus the two sides are not on the field at the same time. In that respect it is easier/easy to argue that there are really two (or three if you count STs) different and separate sub-games or matchups going on in each overall game. A team's QB does not affect the team's defensive performance as much as the QB affects the offensive performance. The probability and size of a change in performance on offense (under a new QB) is larger and therefore harder to predict than that of the change in performance of the defense (under a new QB, who is on the sidelines while the defense is playing). Or in short, the effect of my proposed change is more easily segregated and estimated.

Plus, you got into predicting specific stats, whereas I talked team wins. It is easier to predict who will win a game than what stats each or any player will have in the game. The former is a more general prediction than the latter.

So I am making a more obvious assumption to start (our D better than theirs vs Flacco better than Romo). I am swapping "units" (whole defense vs player) that are easier to measure in terms of contribution. And I am limiting my speculation to a more predictable area in general.

Plus, my main point there in that blurb was to point out that doubling the amount that is asked of a QB does not necessarily result in a straight doubling of their stats/results. If Joe is forced to attempt his top 15 looks to WRs every game due to the fact the game will be shootout (due to defenses, dome, opponents' offense, etc) vs. his top 10 plus checking down and punting on the other 5 (playing it safe because we have good D), then there is a chance that mistakes/INTs go up and the last 5 attempts yield below the average of the best 10 (lowering the average of the whole 15 obviously).

In short, being asked to be a "game manager" can make a QB look worse OR better, and that depends on the QBs talent level. I think it makes Dilfer look better, for example. If Dilfer were asked to do more, every game, in 2000, we lose more games, imo (which is what the Ravens felt obviously). I am not saying Joe is a Dilfer, nor am I saying I think Joe would look worse if asked to do more. In fact, my opinion is that he would look better, and he is being held back. My point is that it isn't a given to assume that all that keeps Joe from looking like and putting up Brees/Rodgers' numbers is which team he is on and what he is asked to do. It could be true, but stating it like it is fact (or even with extreme confidence, imo) is unfounded. We don't know.

There are no leaps of logic in here. Just opinion and discussion. I use my eyes to formulate my opinions because stats can be manipulated to suit anyone's opinion. That's why at the end of the day - to me - it's about wins vs losses. If a QB (and a team) wins more than they lose, then it's a testament to their ability to find ways to win. You can't sit there and say that it's the team that wins games and not consider the impact the QB has on the team. He touches the ball every snap when the offensive unit is on the field. It's arguably the most important position on the field at any given time simply because of that.

The leaps of logic mention wasn't referring to the underlying opinions as much as the arguments being put forward to support or defend the opinions. To say "based on my eye test, Flacco is better than Romo" is not a leap of logic, nor did I say it was. Nor is there anything wrong with saying that, even if people disagree with it (and essentially negate it) by saying "based on my eye test, Romo is better than Flacco."

I have been debating/discussing the arguments that are being made using more than eye tests. And one of them is the "team wins" vs individual contribution to the wins. This isn't an eye test argument, and as such I will debate it. I have already pointed out the obvious deficiency in this line of argument (as you did yourself a bit by mentioning Marino). Above you don't really address any of the points that have been made about the weakness of this line of reasoning, but rather you attempt to claim that I have said the QB doesn't contribute to wins at all. Obviously I said no such thing. In fact I have pointed to very specific examples where teams win despite horrendous QB play, and also examples where teams lose despite near perfect QB play. I understand why these examples/arguments were ignored.

So what? The Giants lost both games to the Redskins last year and at one point went through a 4 or 5 game losing streak. Does any of that matter now? No. They snuck into the playoffs and ran the table.

So what? You missed the point, that's what. Giants lost to Redskins? So what? I see no point to that mention. Does "any of that" matter now? If by "that" you mean Giants losing to the Redskins, then no. If by "that" you mean what I mentioned, Romo's 141 QB rating in a loss, then yes, it matters, for the reasons I stated. It does massive damage to the arguments that team wins are always correlated to good QB play (and losses to poor QB play), that QB skill can be directly/accurately measured and compared by team records, that a QB is only as good as net results of the combined effort of himself and his 44 or 45 teammates vs. the combined effort of the opposing QB and his 44 or 45 teammates..

[Corey]

Steven A vs Skip and also who the nation thinks is the better QB. Skip makes the same old tired arguments that a lot here want to bring up.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post...acco-tony-romo

I think Stephan A makes an intelligent point that most media members seem to gloss over. Flacco is only going into year 5. QB's don't usually hit their prime until around year 7 or 8. He's not a finished product.

It's one of the reason that it bothers to see him compared to 8, 9, 10 etc vets. They've been playing the game almost twice as long they SHOULD be better players at this point in their careers.

[JAB1985]

Problem with qb rating is it doesnt take into account personnel or system. It may be the "best" but its still horribly flawed. Qb rating is heavily dependent upon completion percentage. In a system where we run alot and only throw deep like ours, youre going to really hurt your qbs rating vs a team that tgrows heavy but short higher percentage passes. Its not apples to apples eventhough your using one "stat".

Tds to ints argument is as simple as looking at rices tds. He scored more this year than his previous 3 combined. With our bad receiving core dropping balls in the endzone, lee evans example a, when you have 2-3 of the best redzone targets in the league with romo. So is romos 30-10 better than flaccos 20-12? Obviously. But consider scheme and personnel i dont feel its so much higher, as it should be, to be make him considered better. Thats not even taking into account his lack of clutch play. Every qb makes bad throws/decisions once in awhile but with the game on the line flacco improves his play and romo chokes. Once again its opinion based on what i see not something that can be substantiated by a stat which so many seem to feel is necessary to even have an opinion.

Also this a players poll. They were asked to rank the players this is how it turned out. They felt flacco improved from last year and is better than romo. You can form your own but theguys that actually play the game have stated theirs.

[Ravenswintitle]

From my seat in the stands, I'd rather have Joe Flacco than Tony Romo as the QB.

I think most Cowboy fans feel the same way

[ballhawk]

So far flacco is 1-0 against romo. Lets hope he makes that 2-0 after this season.

[ballhawk]

This board is going to blow up when we find out where they put matt ryan on the list.

[wickedsolo]

This board is going to blow up when we find out where they put matt ryan on the list.

I was wondering if he'd even be on the list.


It may just be a feeling - obviously not substantiated - however I get the sense that the NFL is kind of "over" Matt Ryan. I mean, he's really not done much at all in Atlanta.

With QB's like Matt Stafford, Aaron Rodgers, Tommi, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Vick, Flacco, Romo, Cam, & Dalton...I don't know. I could see him being left off the list.

[darb72]

I was wondering if he'd even be on the list.


It may just be a feeling - obviously not substantiated - however I get the sense that the NFL is kind of "over" Matt Ryan. I mean, he's really not done much at all in Atlanta.

With QB's like Matt Stafford, Aaron Rodgers, Tommi, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Vick, Flacco, Romo, Cam, & Dalton...I don't know. I could see him being left off the list.

I certainly don't see him being put ahead of Flacco. Considering there were 10 QB's lower than Flacco, you probably just listed all of them except Brees.

[ballhawk]

I was wondering if he'd even be on the list.


It may just be a feeling - obviously not substantiated - however I get the sense that the NFL is kind of "over" Matt Ryan. I mean, he's really not done much at all in Atlanta.

With QB's like Matt Stafford, Aaron Rodgers, Tommi, Peyton, Eli, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Vick, Flacco, Romo, Cam, & Dalton...I don't know. I could see him being left off the list.

Yea i was kinda wondering the same thing...but i stll think hes going to make list. We should find out soon cuz if he does make i dont think he has a chance at top 50.

[ballhawk]

Vick comes in at #70 and Rivers at #61.

No way do i think Vick had a better year than Flacco and i would rather have Flacco going into 2012 on durability alone.

Im expecting cam newton and matt ryan to make the list....still believe Flacco is too low at #74.

[The Excellector]

You see, ladies and gentlemen, there is this thing called 'crunchtime', where mistakes are not seen as simply 'the last mistake made'. They are seen as crucial mistakes in the clutch, because the pressure is higher to deliver with time running out. Pressure is the immeasurable here.

'Crunchtime' is when most games are won and lost in the NFL, because the talent level is rather compatible. In this thing called 'crunchtime', let's just say that I already want Flacco more than Romo.

[Haloti92]

You see, ladies and gentlemen, there is this thing called 'crunchtime', where mistakes are not seen as simply 'the last mistake made'. They are seen as crucial mistakes in the clutch, because the pressure is higher to deliver with time running out. Pressure is the immeasurable here.

'Crunchtime' is when most games are won and lost in the NFL, because the talent level is rather compatible. In this thing called 'crunchtime', let's just say that I already want Flacco more than Romo.

Perhaps. Though again, you are ignoring the number of times in which the good "crunchtime" player plays so poorly throughout the whole game that there is no "crunchtime" moment (or chance to win) in the first place. QB play that loses the game is just that, QB play that loses the game. When it happens is irrelevant in the big scheme of things since one is going to go with one QB from the opening kickoff to the final whistle (not play one guy until there is 5 minutes left in the game then sub to a second guy). Tebow-like "crunchtime" is certainly what you want out of your QB, the question is how much are you willing to sacrifice in terms of quality of play the rest of the time just to get it.

And as said, Romo's problem in "crunchtime" is highly exaggerated. He had 4 game-winning drives last year; it isn't like you have a zero percent chance to win if you are behind in the 4th quarter with Romo.

[The Excellector]

Perhaps. Though again, you are ignoring the number of times in which the good "crunchtime" player plays so poorly throughout the whole game that there is no "crunchtime" moment (or chance to win) in the first place. QB play that loses the game is just that, QB play that loses the game. When it happens is irrelevant in the big scheme of things since one is going to go with one QB from the opening kickoff to the final whistle (not play one guy until there is 5 minutes left in the game then sub to a second guy). Tebow-like "crunchtime" is certainly what you want out of your QB, the question is how much are you willing to sacrifice in terms of quality of play the rest of the time just to get it.

And as said, Romo's problem in "crunchtime" is highly exaggerated. He had 4 game-winning drives last year; it isn't like you have a zero percent chance to win if you are behind in the 4th quarter with Romo.

How many crunchtime plays has he made in the playoffs over the years? How many of those comebacks were against division foes? Plus, while he may have had those comebacks, he personally gave away two of their games last year.

With the likes of Terrell Owens (No longer there), Jason Witten, Miles Austin and Dez Bryant, how is Joe Flacco seen as a better clutch player?

It reminds me of when Indianapolis used to destroy teams in the dome. However, as soon as Peyton had to play a road playoff game, it was like night and day.