I've had it with "that won't work in the playoffs"

[spacedoodoopistol]

Anyone else tired of hearing people say "you can't win a Super Bowl without X", or "you need a X to win in the playoffs".....of course this is after decades of the timeless cliche "defense wins championships"...... like its a different sport or different set of rules in the playoffs? The one this Jason Cole guy was just saying on KNBR was "you need big plays in the playoffs", just a stupid and irrational statement.

Its still football, its still 11 on 11. The games will be a bit colder on average, the competition will be higher, but its still the same sport, and teams will win and lose on the same strengths and weaknesses they did during the season.

The problem is the same with many fallacies, that people confuse correlation with causation. There are very few playoff games, and certainly not enough data to draw any conclusions about how it differs from regular season. The thing is, random chance has much more to do with results than people understand or want to admit, so instead they try to take the limited data and draw these huge conclusions that really don't make sense.

 

[deep9er]

no, i'm not tired.

no doubt the game is trending from old cliche's, but IMO not far enough (yet) where it doesn't apply.

now if my repetition is driving you nuts, i apologize.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

In this case the words are true. These 16,17,18 point outputs where we waste opportunity after opportunity to put the games away will not work against GB or N.O. Against those teams the offense has got to help the defense out.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Dammit guys, I needed support and confirmation here. I'm too insecure to deal with disagreement, thus, I must rage.

 

[MW49ers5]

In this case the words are true. These 16,17,18 point outputs where we waste opportunity after opportunity to put the games away will not work against GB or N.O. Against those teams the offense has got to help the defense out.

Agreed!

 

[Arete Tzu]

I've said it for things like our field goal problem, and I stand by it. I don't say it because I think playoffs are special different games, I say it because I know we could play high power offenses like the Packers and Saints. As much as I love our D, I still fear tight 4th quarter games.

I think we've shown we can win with what we have, but I do think we will have to step it up to another level as well.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

These 16,17,18 point outputs where we waste opportunity after opportunity to put the games away will not work against GB or N.O. Against those teams the offense has got to help the defense out.

I think that goes with "better competition".....you are not going to get by with weak output against good teams.

But you guys are also hitting my point about causation vs. correlation....just because the best two teams in the NFC right now are offensive-minded doesn't mean anything about "playoff football", it just means that those two offense-heavy teams will tend to score more than 20.....and will probably give up points too.

But isn't that rule flipped if a team is going against the Niners? You don't need big plays to beat the Niners, you don't need a great QB or explosive offense to beat the a defense-strong team like the Niners....and unless I'm mistaken the Niners will be playing playoff football.

Pats have failed in playoffs last couple years despite having all the qualities people say you need, why doesn't that come up as much? Its just a matter of taking bits and pieces of scant evidence and drawing whatever conclusion you want.

 

[Ties5o11]

The thing is, random chance has much more to do with results than people understand or want to admit, so instead they try to take the limited data and draw these huge conclusions that really don't make sense.

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Anyone else tired of hearing people say "you can't win a Super Bowl without X", or "you need a X to win in the playoffs".....of course this is after decades of the timeless cliche "defense wins championships"...... like its a different sport or different set of rules in the playoffs? The one this Jason Cole guy was just saying on KNBR was "you need big plays in the playoffs", just a stupid and irrational statement.

Its still football, its still 11 on 11. The games will be a bit colder on average, the competition will be higher, but its still the same sport, and teams will win and lose on the same strengths and weaknesses they did during the season.

The problem is the same with many fallacies, that people confuse correlation with causation. There are very few playoff games, and certainly not enough data to draw any conclusions about how it differs from regular season. The thing is, random chance has much more to do with results than people understand or want to admit, so instead they try to take the limited data and draw these huge conclusions that really don't make sense.

Well, you can certainly draw the conclusion that the teams you play are going to be the top teams in the league. That should tell you that you need to up your game if you want to be successful there.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Dammit guys, I needed support and confirmation here. I'm too insecure to deal with disagreement, thus, I must rage.

Ha ha ha! Pretty funny. Made me laugh.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

I think that goes with "better competition".....you are not going to get by with weak output against good teams.

But you guys are also hitting my point about causation vs. correlation....just because the best two teams in the NFC right now are offensive-minded doesn't mean anything about "playoff football", it just means that those two offense-heavy teams will tend to score more than 20.....and will probably give up points too.

But isn't that rule flipped if a team is going against the Niners? You don't need big plays to beat the Niners, you don't need a great QB or explosive offense to beat the a defense-strong team like the Niners....and unless I'm mistaken the Niners will be playing playoff football.

Pats have failed in playoffs last couple years despite having all the qualities people say you need, why doesn't that come up as much? Its just a matter of taking bits and pieces of scant evidence and drawing whatever conclusion you want.

But big plays are exactly what beat the 49ers in two of the three losses they had.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

But big plays are exactly what beat the 49ers in two of the three losses they had.

I'd classify this as a "correlation"......the Niners aren't exactly bulletproof, we've seen various ways they're susceptible. The secondary can be beaten with both big plays and regular old precision passing - a few offenses have really moved the ball up and down the field against them - but the saving grace has been turnovers. A team that's more careful with the ball could have a better time against them and wouldn't have to move the ball in chunks of yards.

 

[tallglassofwater007]

I would say that in the playoffs you need clutch plays more than big plays. Picking up 3rd downs, and stopping 3rd downs. A couple returns past the 30. Things like that.

 

[MW49ers5]

I'd classify this as a "correlation"......the Niners aren't exactly bulletproof, we've seen various ways they're susceptible. The secondary can be beaten with both big plays and regular old precision passing - a few offenses have really moved the ball up and down the field against them - but the saving grace has been turnovers. A team that's more careful with the ball could have a better time against them and wouldn't have to move the ball in chunks of yards.

In the case of the Arizona loss it is both...

 

[MW49ers5]

I would say that in the playoffs you need clutch plays more than big plays. Picking up 3rd downs, and stopping 3rd downs. A couple returns past the 30. Things like that.

100% agreed! Clutch plays require confidence.

Playoff nerves are a real thing and if they are not controlled they will affect the play of some individuals and quite possibly the outcome as well.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

I'd classify this as a "correlation"......the Niners aren't exactly bulletproof, we've seen various ways they're susceptible. The secondary can be beaten with both big plays and regular old precision passing - a few offenses have really moved the ball up and down the field against them - but the saving grace has been turnovers. A team that's more careful with the ball could have a better time against them and wouldn't have to move the ball in chunks of yards.

That scares me as well. I hate it when a defense has to count on turnovers to stop another team because as you said, a team that is careful with the ball can beat them. You can't count on getting turnovers.

 

[MW49ers5]

That scares me as well. I hate it when a defense has to count on turnovers to stop another team because as you said, a team that is careful with the ball can beat them. You can't count on getting turnovers.

Your post Sir has been ahhhh-pproved!

Seattle made it look way to easy to march 80 yards in 7 plays.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Your post Sir has been ahhhh-pproved!

Seattle made it look way to easy to march 80 yards in 7 plays.

Did you read Calamity's post in the Niners-Rams GD thread? He said the reason the 49ers never score in the red zone is that Harbaugh has Akers on his fantasy team. That cracked me up!

 

[polfnikufesin]

That scares me as well. I hate it when a defense has to count on turnovers to stop another team because as you said, a team that is careful with the ball can beat them. You can't count on getting turnovers.

Exactly, the last time da Bears went to the Superbowl they led the league in the turnover department (i'm just going from memory, I'm sure somebody will google it and let me know they were 2nd or 3rd). But the next year they didn't and they sucked. I see this happening to the 9ers, because like you said, you can't count on turnovers. Although!!! This defense is pretty badass, and they do create alot of them, they haven't been all gimmies.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Yeah, turnovers are weird.....there is obviously an element of skill or talent to it, but plenty of it comes down to plain luck - certainly fumble recoveries are the latter.