Playoff experience matters

[Ellard80]

I made a thread about what the Rams were up against but there are still some people who seem to think that it really doesn't matter - At first I was kind of this way. But after reflecting and looking at the history of the game. I kind of have to slap myself. If you look back at the history of the super bowl and playoffs its pretty obvious. In theory (like the bogus mindframe that a playoff game is just like any other game) it doesn't matter.

Winners in the playoffs and Super Bowl are DOMINATED by teams that have been their before (steelers, patriots, ect ect) Matt Ryan has been in the playoff several times before he won. If you go back and research it (which I did a little) you can see that experience matters.

We have this 1999 rams thing that exists in our brain - so we think that somehow its reasonable for that to happen. But the truth is - it almost never happens.

 

[Ellard80]

You will find lots of quotes one way or the other.. especially if from coaches - If I'm a coach with a young team ofcourse I'm going to vehemently state that playoff experience doesn't matter.

Here is one quote from last year that Aaron Rodgers said to Dak Presscot (some interesting bits that relate to some debates on this board)

“There’s a lot of things that go into it, but you’re a top-seed and you’ve been off for a week,” Rodgers said, via the Star-Telegram. “There’s added pressure of trying to hold serve at home and there’s the potential rust factor of haven’t played in a few weeks. A lot of starters didn’t play in that last game against Philly. We’re coming off a stretch where we had to win every game for the last seven to keep this thing rolling.

There’s a lot to be said about momentum and about playoff experience I think,” Rodgers said.

 

[Angry Ram]

The Chiefs have been in the playoffs four of the last five years. They got beat by a team that hasn't been in the playoffs since 2008.

The Vikings are vastly inexperienced, too...yet they are favored to go all the way.

So no, experience didn't cause this loss. It was the Rams' not executing and the Falcons playing better. That simple.

 

[Ellard80]

The Chiefs have been in the playoffs four of the last five years. They got beat by a team that hasn't been in the playoffs since 2008.

The Vikings are vastly inexperienced, too...yet they are favored to go all the way.

So no, experience didn't cause this loss. It was the Rams' not executing and the Falcons playing better. That simple.

Yes yes so one game with two not very good teams proves me wrong.

Honestly the chiefs are a good example of how being in the playoffs doesn't always helps - but they are more of an outlier than the norm.

 

[Angry Ram]

Yes yes so one game with two not very good teams proves me wrong - thanks!

You want more?? Fine.

2005 shitbirds
2008 Giants
2010 Packers
2015 Panthers

Those are just a few that either got to or won it all.

So no, the playoff experience mantra has only been exclusively applied to the Rams, when the other NFC teams also fall in the same boat. The Falcons were just better yesterday. No need to be snarky and sarcastic because I disagree with your post.

 

[Ellard80]

You want more?? Fine.

2005 shitbirds
2008 Giants
2010 Packers
2015 Panthers

Those are just a few that either got to or won it all.

So no, the playoff experience mantra has only been exclusively applied to the Rams, when the other NFC teams also fall in the same boat. The Falcons were just better yesterday. No need to be snarky and sarcastic because I disagree with your post.

NM I see it now - I'm talking about teams that won the super bowl. (that most have playoff and our super bowl experience).

 

[I like Rams]

I think it differs from player to player. Our D was lights out most of the game, and all but one person have never seen a playoff berth. But on offense...i think the pressure got to players like Pharoh and Goff.

 

[Ellard80]

There are few that have won without experience.. but way more have won with.

 

[Angry Ram]

What are those teams supposed to be?

I say it on my very next sentence. Those teams all got to the Super Bowl or won it all. Prior years they were either one and done in the playoffs (like the Rams) or were first timers.

 

[Memphis Ram]

IMO, playoff experience is simply mere media driven talk when discussing the upcoming game(s).

 

[Ellard80]

2005 seattle seahawks 3 years in playoffs - 2 years they lost in first round (playoff experience)
2015 Carolina panthers 3 years in playoffs - then reached superbowl
2008 Giants??? won superbowl year before.. were in playoffs multiple years before that.
2010 Packers in playoffs 3 out of the 4 years (including year before they won superbowl)


So actually all those teams help prove my point - All had tons of playoff experience.

 

[Angry Ram]

^^^^^They were one and done in previous years. A wild card game doesn't = experience. Teams like the Steelers of recent years, yes who are in the postseason every year. But the league history is littered with teams that have made deep playoff runs with no prior experience (like the opponent who beat the Rams yesterday). Seriously, the Falcons last postseason run prior to last season was 2012.

It's a mixed bag then. Like I said before this mantra has been exclusively applied to the Rams and hardly any other team. Which fits the theme of the season...quality of opponents, easy schedule, coach babying the QB, etc.

 

[Ellard80]

IMO, playoff experience is simply mere media driven talk when discussing the upcoming game(s).

Media loves debatable topics yes.

 

[Ellard80]

^^^^^They were one and done in previous years. A wild card game doesn't = experience. Teams like the Steelers of recent years, yes who are in the postseason every year. But the league history is littered with teams that have made deep playoff runs with no prior experience (like the opponent who beat the Rams yesterday). Seriously, the Falcons last postseason run prior to last season was 2012.

It's a mixed bag then. Like I said before this mantra has been exclusively applied to the Rams and hardly any other team. Which fits the theme of the season...quality of opponents, easy schedule, coach babying the QB, etc.

A wild card game doesn't equal experience?. Honestly I'm not trying to be snarky but the stuff you are arguing here is getting worse and worse. Your example of the Chiefs was a decent one - but since then everything you are saying actually supports my position.

Matt Ryan has played in 9 playoff games btw... including 3 games last year - so yeah some of their team wasn't around for the last playoff run.. but a million times more experienced than the Rams.

 

[Angry Ram]

A wild card game doesn't equal experience?. Honestly I'm not trying to be snarky but the stuff you are arguing here is getting worse and worse. Your example of the Chiefs was a decent one - but since then everything you are saying actually supports my position.

Matt Ryan has played in 9 playoff games btw... including 3 games last year - so yeah some of their team wasn't around for the last playoff run.. but a million times more experienced than the Rams.

No, it doesn't. Not one game. Experience to me means years of doing one thing. I've done an internship in the refining industry for 3 months. That doesn't = experience in that sector, at least not enough to make me a factor.

Worse and worse? I gave you a bunch of teams that made deep playoff runs with very limited or no experience in years prior. There are a bunch of others, too.

Including Atlanta. "Some" of their team? Try majority.

2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Atlanta_Falcons_season#Final_roster

2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Atlanta_Falcons_season

Only Julio, Matt Ryan, and Matt Bryant were on both teams. In contrast, the Rams had 6 players that went to the post season before last night. So by that line of thinking, the Rams had plenty of experience.

Bottom line is experience doesn't cause fumbles, dropped passes, or allowing opposing RBs to gash through a defense. That's basic football. Yeah, I get nerves caused a bad first quarter. But after??? Limiting them to FGs early, cutting the lead to less than 7 points? Where does the experience factor come into play there?

Experience, shmexperience...Rams lost a football game because they didn't execute and Atlanta did.

 

[Ram65]

I don't think Coopers mistake (s) were because he was not in the playoffs before. That put the Rams behind the score and time of possession. The Brockers injury hurt the Rams who lack depth. I think the Rams could have won the game had they not had the turnovers. I can buy that experience helps teams but, it's not an excuse for losing to a very good team.

 

[Ellard80]

No, it doesn't. Not one game. Experience to me means years of doing one thing. I've done an internship in the refining industry for 3 months. That doesn't = experience in that sector, at least not enough to make me a factor.

Worse and worse? I gave you a bunch of teams that made deep playoff runs with very limited or no experience in years prior. There are a bunch of others, too.

Including Atlanta. "Some" of their team? Try majority.

2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Atlanta_Falcons_season#Final_roster

2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Atlanta_Falcons_season

Only Julio, Matt Ryan, and Matt Bryant were on both teams. In contrast, the Rams had 6 players that went to the post season before last night. So by that line of thinking, the Rams had plenty of experience.

Bottom line is experience doesn't cause fumbles, dropped passes, or allowing opposing RBs to gash through a defense. That's basic football. Yeah, I get nerves caused a bad first quarter. But after??? Limiting them to FGs early, cutting the lead to less than 7 points? Where does the experience factor come into play there?

Experience, shmexperience...Rams lost a football game because they didn't execute and Atlanta did.

yeah my man you cited 4 teams as not having experience.. one of them you cited even won the super bowl the year before.

Now you are trying to make some bizarre argument about what constitutes experience.

I understand your opinion - but its lacking evidence. I also never said directly made some excuse that the rams lost just because of inexperience.

I just did some research and found that overwhelmingly teams that win in the playoffs have previous playoff experience.

 

[jacktheripper85]

I think it differs from player to player. Our D was lights out most of the game, and all but one person have never seen a playoff berth. But on offense...i think the pressure got to players like Pharoh and Goff.

Why do you say Goff? Special teams put us in a 13-0 hole. If he throws a few picks after that and the Rams get blown out like 30-0 than I’d say you are right about the pressure. Instead the kid leads us on 2 scoring drives with some awesome throws before the half to get us right back in the game. If the defense makes a stop on 3rd and long on the first drive of the second half I bet it’s a different game. Goff had a lot of confidence going after the way he finished the first half.

 

[LACHAMP46]

meh....hot teams win in the playoffs...Falcons finished hot...we kinda limped in.

 

[HellRam]

The Chiefs have been in the playoffs four of the last five years. They got beat by a team that hasn't been in the playoffs since 2008.

The Vikings are vastly inexperienced, too...yet they are favored to go all the way.

So no, experience didn't cause this loss. It was the Rams' not executing and the Falcons playing better. That simple.

I actually agree with this.

Having playoff experience or not, doesn't make you run faster, hit harder or throw more accurately.
I think teams with playoff experience usually do better, well because usually they are the better team. I also think the rest topic is a bit overblown as well. Just my take.