But because one team wins in the postseason doesn't make a guy more clutch over another. Winning football games, whether the regular season or the postseason is all about matchups. If you have the superior matchups, then you'll win your games.
Hypocrisy. Ryan has been beaten down like a government mule here because he hasn't won in the playoffs. I take Ryan over Eli any day and twice on Sundays.
Are you calling me a hypocrite? I'm not sure why. The same reason why I deflect blame for Ryan's playoff losses are the exact same reason why I deflect "credit" for Eli's playoff wins. The Giants beat us because they were a better team than us that had much more favorable matchups. And the Falcons counter to those lopsided matchups was to hit the Giants with one of the weaker parts of their offense, their below average running attack. So it's no wonder to me why Matt Ryan played poorly in that game. Again, that's not me absolving Ryan of blame for his poor play against the Giants.
The idea that had the Falcons scored a late touchdown in garbage time would change people's perceptions of Ryan seems like BS. I don't think people would be laying off Ryan if that final score was 24-9 as opposed to 24-2.
I think the Falcons are not coached well to win in January, while a team like the Giants are. Their offense has the "high variance," a trait they've shared with each of the 3 previous winners of the NFC, in that their offenses typically range from very good/explosive to very bad/erratic in the regular season. But through 16 weeks of regular season, that variance is honed to a point that come January they are much better equipped and battle-tested to make it so that they are able to elevate their play to the necessary level to win games. The Falcons on the other hand have a low variance offense that centers on consistency. This IMO prevents them from being able to elevate their play to the new level necessary to win consistently in January. That IMO is an issue completely independent of Matt Ryan. I believe Matt Ryan is capable of running one of the high variance offenses akin to Eli, Kurt Warner, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees before him.
And the problem is that high variance isn't exactly conducive to winning in the regular season as you can see from the regular season records of Warner in Arizona, and the Giants struggles over the past 4 years, as well as the Packers in 2010 and the Saints prior to 2009, you can wind up looking at a lot of 8-8 or 9-7 seasons. But as we've seen with the Packers last year and the Saints since '09, you can see that level of variance become honed to a point that you become a low variance team i.e. a team that is highly explosive yet very consistent at doing so. And given that a team like the Saints have been either the 1st, 2nd or 3rd best team in the conference in each of the last 3 seasons and that Payton has helped lead that team to become a legit SB contender in 4 out of the 6 years he's been htere, contrasted to the Falcons who have only been so in 1 out of 4 (and that 1, 2010, is debatable IMO) shows that is the best strategy from a coaching point. Given that the Patriots have been the same in the AFC, and most believe the Packers will be this way in the forseeable future, this is highly advantageous.
The Falcons are basically on this path where they will have 1, maybe 2 shots over the next 5 years to be that championship winning team. While other teams will get 3, 4 or more shots. It's a strategy of maximization.
And people will blame Matt Ryan for that, when they fail to realize that 99% of that is because of Dimitroff, Smith & Associates.