Is winning a lot of close games a good or bad sign for a team?

[CKS97]

On one hand, winning close games can be clutch and it can sometimes be more rewarding than a string of blowouts. And it can make for great viewing- see the Raiders a few years back with a healthy Derek Carr.

OTOH, when you win a ton of games by small margins, does it feel like they are playing with fire?

I think back to the 2003 Patriots and a stretch during their win streak after the 2-2 start in which they won a ton of games by close scores. At times, you thing they should have laid the smackdown more instead of winning by razor thin margins.

Outside of the 31-0 Buffalo week 17 win and a week 2 31-10 win at Philadelphia, their biggest win margin-wise was 27-13 against Jacksonville. And their scoring differential is +58 outside those two blowouts.

They won games by 7, 8, 11, 6, 6, 4, 12, 3, 4, 12, and 5 points, then won 2 games by only 3 points.

They won so many games by single-digit margins and I honestly thought they were playing with fire and not getting burned.

I mean, they only beat a bad Browns team 9-3 and you shouldn't have to rally late to beat the second year Texans in OT.

Even the celebrated AFC-CG 4 INT games of Manning was only 24-14, not exactly a bludgeoning.

Brady won a lot of close games in a way I honestly thought they were winning in spite of him.

Another example- the Broncos. The 2013 team with the record breaking 600+ point offense routinely destroyed opponents, the 2015 team with that all time defense was basically winning games by razor thin margins.

One team seemed unstoppable, the other seemed to be winning in spite of themselves- and ended up with opposite SB outcomes.

So what say you- is winning close games a sign of clutchness or is it a sign of playing with fire and avoiding getting burned?

[Hunter2_1]

The cliche is winning whilst you aren't playing at your best is a good sign. I think, in this league, with only 16 games, any win is a good thing. 

In a league geared up for parity, if you can win a lot of close games, you're doing something right. I say.

[Elky]

Good teams consistently find ways to win in crunch time. Winning a lot of close games is a sign of mental toughness and sense of urgency.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Bad. If you're really efficient, then games shouldn't be that close. If you're blowing out especially teams that are inferior, that's good. Close games can go either way, and turn a 10-6 team into a 7-9 team. Or the other way around. Teams that have a winning record based on winning a lot of close games, I'd be concerned as a fan once the playoffs start. 

[Malik]

It's hard to say because the NFL season is so short. It's great that your team/coaching staff has the mental toughness and discipline to be able to pull out games consistently. But I also believe that if you're a really good team then you should be winning games decisively because you're playing 4 quarters of complete football rather than having 1 or 2 good quarters per game. A 11+ team shouldn't have had a bunch of highly contested games with teams that won 3-6 games throughout the season.

[Jlowe22]

It can go either way.  It's not a good thing to not play at your best, but winning while not at your best means a higher potential.  It can also sometimes show that your team, especially the QB, does not fold under pressure and can do what it takes to close out a game.  Performance under pressure, or being clutch, is a real thing.  Some people are just worse under pressure than others.(Although many people use the term where it doesn't belong)

It's the NFL though, and sometimes you just can't blow a team out, regardless of how good you are.  Every team is capable of winning any game if they play at their best, and even the worst teams occasionally play at their best.  

Some of it is just pure luck and random chance, and that's always the danger of a close game, where one bad call can change the outcome.  In this way, it's better to blow teams out, to reduce the chance of bad luck costing you the game.

 

[Apparition]

It really depends on the outcomes of the games that aren't close. If they win a lot by < 7 points but also get blown out a lot, that probably doesn't bode well for their chances in the playoffs. 

There are exceptions, of course. The 2011 Giants are notable in that they ended up winning the Super Bowl despite having a -6 point differential. That team finished 9-7 with 5 of their 9 regular season wins coming by 3 or 4 points, and their average margin of defeat being 11.4 points.

[footbull3196]

In the season that it actually occurs - a good thing, provided the wins aren't over bad teams.  It shows character and ability to do whatever it takes to win no matter what the circumstances.  Obviously a team doesn't want to have to resort to having to win this way week in and week out because eventually it will come back to bite them if they let teams hang around, but I think most fans of a team will take close wins over close losses 

In the season after it occurs - bad thing.  Almost always, teams that win a ton of close games tend to regress back to the mean if not more than that.  Teams can improve talent wise and still get significantly worse record wise because certain things don't go their way

Case in point - 2001-2002 Chicago Bears

[sjfja_fkdldjs]

I feel like it's more important to see how the close game came to be. If it's a bunch of lead changes and 4th quarter comebacks, it's probably not as good as a team that just stayed consistently ahead. In the end, winning is winning. I would probably be more confident in the 13 win team over the 10 win team even if the 10 win team had bigger wins.

[Nozizaki]

Winning a lot of close games isn't sustainable. It's a huge sign that a team is likely to regress or improve. For instance, the 2016 Raiders went 7-2 in one score games, and in 2017 regressed. The 2014 Lions are another example. A really good team should win ~65% of their one score games. But more than that, really isn't sustainable.

[Centurion]

Being able to win a close game is important. Part of what make the Chiefs different is Mahomes can do what he did Monday night, while Smith would have NEVER been able to come back like that. That 2nd and 30, he throws a 5 yard out, and then a 12-15yd screen on 3rd and 25, and we punt.

However, when you're at your sparkling best, the game shouldn't be in doubt if you're a great team.

[stl4life07]

If teams are winning close games all the time then they don’t know how to put other teams away. It’s one thing is have some games where it’s close and that team find a way to win but the great teams know how to put teams away. It’s no coincidence that since McVay became the Rams head coach, the Rams are a great 4th quarter team.  No matter how the Rams look in the 1st half, they typically make adjustments at halftime come out in the 3rd quarter outscore and outplay their opponents by a wide margin and then in the 4th quarter they don’t usually even give their opponents a chance to think about a comeback. So to me that’s what separates the good teams from the great teams and that’s consistently putting teams away and not having to all the time find yourself in a close game where you are trying to find a way to win.

[Calvert28]

Go ask the Longhorns they sure as hell seem to have a comfort zone in heart pounding games.

[BayRaider]

Good and bad but mostly bad. Raiders for example, 12-4 in 2016 but we won or lost literally every game by one score. Derek Carr had the most game winning TD passes in the history of the league with 7. We were really a 9-7 fringe wildcard team with Carr playing the most clutch football that anyone could possibly play. 

[lancerman]

In my experiences, whenever the Patriots pull out a tough game they really shouldn't have it shows that they have resiliency to do the same in the playoffs. Maybe not a lot of close games, but some or one. If a team just wins a lot of games uncontested and then they find themselves in a tough situation in the playoffs they usually don't know how to deal with it. See the 2010 Patriots