Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Professional Sports Discussion > National Football League

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-30-2004, 06:40 AM   #61
Brad O.
1,549
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 792
Brad O. will become famous soon enough
Default

Oh no, DWB. Almost any rational person would agree that Vick's 2002 was better than Manning's 1998. Manning's performances speak for themselves; you don't need to spin anything to know that Vick doesn't compare now. I'll take any of Manning's non-rookie years over anything Vick has ever done, but Vick was very impressive in '02, and Manning was still on a learning curve in '98. Vick's Falcons won a playoff game at Lambeau Field. Manning's Colts went 3-13.

That said...
Quote:
originally posted by Doug Graham
It clearly implies one instance of criteria and not complete criteria. I don't see where I'm being intellectual dishonest, you simply took what I said for entire criteria. That's an intellectual miss on your end.
No, the way you phrased it, it clearly implies that to be the only criterion. Look:
Quote:
posted by Peyton
Dan Fouts was the best QB of the early 80s. It isn't close.

It isn't even close to being close.


posted by Tom
Jim Plunkett has two super bowls, Danny White has been to three NFC Title games. Pretty ****ing close if you ask me.
If you don't supplement that with anything else -- and you didn't -- then that appears to be the only thing you're looking at. Now that may not have been your intent, but the way you wrote it clearly implies that team performance is the basis for your conclusion. Talking about championship games constituted the entirety of your response.

Quote:
originally posted by Doug Graham
That I "simply don't like Manning". Read that over again. Realize how ridiculous you sound. I'm emotionally indifferent to Manning and have been for some time now. I've stated my case against Manning MANY times.
I disagree and I stand by what I wrote. You've stated distaste for Manning MANY times. A "case"? Not so much.

Quote:
originally posted by Doug Graham
He doesn't take sacks.***For the most part agree, but he has taken some big ones, earlier this year vs. NE and vs. SD this past weekend
Do the other 13 games count? Manning has been sacked 13 times this season, least in the league. Brady's had 25 and McNabb 32. This really isn't an arguable point. If Manning's not the best in the league, he's awfully close. He doesn't take sacks.

Quote:
originally posted by Doug Graham
As I said before, ignore anything I've said about McNabb if you want. And even on this McNabb thing, personally I'm not dead-set in him being better than Manning, but I think he has done things that warrant his mentioning in the conversation for top QB in the league.
When I brought up that you are an Eagles homer, it wasn't meant in any way to reflect upon your inclusion of McNabb in this discussion. If a discussion was warranted -- and the problem here is that it isn't -- then McNabb would be the first name on my list. IMO, he's the #2 QB in the NFL... but that's debatable. Manning being #1 is not.

Last year there was room for debate. I felt that Manning was the NFL's best player; Peyton was my all-pro QB but Brady was my choice for league MVP. If you wanted to argue that Brady or Steve McNair was the best QB in the league, I would have disagreed, but I'd have understood where you're coming from.

Today, though, arguing that Manning isn't #1 is untenable. Manning in 2004 is Marino in 1984.

If I'm reading your posts correctly, you're willing to forego arguments about McNabb and focus on Brady, right? And you're willing to use stats as a guide?
.............comp%...y/a...td%...int%...rating...tot yds...td
Manning
...67.7......9.2....9.9.....2.0.....121.4.....4488.....49
Brady
......59.9......7.8....5.9.....2.9.......91.9.....3334.....26

I know you said stats don't end the argument, but if the numbers mean ANYTHING, I think it becomes clear that there's no comparison. And you've already conceded that Manning is top of the list in intangibles like two-minute drill, play-fakes, timing, and accuracy.

There aren't enough criteria left for Brady to make up that much ground. Even if you want to argue that Brady is smarter than Manning (I think the opposite) and that Manning struggles in big games (which is demonstrably false at this point in his career), it couldn't possibly be by a large enough margin to overcome Manning's advantage everywhere else.

I don't just think you're wrong that Brady and McNabb ahead of Manning. I think it's absurd that you believe there's even room for discussion.
Brad O. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 10:43 AM   #62
HibachiDG
Sports Virtuoso
 
HibachiDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 4,258
HibachiDG is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
I disagree and I stand by what I wrote. You've stated distaste for Manning MANY times. A "case"? Not so much.
If you stand by what you wrote, that I have a PERSONAL dislike for Manning, then you're flat out wrong. No two ways around that Brad. It's easily the dumbest thing I've ever read on these boards. I don't know why you'd even draw the conclusion. Especially seeing as how my Curve on Manning has started with thinking he was a great talent coming out of college, but never beat Florida, moved to him being a great talent, but having certain flaws, where I'd take a number of QBs over him, to now where there are only 2 I'd take over him, while saying that Manning has the most raw talent. Where do you see personal dislike for Manning in all of this? It's a very insulting notion, especially when you've only based it on me criticizing aspects of his performance.

Quote:
Do the other 13 games count? Manning has been sacked 13 times this season, least in the league. Brady's had 25 and McNabb 32. This really isn't an arguable point. If Manning's not the best in the league, he's awfully close. He doesn't take sacks.
Which is why I said that I agreed, for the most part. Sacked 4 times by the Chargers, bad sack in the game with NE. I'm saying I agree, but that he does take bad sacks.

Quote:
If I'm reading your posts correctly, you're willing to forego arguments about McNabb and focus on Brady, right? And you're willing to use stats as a guide?
Yes and I've never said to take stats out of an argument, just don't let them be the end of the discussion.

Quote:
I know you said stats don't end the argument, but if the numbers mean ANYTHING, I think it becomes clear that there's no comparison. And you've already conceded that Manning is top of the list in intangibles like two-minute drill, play-fakes, timing, and accuracy.
I think intangibles such as spreading the ball around and like I've said, having the ability to control a good defense in whatever manner you want, plus winning are better.

Quote:
nd that Manning struggles in big games (which is demonstrably false at this point in his career)
I'm not sure how this is demonstrably false. I do believe Manning made progress, but to say this is completely false is a joke. He threw 4 picks in his last playoff game. He did nothing to help his side win the game.

Also, I don't see why you only threw up Manning's numbers from this year compared to Brady's for this year. We're arguing the better QB, not who had the better season. I haven't once argued that some QB has had a better season than Manning. Which is why I keep mentioning that Brady has won two super bowls.

If Manning plays well in the playoff games, I'm certainly willing to change my assessment of Manning, as I have changed in this season. Oh wait, I dislike Manning personally, I couldn't have possibly moved him up in my book based on this season! Oh my, what a dilemma.

Manning doesn't even have to WIN a playoff game in my mind. Even if they were to lose to the Steelers or Patriots, but he played a good game and gave his team the chance to win, then I'd probably bump him ahead of Brady.

I really don't see how it's too much to ask for a good performance against a top defense in a playoff game before anointing the guy the best QB in the league. I don't see how that is a ridiculous notion, seeing as ultimately you want QBs to have good games against top defenses.
HibachiDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 11:07 AM   #63
Tarkus
The Thread Stalker
 
Tarkus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In The Wind...
Posts: 11,856
Tarkus has a spectacular aura aboutTarkus has a spectacular aura aboutTarkus has a spectacular aura about
Default

& now a word from our sponsor......& then back to the action....
__________________

Last edited by Tarkus; 12-04-2005 at 05:41 PM.
Tarkus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 04:26 PM   #64
dirtywhiteboy
Mr. Cub
 
dirtywhiteboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Elkhart, Indiana
Posts: 392
dirtywhiteboy is on a distinguished road
Default

I just came to the realization that I'm not a rational person. What to do?
__________________
Get me a bottle of Advil..............the Cubs game is starting....
dirtywhiteboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 04:50 PM   #65
MountaineerDave
Where am I?
 
MountaineerDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 5,661
MountaineerDave is on a distinguished road
Default

Great post, Tarkus.

So, I just spent the last half hour or so catching up on this great debate. Good, good stuff, Brad and Doug.

Couple things:
1. I'm not a Manning rumpswab, but I understand and appreciate that he's having one of the best seasons ever by a QB.
2. Contrary to Brad's assertion that it is so, Manning's big game record remains distinctly dark. He had a great performance last year against Denver, sure. And carved up the inimitably carvable KC D. But, put him up against a real defense... not so much. (I have a theory on this, and maybe Brad can check the numbers to see if it bears merit, I'll note my theory in a moment).
3. Brad, there's ALWAYS room for discussion. ALWAYS. It's unbearably arrogant and demeaning of you to suggest otherwise. You can pound books and insist on statistical power as being the might that makes opinions right, but at the end of the day, I'm with Doug: Montana is the best QB I ever saw at managing the game, doing the little things, etc., despite being dwarfed numerically by Mr Marino. And when you draw the comparison of Marino to Manning (as you have) and Montana to Brady (as Doug did), well... then...
There's room for discussion. That's all.

Hypothesis: Manning struggles v 3-4 defenses.

I came up with this idea when I learned that Dominick Rhodes pulled his nuts from the flame with a return for a TD that made the comeback possible last week.

Reasons this might be: a 3-4 D will be in their base look a LOT more often than a 4-3 D. Cover 'backers stay in the game all three downs in a lot of instances, playing the TE and the occasional slot receiver. This leaves a good deal more reading the safeties and their positioning than you'd get from a 4-3 that has to shift to a nickel or dime in a 3rd and 5 situation. Not that 3-4 Ds don't nickel and dime, but they don't have to do so as often.

Manning struggled to beat the Chargers. Manning didn't beat the Patriots. Both teams' base Ds are 3-4.

I'm just throwing it out there is all.

(Actually, I'm hoping it has some merit. I'm scared CRAPLESS of this guy if he comes to the Big Ketchup Bottle. And, uh, yeah, the Steelers run a base 3-4; in fact, they rarely play out of their base D at all--partially because their nickel- and dimebacks suck so much, partially because their base guys are just that good.)

Dave
__________________
mountaineerdave on twitter
mountaineerdavem on AIM
MountaineerDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 07:31 PM   #66
Kornbix
Super Bowl or bust
 
Kornbix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Mike Vick Ride
Posts: 3,172
Kornbix is on a distinguished road
Default

You know wat guys is so great? The arguments here get played out by other people in what we call the NFL playoffs WOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! I cant friggin wait Go Falcons
Kornbix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2004, 11:53 PM   #67
dirtywhiteboy
Mr. Cub
 
dirtywhiteboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Elkhart, Indiana
Posts: 392
dirtywhiteboy is on a distinguished road
Wink

Amen to that. The NFC is weak. I could see Mr. Kornbix's Falcons making it to the Super Bowl. I can only hope that it's a Colts/Falcons match-up. We could have a lot of fun with it. I'm pulling for your Falcons. I'm licking my chops at the chance to see Indy absolutely punish them. :bash:
__________________
Get me a bottle of Advil..............the Cubs game is starting....
dirtywhiteboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2004, 12:05 AM   #68
MaddEnemy
Always next year
 
MaddEnemy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: JAGSonville
Posts: 718
MaddEnemy is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by dirtywhiteboy
I'm licking my chops at the chance to see Indy absolutely punish them. :bash:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg images.jpg (1.4 KB, 52 views)
MaddEnemy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2004, 12:33 AM   #69
Kornbix
Super Bowl or bust
 
Kornbix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Mike Vick Ride
Posts: 3,172
Kornbix is on a distinguished road
Default

Nah it ain't gonna be that way. Your gonna see Mike Vick shine in the spotlight WOOOOOOOO:
Kornbix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2004, 04:04 AM   #70
Anthony
Moderator
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 8,377
Anthony is on a distinguished road
Default

If I had to guess right now, I'd say that Tony Dungy and Jim Mora Jr. are headed for a post-season meeting - in the Pro Bowl, after their teams lose to Buffalo and Carolina, respectively, in the AFC and NFC championship games!
Anthony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2004, 05:42 AM   #71
Brad O.
1,549
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 792
Brad O. will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Kornbix
You know wat guys is so great? The arguments here get played out by other people in what we call the NFL playoffs
No they won't. If the Colts win out or the Patriots lose but Brady plays the game of his life or Vick throws seven interceptions, nothing is settled. You can't judge QBs by one or two games, and you can't judge any individual players by their teams' performances.

Quote:
Originally posted by Doug Graham
I'm saying I agree, but that he does take bad sacks.
And I'm saying everyone does; Manning is among the best -- maybe the best -- at avoiding sacks.

Quote:
Originally posted by Doug Graham
I think intangibles such as spreading the ball around and like I've said, having the ability to control a good defense in whatever manner you want, plus winning are better.
Manning doesn't spread the ball around?
Give him a defense before you say he's not a winner.

Dave, I was hoping you would join this conversation. I know you've always been a Manning skeptic, and I've been curious about your thoughts.

Quote:
Originally posted by MountaineerDave
Brad, there's ALWAYS room for discussion. ALWAYS. It's unbearably arrogant and demeaning of you to suggest otherwise. You can pound books and insist on statistical power as being the might that makes opinions right
Perhaps it would help if I rephrase my thoughts: I don't find arguments for anyone else credible right now. I turned to stats as a last resort, but as I noted earlier, I think all the numbers do is confirm the obvious. Manning is playing at the highest level I've seen in more than a decade, maybe ever. McNabb and Culpepper and Brady are nice QBs, but it's like D-I and high school. You could argue about whether Reggie Wayne is better than my old college teammate Dave Snider, but why bother?

Discussion is great, but it's moot right now. I don't think a credible argument can be made for anyone but Manning.

Quote:
Originally posted by MountaineerDave
Manning's big game record remains distinctly dark.
I'm going to have to hold off on looking up Manning's stats against 3-4 teams, because I decided to instead check the numbers from every "big game" (my discretion) of Manning's NFL career. Postseason and pre-2001 stats are from usually-but-not-always-reliable pro-football-reference.com. Post-2000 regular season stats are from nfl.com.

I didn't look at anything from 1998. Manning was a rookie and the Colts went 3-13. They didn't have any big games.

In 1999, Indy coasted to a division title. The Colts lost two of their first four games, then reeled off 11 in a row before a meaningless Week 17 loss. This was against a weak schedule (weighted for a 3-13 finish the previous season) and I don't think the Colts really played any big games during the regular season.

If you're pressing, you could count victories against 9-7 Miami and 10-6 Washington in weeks 13 and 15. The Dolphins were 8-3, Washington 8-5. Manning was blah in both games. Nothing special, nothing disgraceful.

The "biggest" game from '99, easily, was a second-round playoff match against Tennessee. Manning had an ugly game and the Titans won 16-13.
19-43, 227 yd, 0 TD, 0 INT; 22 rush yd, 1 TD

Stakes were much higher, obviously, in 2000. Manning and the Colts got a nice jump in week 4, annihilating the Jaguars 43-14. Manning had perhaps the greatest game of his career to that point.
23-36, 440 yd, 4 TD, 0 INT
Week 5 featured an important game against the Bills, but I don't know that it was really a "big" game. Manning was ok and the Colts won 18-16. Much more significant were two late-season matchups with Miami. The Dolphins won in Indy in week 13 and the Colts won in Miami three weeks later. Manning was average in the first game and pretty good in the second.
16-34, 209 yd, 2 TD, 1 INT; 26 rush yd
21-28, 206 yd, 1 TD, 0 INT; 20 rush yd, 1 TD

In the last week of the season, Indy destroyed 11-5 Minnesota in a game with potential playoff implications for both teams. Manning was on fire. I've noted it for the sake of completeness, but I'm not sure I'd file it under "big games".

Obviously more significant was Indy's first-round postseason rematch with the Dolphins in Miami. The Dolphins won in overtime on Lamar Smith's TD. Most of you probably remember it. Manning was blah.
17-32, 194 yd, 1 TD, 0 INT

2001 was the weakest season of Manning's post-rookie career. The Colts won their first two games, both against division opponents and with more than 40 points. Manning was pretty good. The week 5 meeting with Oakland might deserve mention here; Manning struggled and the Raiders won 23-18. Week 9 against the Dolphins could count, I guess. James was hurt but the Colts still had playoff hopes (cue Jim Mora). Manning was ok but the Colts lost 27-24. It's tough to argue that Indianapolis played any really big games in '01.

Tony Dungy took over in 2002 and the Colts returned to the playoffs, only to get crushed 41-0 by the Jets. Manning had a terrible game.
14-31, 137 yd, 0 TD, 2 INT
The biggest game of the regular season probably was a week 14 loss to AFC South champs Tennessee. Manning threw for almost 300 yards but got picked three times and the Titans won 27-17.

The 2003 Colts clearly were the most mature since Peyton came to town. They went 12-4, with no consecutive losses. The first big game of the season was a week 2 meeting with Tennessee. Manning played well and his team won 33-7.
14-21, 173 yd, 1 TD, 0 INT
Week 5, against Tampa on Monday night, was probably the biggest regular season game of 2003. Manning led one of the NFL's greatest comebacks against defending Super Bowl champions boasting one of the league's best defenses.
34-47, 386 yd, 2 TD, 1 INT
The only other regular-season games from 2003 that might merit "big" designation were week 13 against the Patriots and week 14 against the Titans. Against NE, Manning put up great numbers, but the Pats won 38-34. Peyton was solid against TEN and the Colts won 29-27. I figure all playoff games count as big, and we all know that Manning tore things up in the first two rounds.
22-26, 377 yd, 5 TD, 0 INT
22-30, 304 yd, 3 TD, 0 INT

As we also know, things didn't go nearly as well in Foxboro.
23-47, 237 yd, 1 TD, 4 INT

2004 was the year Manning's HOF future went from probable to definite. The season-opener against New England probably counts as pretty big. Manning was inconsistent and the Pats won 27-24.
16-29, 256 yd, 2 TD, 1 INT
The next two games, against the Titans and Packers, probably deserve mention because Tennessee was still expected to contend and the GB game was ridiculously hyped. Manning was great and the Colts won both games by double-digits. Week 9, against 5-2 Minnesota on MNF, was a pretty big deal because Indy was coming off consecutive losses. With neither team playing much defense, the game turned into a shootout. Manning's performance was nearly perfect and the Colts won 31-28.
23-29, 268 yd, 4 TD, 0 INT
Count the last two games, against Baltimore and San Diego, at your own discretion. Manning was pretty impressive in both.

I know I'm missing a lot of stuff. Fourth-quarter drives against .500 teams and games I just missed and all that. And there are more games from the last few years than the early seasons. That's an accident, but I think it's probably a good one, since recent performance is more indicative than anything that happened five years ago. I also think that Colts games in '03 and '04 have been more significant than in years past. Quarrel with my sample if you want -- it's certainly not perfect -- but I think it's a reasonably fair sampling. Here are the totals of all the bold passing numbers I already posted:
264-433, 3414 yd, 26 TD, 9 INT
61.0 comp%, 7.9 yards/att, 6.0 td%, 2.1 int%, 97.1 rating
average: 20-33, 263 yd, 2 TD, 0.7 INT

Are stats the end of the story? No. But based on the data I've gathered I don't see an objective grounds for questioning Peyton's performances in big games. Subjective grounds, naturally, remain, but allow me to suggest that the old stereotype about Manning's inability to win big games has a lot more to do with his college career and a bad defense than with lack of heart, lack of smarts, or a tendency to choke.

Last edited by Brad O.; 12-31-2004 at 05:55 AM.
Brad O. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2004, 07:05 AM   #72
coachJ
All-Star Player
 
coachJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 973
coachJ is on a distinguished road
Default

but all the good performances in the "big games" were in the regular season.....the games in the regular season are nothing like when they make it to the playoffs....and theres only 2 games up there in the playoffs where Manning did anything worth a crap, and that was in the 2003 playoffs against that WONDERFUL KC defense*sarcasm*, but i admit the Tennessee defense was pretty good....so Manning has had one good BIG game in the 2003 playoff game against Tennessee....doesnt sound like he can win the big games to me...
coachJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2004, 04:09 PM   #73
Kornbix
Super Bowl or bust
 
Kornbix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Mike Vick Ride
Posts: 3,172
Kornbix is on a distinguished road
Default

The two playoff games that he has won were against some SORRY defenses. That proves absolutly nothing. nd when he did get to the big time against the Pats, he played horendus. Hopefully he'll play a half way decent defense this year and we'll see what happens.
Kornbix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2005, 05:24 PM   #74
MountaineerDave
Where am I?
 
MountaineerDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 5,661
MountaineerDave is on a distinguished road
Default

Brad,

I've said very little about Manning this year because he's clearly on top of his game. He MAY be having the best season I've ever seen had. In '84, I was only 12, and my hating Marino as a former Pitt Panther and current Miami Dolphin weighed more heavily than any appreciation for what he was doing at the time, so...

Saw an interesting something somewhere earlier in the day. Aside from TDs, Culpepper and Manning had two seasons that were incredibly comparable. But, there was one other stat that distinguished them, according to this writer (who, I don't know offhand) and that is this: Culpepper was sacked 45 times. Manning was sacked (and my mind still boggles at this number--kinda like when Schilling goes and throws fewer walks than games pitched in a season) 13 times. 13
That's bleeping insane.

Still...

I recognize your discretion on the big games, but I think the measuring stick most would hold regarding big game performances really, at the NFL level, only include the postseason. MAYBE, when a game NEEDS to be won to make the postseason or not (Chad Pennington, Jake Delhomme, Drew Bledsoe, Daunte Culpepper--status regardless ALL chokers yesterday!!!), a regular season game enters the BIG game status that we Peyton (with Eli up and coming, we should switch to first names with these guys now) skeptics are looking for something.

We're aware that Peyton can win games when nothing but that single game is on the line.

He showed something last season by torching the Ponies and the Eight Little Native Americans, but neither of those defenses was playing well at the time. I admit surprise that he abused Denver the way he did last year, but the Showdown at the KC Corral was pretty forseeable.

He showed up for those games, won them, didn't need a lot of help from the rest of his team.

But... well, we know about Foxboro a year ago. We'll probably get to see it again in two weeks.
However, you know, if Denver had a for-real QB, not that pretender Jake the Fake... I'd be worried for Manning et al., next week.

Dave
__________________
mountaineerdave on twitter
mountaineerdavem on AIM
MountaineerDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2005, 07:32 PM   #75
Brad O.
1,549
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 792
Brad O. will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by coachJ
but all the good performances in the "big games" were in the regular season
So you want to judge Manning by only his playoff games? You can't judge a 7-year veteran by six games! Especially when two of them happened four and five years ago, respectively. That's ridiculous.

Concentrate on the last two seasons. You get 34 games, including half of Manning's postseason career.

Quote:
Originally posted by coachJ
theres only 2 games up there in the playoffs where Manning did anything worth a crap, and that was in the 2003 playoffs against that WONDERFUL KC defense*sarcasm*, but i admit the Tennessee defense was pretty good....so Manning has had one good BIG game in the 2003 playoff game against Tennessee
So if the game against KC's terrible defense doesn't count, does that mean the game against NE's terrific defense doesn't count, either?

Take the stats from the Chiefs game in perspective, by all means. But the Colts beat 13-3 KC at Arrowhead Stadium in the 2nd round of the playoffs. That's a big game by any reasonable definition of the word, and Manning clearly played well.

Quote:
Originally posted by MountaineerDave
I've said very little about Manning this year because he's clearly on top of his game. He MAY be having the best season I've ever seen had.
Maybe the topic of this discussion has shifted, but this is what I've been arguing all along. The notion that a postseason game is 16 times more important than a regular-season game is one that I reject. Over the last few regular seasons, no one is close to Manning. Nobody is close to being close. And if you want to throw in last postseason, I still don't think it's close. Manning had two virtually perfect games and one rotten one.

Quote:
Originally posted by MountaineerDave
I think the measuring stick most would hold regarding big game performances really, at the NFL level, only include the postseason.
Fair enough. I disagree personally, but I guess that's the reality.

You have to put postseason losses into context, though. As an example, Anthony calls Jim Kelly a choker because the Bills went 0-4 in Super Bowls. But that was in the middle of the NFC's dominance; Buffalo was hopelessly outmatched in 3 of those 4 games, and Kelly was decent in the one they had a chance in.

So... how do Manning's games stand up?

1999: TEN 19 at IND 16. There are several reasons, IMO, that it would be nuts to hold this one against Manning. For one thing, Tennessee was the better team. Tennessee came up one yard short of a Super Bowl win, whereas the Colts' 13-3 record was inflated by a ridiculously easy schedule, and they were out of their league. Secondly, Manning was 23. It was his second year in the NFL. He's 28 now, a veteran with an unparalleled understanding of his offense, a completely different player. Bradshaw in '78 was a much different creature than Bradshaw in '73. It would have been foolish to criticize '78 Bradshaw based on his early performances, and I feel that the same applies to '99 Manning and '04 Manning.

2000: IND 17 at MIA 23, OT. Same arguments. Miami was the better team and it was still pretty early in his career. Let me put this another way. If you could warp this year's Manning back in time to that game, I doubt very much that Miami wins. Agreed? In that context, how can you judge Peyton now by that game's result?

2002: IND 0 at NYJ 41. Manning had a terrible game, no way around that. It happens.

2003: DEN 10 at IND 41. Manning recorded the highest possible passer rating and his team won going away.

2003: IND 38 at KC 31. In 2003, the Chiefs defense allowed the following averages:
- 58.9 completion %
- 225.9 passing yds per game
- 1.2 passing TDs per game
- 6.4 yards/att
- 20.8 ppg

Manning completed 73% of his passes for 304 yards, 3 TDs, and 10.1 yards/att. Every one of those is significantly above KC's average.

But throw out the stats if you want. The Colts need more than 30 points to win, and Manning, playing about as well as anyone could, delivered 38. Forget the stats: he played a great game.

2003: IND 14 at NE 24. Manning played poorly. I'll start by admitting that. But the Patriots were clearly the NFL's best team. The only reason people thought Indianapolis even had a chance was because Manning and the offense were so incredible against Denver and KC.

It's like Super Bowl XIX, when people were more excited about Marino's 14-2 Dolphins than the 15-1 49ers. Marino had demolished league records during the regular season. Miami won its playoff games by an average of 19 points. Marino threw for 421 and 4 TDs in the AFC Championship Game.

And then San Francisco showed up and dominated the Super Bowl. Marino panicked early and tried to win the game by himself. Dave and I have discussed this before, that it's something Marino and Elway and Favre and Manning share. They're legends partially because sometimes it works. But usually, it's bad news.

This post is already long, but if you're interested in my take on the IND/NE game, please read this article. With all due modesty, I think it's very good.

To sum things up, I don't see any discernable "choking". Manning's Colts have played 2 home playoff games and 4 road playoff games. They're 2-4 in those games. That's about what you'd expect.

Quote:
Originally posted by MountaineerDave
However, you know, if Denver had a for-real QB, not that pretender Jake the Fake... I'd be worried for Manning et al., next week.
Now you're just not being fair, Dave. If Indy loses, it's Manning's fault. If Indy wins, it's Plummer's fault and Manning hasn't proven anything. I believe that both you and Doug hold Manning to a different standard than most other players. Again, I suspect this is related to Manning's college career -- which I didn't follow -- and which should be irrelevant to this discussion.

Finally, just for fun... let's play WHO AM I?

I was a college star and a top draft pick. In my first NFL season, I helped lead my team to its first playoff appearance in four years. We lost by 24 points in the first round.

The next season, we won our division but again lost our first playoff game. With three minutes left and the game tied, I threw an interception that was returned to the 2-yard line and set up a game-winning TD.

Like Peyton Manning, I opened my career with a 2-3 postseason record. I was on the wrong side of one of the biggest upsets in playoff history and two embarrassing Super Bowl blowouts.

I am reknowned for my clutch play and postseason successes. I have been named NFL MVP and I am in the Hall of Fame.

Who am I?
Brad O. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:10 PM.