Rodney Harrison: "We'd have easily won three Super Bowls with Peyton Manning"

[Superman]

True Supe..

 

But the idea that Belichick knows more about how to use talent because he won 3 Super Bowls in NE and Indy won one...is a little simplistic

 

Indy had less talent

 

You want to play every angle on this, and I'm not sure why.

 

You acknowledge that Indy had less talent, but don't want to hold Bill Polian and Tony Dungy accountable for that. You say that Dungy built two championship teams, but don't acknowledge the championship teams Belichick has built. You say Belichick is overrated because NFL coaching is overrated, then you give Dungy credit for the Bucs and Colts accomplishments.

 

It's not that wild of a concept. One can think Tony Dungy was a very good head coach, while at the same time believing that Belichick is better. Dungy is well respected around the league, and has a chance to go into the HOF next year. But Belichick is considered one of the best coaches of all time. And no matter how important you think coaching is, there is a hierarchy among coaches, and in virtually every corner of the NFL, Belichick is above Dungy on that hierarchy.

[Colts_Fan12]

And lets all welcome amfootball to this thread involving Manning and Brady this will be fun

[oldunclemark]

I knew you were going to say that...

 

How in the world was Noll's Steelers not a dynasty?

Define Dynasty. The Packers won 3 titles in a row   Pitt won 4 in 6 years right?

[chad72]

I agree with most of what you say....but Dungy's system (we know he was a defensive specialist like Belichik) won for both Tampa and Indy..

 

 

Not in the big time stage of the playoffs though, which is what I am inferring to. In the regular season, you are not playing elite teams all the time, so the extra adjustment or tweaks are not necessary if you are able to sustain in general a high floor, you can win enough to get a good seeding doing that.

 

Bucs continued to fall short again and again in the playoffs till Gruden and the offense made enough noise in the playoffs to get them over the hump. Dungy was like Marty Schottenheimer, he can maintain the focus of a team with fundamentals that is good enough to win 60-70% of the games in the regular season. But in the postseason, where a few plays, adjustments and tweaks are necessary to put you over the hump, their teams failed to deliver and came up short. Marty Ball term was coined for a reason.

[amfootball]

I agree with most of what you say....but Dungy's system (we know he was a defensive specialist like Belichik) won for both Tampa and Indy..

 

Listen to guys like Warren Sapp..who credit Dungy with building that title team from scratch. Tampa was one of the worst teams in NFL history before Tony D.

 

He built Indy as a title contender almost from  scratch.....

 

Talking about the Cover-2.....You got tired of it (and I did too, to be honest) in Indy. It was frustrating to watch....and I think the league figured it out....somewhat

 

Coaches and GMs collect and select players....no doubt....and Belichick has proven he knows talent.  No know on him

 

But its very hard to say that Dungy's proven system for winning (in 2 [places) suggest he had less of an eye than Belichik's during his NE powerhouses.

 

I think they are, at worst, equals and I like the guy who's done it twice....

I think you mis-remember Dungy in Tampa Bay. This is his legacy there:

"Under Dungy, Tampa Bay struggled unsuccessfully to reach the playoffs in 1998. They went on to reach the playoffs again in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Also, in his last three playoff games, Tampa Bay was offensively shut out. Dungy was fired on January 14, 2002 due to the club's repeated losses in the playoffs including two lopsided defeats (in 2000 and 2001) to the Philadelphia Eagles. Additionally, owner Malcolm Glazer felt Dungy's conservative offense was too inconsistent against NFL teams. Dungy thus became the first coach in Bucs history to leave the team with a winning record."

 

Of course he went on to Indy and holds the record for most one and done's with seven with Manning as his QB.

 

Now compare with Belichick and tell me how on earth they are equal??

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

Define Dynasty. The Packers won 3 titles in a row   Pitt won 4 in 6 years right?

Winning them consecutively isn't a requirement in my opinion.  If you won a title 5 times in 10 years without ever winning back to back, I would still call that a dynasty.

[Superman]

Winning them consecutively isn't a requirement in my opinion.  If you won a title 5 times in 10 years without ever winning back to back, I would still call that a dynasty.

 

I personally think the word "dynasty" is overused. Kind of waters down the truly great teams of the past. The 90s Bulls were a dynasty; I don't think the modern Lakers or the modern Spurs were/are a dynasty. 

[oldunclemark]

You want to play every angle on this, and I'm not sure why.

 

You acknowledge that Indy had less talent, but don't want to hold Bill Polian and Tony Dungy accountable for that. You say that Dungy built two championship teams, but don't acknowledge the championship teams Belichick has built. You say Belichick is overrated because NFL coaching is overrated, then you give Dungy credit for the Bucs and Colts accomplishments.

 

It's not that wild of a concept. One can think Tony Dungy was a very good head coach, while at the same time believing that Belichick is better. Dungy is well respected around the league, and has a chance to go into the HOF next year. But Belichick is considered one of the best coaches of all time. And no matter how important you think coaching is, there is a hierarchy among coaches, and in virtually every corner of the NFL, Belichick is above Dungy on that hierarchy.

Don't go absolutes on me...that's what I'm trying to get across..I thought I DID acknowledge Belichik

 

Belichik is considered one of the best coaches of all time and (outside Indy) so is Tony Dungy..Supe..

 

...he's thought to be less HERE in Indy because many don't like that he didn't win more titles than Bill B.

 

We are not impartial about Tony D.

 

 

 

  You cant always have THE MOST talented team....we had a very strong team that Polian and Dungy built

 

I think we all agree on that.

 

 Belichick built one title team and has maintaind it with almost no dropoff....even the year Brady was hurt

 

No doubt. He's great...but Dungy helped build (the coach is not totally responsible)  2 Super Bowl winners

 

I see them as equal and Id take Tony.

 

Please don't suggest that praised of Dungy is criticism of Belichick.....It isn't

 

Belichik probably could build another title team somewhere else...but he never had to...You don't get credit for what you COULD HAVE done

 

My thought is: Dungy, like Manning......left their first title team and had to build another one..(I know I;m I'm premature. Manning hasn't won his 2nd yet)

 

But the act of building the second title team...at the very least equals Dungy with Belichik....

 

You see the value and the validation that 2nd resurrection commands, don't you?

[Thewholefnshow28]

Rodney is spot on.  You give Peyton a good consistent defense that could stand on its own and he would have won titles in New England as well.  

 

Our defense in Indy was to predicated on Peyton's ability to get the lead so they could rush the passer and ignore the run.  On occasion, like the Browns game or Ravens playoff game the defense stepped it up, but more often than not our defense just got man handled if Peyton and the offense was not on point.  We just never had a defense that could say ok Peyton you are having an off day?  That is cool we got this.  Brady did have that luxury and I think had they switched spots Peyton would have won 2-3 titles as well.

 

Also throw in BB arguably on of the best coaches of all time and you can see why Brady has been in a great position.

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

I personally think the word "dynasty" is overused. Kind of waters down the truly great teams of the past. The 90s Bulls were a dynasty; I don't think the modern Lakers or the modern Spurs were/are a dynasty. 

I would have to agree with you on that.  I also think in the NFL all "dynasties" prior to Free Agency should come with an *  

[amfootball]

Rodney is spot on.  You give Peyton a good consistent defense that could stand on its own and he would have won titles in New England as well.  

 

Our defense in Indy was to predicated on Peyton's ability to get the lead so they could rush the passer and ignore the run.  On occasion, like the Browns game or Ravens playoff game the defense stepped it up, but more often than not our defense just got man handled if Peyton and the offense was not on point.  We just never had a defense that could say ok Peyton you are having an off day?  That is cool we got this.  Brady did have that luxury and I think had they switched spots Peyton would have won 2-3 titles as well.

 

Also throw in BB arguably on of the best coaches of all time and you can see why Brady has been in a great position.

What happened last year then when Manning had a top 5 D and top 5 run game in Denver? Same result - one and done with three TOs.

[oldunclemark]

You want to play every angle on this, and I'm not sure why.

 

and Supe......for the record...yes....why wouldn't we 'play every angle' discussing things?.

 

..I do like complicated discussions........every body can 'go deep'   

 

Like you said..I'm arguing against absolute

[oldunclemark]

I personally think the word "dynasty" is overused. Kind of waters down the truly great teams of the past. The 90s Bulls were a dynasty; I don't think the modern Lakers or the modern Spurs were/are a dynasty. 

 

I agree.,.2 in a row is not a dynasty.....at least 3 in a row..and 6 in 8.....like the Bulls..

 

John Cena in the WWE (just kidding) That';s a dynasty

[Superman]

Don't go absolutes on me...that's what I'm trying to get across..I thought I DID acknowledge Belichik

 

Belichik is considered one of the best coaches of all time and (outside Indy) so is Tony Dungy..Supe..

 

...he's thought to be less HERE in Indy because many don't like that he didn't win more titles than Bill B.

 

We are not impartial about Tony D.

 

 

 

  You cant always have THE MOST talented team....we had a very strong team that Polian and Dungy built

 

I think we all agree on that.

 

 Belichick built one title team and has maintaind it with almost no dropoff....even the year Brady was hurt

 

No doubt. He's great...but Dungy helped build (the coach is not totally responsible)  2 Super Bowl winners

 

I see them as equal and Id take Tony.

 

Please don't suggest that praised of Dungy is criticism of Belichick.....It isn't

 

Belichik probably could build another title team somewhere else...but he never had to...You don't get credit for what you COULD HAVE done

 

My thought is: Dungy, like Manning......left their first title team and had to build another one..(I know I;m I'm premature. Manning hasn't won his 2nd yet)

 

But the act of building the second title team...at the very least equals Dungy with Belichik....

 

You see the value and the validation that 2nd resurrection commands, don't you?

 

You're taking a lot of liberties here, OUM.

 

1) Dungy was let go by Tampa because they thought he was holding the team back in the playoffs. I think he got a bit of a raw deal, but with a fresh voice, they won the Super Bowl the next year. I don't think Dungy should be credited with building a Super Bowl winner. I think he should be credited with building a contender, but that team didn't take the next step until he left.

 

2) Dungy isn't considered a lesser coach than Belichick because he has fewer Super Bowls. It's because of their respective approaches to the game. Belichick is seen as a progressive innovator, a chameleon, someone who makes adjustments to his schemes so that odd shaped pieces fit, rather than trying to squeeze them into a predetermined mold. Dungy's motto was "we do what we do." Each has their merits, but there's no question Belichick got more out of his roster than Dungy did.

 

2a) If you believe that Manning was better than Brady prior to 2005, then Belichick got more out of his team with a lesser QB.

 

3) Belichick has remade the Patriots three or four times over the past decade. It's not the same as going to a new team, but this speaks to his ability to adapt, adjust, and remake a roster and a team on the fly, which is critical in today's NFL. Not taking anything away from Dungy's influence in Tampa and Indy, just not willing to sell Belichick short for his work in NE.

 

Overall, like everyone is saying, Dungy has his merits. But even if you take your angle about Dungy helping to build two teams into contenders, most people still find Belichick to be the superior coach. It's not because he has more rings. It's because of the way he runs his team.

[Superman]

and Supe......for the record...yes....why wouldn't we 'play every angle' discussing things?.

 

..I do like complicated discussions........every body can 'go deep'   

 

Like you said..I'm arguing against absolute

 

No, you misunderstand "playing every angle." You want to sit on both sides of the fence so that your grass is always green. Because of this, your arguments are based on logical fallacies.

[Colts_Fan12]

I'll agree with ya OUM just for one reason it's not a good one but oh well I like dungy more too cause he is a good guy bill is just a butt hole

[oldunclemark]

   

 

_{No, you misunderstand "playing every angle." You want to sit on both sides of the fence so that your grass is always green. Because of this, your arguments are based on logical fallacies.}

 

_{I just think I'm right like you do.}

[oldunclemark]

I'll agree with ya OUM just for one reason it's not a good one but oh well I like dungy more too cause he is a good guy bill is just a butt hole

 

 

That's not quite where I was going, CF 12

[Superman]

What happened last year then when Manning had a top 5 D and top 5 run game in Denver? Same result - one and done with three TOs.

 

LOL

 

You mean, ignoring the fact that top five D blew the lead with a minute left in regulation? And also ignoring the fact that that top five running game was without their two best backs and only mustered up 3 yards/carry?

 

Manning's mistakes are obvious; no one will deny them. But the defense messed up big time, and the run game was nothing to brag about.

[Colts_Fan12]

That's not quite where I was going, CF 12

Oh ik you wernt lol that's just the reason "I" like him more your goin way more in depth then me

[Superman]

   

 

 

_{I just think I'm right like you do.}

 

Yeah, that must be what it is.

 

So when it's Dungy, he gets credit for building the Bucs and the Colts. But when it's Belichick, coaching is overrated. No fallacy there.

 

[amfootball]

LOL

 

You mean, ignoring the fact that top five D blew the lead with a minute left in regulation? And also ignoring the fact that that top five running game was without their two best backs and only mustered up 3 yards/carry?

 

Manning's mistakes are obvious; no one will deny them. But the defense messed up big time, and the run game was nothing to brag about.

Thanks for making my point. You don't lose in the playoffs because of some flawed team make up when your team wins 12-13 games a year for a decade. You lose because you got outplayed. Manning was outplayed by Flacco and Ravens D made the plays at the end while Denver's didn't despite coming into the game top 5 in the league - best defense Manning ever had.

 

I know Manning is your favorite player but I have to think this idea of him winning with Brady's team would make your blood boil. I know it would if it was said about Brady. Manning had plenty of good/great teams and lost for a myriad of reasons that are unique as each season. Brady would have two more rings if not for a better defensive performance in the two he lost. I would also think that if Brady had Manning's teams that he may have thrown for 50 TDs almost every season as when he had comparable talent with Moss/Welker he lit the record books on fire.

 

I get the hypos because they are fun and all but these excuses for Manning not having more rings are beyond ridiculous. It must burn him to hear Rodney say that he would have won with his team.

[Colts_Fan12]

And here we go!!

[Restored]

What happened last year then when Manning had a top 5 D and top 5 run game in Denver? Same result - one and done with three TOs.

What happened when Brady had a 14-2 team in 2010 with the #1 seed? Or even last year at home in the AFC Championship with an offense that was able to run more plays than anyone in the league but only managed 13 points?

[-JJ-]

why you get the impression he was uncoachable? honest question not saying he was/wasnt

uncoachable is probably the wrong word or misleading.

 

So we all know as PM developed he ran the show on the field for the most part. What I'm saying is a coach on the sideline has more of a big picture and thus should call the game much like every team does. The better the coach the better the plan. Whether PM didn't want to do that or lobbied for himself the coach should have over ruled him.

 

Now the fact he did run the show on the field was extremely successful as his record shows. Although I think it suffered the most in the playoff games.

 

So if I was the coach I would have taken it away from PM and utilize PM's talent in my play calling/game plan. As Belichick or Josh does Brady.

Maybe PM becomes a little more game manager but that's a good thing in a QB and the slight against Brady from some who thinks he's just a game manager- well that's what QBs are supposed to do. Manage the game to win and insert their talents.

[BOTT]

I'll agree with ya OUM just for one reason it's not a good one but oh well I like dungy more too cause he is a good guy bill is just a butt hole

What makes BB a but hole? spygate (overblown) , and lightly grabbing a referee by the arm? Or just getting the best of the colts on many occasions?

[BOTT]

What happened last year then when Manning had a top 5 D and top 5 run game in Denver? Same result - one and done with three TOs.

The same thing that happened to Brady and the Pats.....they lost to the SB champs. Oh boy, the Patriots beat a slumping Texans that has continued to play poorly this season. What a feather in the cap.

[Superman]

Thanks for making my point. You don't lose in the playoffs because of some flawed team make up when your team wins 12-13 games a year for a decade. You lose because you got outplayed. Manning was outplayed by Flacco and Ravens D made the plays at the end while Denver's didn't despite coming into the game top 5 in the league - best defense Manning ever had.

 

I know Manning is your favorite player but I have to think this idea of him winning with Brady's team would make your blood boil. I know it would if it was said about Brady. Manning had plenty of good/great teams and lost for a myriad of reasons that are unique as each season. Brady would have two more rings if not for a better defensive performance in the two he lost. I would also think that if Brady had Manning's teams that he may have thrown for 50 TDs almost every season as when he had comparable talent with Moss/Welker he lit the record books on fire.

 

I get the hypos because they are fun and all but these excuses for Manning not having more rings are beyond ridiculous. It must burn him to hear Rodney say that he would have won with his team.

 

Of course you lose because you got outplayed. Where you and I differ is that I understand that just because a team got outplayed doesn't necessarily mean the QB is to blame. And that's what you fail to acknowledge, as is made clear by your "one and done" comment.

 

And I especially LOVE being told what must make my blood boil. Harrison didn't say anything that Colts fans haven't been saying for ten years, or that other members of the media haven't said a hundred times already. If anything, Harrison's comment validates what I've always felt: Brady having more rings is a testament to how well the Patriots were built; it doesn't prove that he's a better QB. So no, my blood isn't boiling. Harrison gets credit from me that I wouldn't have previously given him. I've always thought he was a hopeless Brady homer, like you.

[Colts_Fan12]

What makes BB a but hole? spygate (overblown) , and lightly grabbing a referee by the arm? Or just getting the best of the colts on many occasions?

There has been times he's a * to the opposing coach after a game spygate is still considers cheating and I'm not a fan of cheating weather it be something big or little they haven't win crap since then tho

[amfootball]

Of course you lose because you got outplayed. Where you and I differ is that I understand that just because a team got outplayed doesn't necessarily mean the QB is to blame. And that's what you fail to acknowledge, as is made clear by your "one and done" comment.

 

And I especially LOVE being told what must make my blood boil. Harrison didn't say anything that Colts fans haven't been saying for ten years, or that other members of the media haven't said a hundred times already. If anything, Harrison's comment validates what I've always felt: Brady having more rings is a testament to how well the Patriots were built; it doesn't prove that he's a better QB. So no, my blood isn't boiling. Harrison gets credit from me that I wouldn't have previously given him. I've always thought he was a hopeless Brady homer, like you.

Three TOs does not make for a championship effort.

 

To each his own. If you sleep better at night knowing Manning might have the rings Brady had if he had his team then go for it. I just could never imagine a guy like Larry Bird or anyone in the NBA saying he could have had more rings with Magic's team and Bird or his fans being Ok with that. Like I said, lots of excuses for #18 - Polian's fault, Dungy's fauly, Defenses fault, if only he had Brady's team, etc. I really hope Peyton doesn't read these boards. Embarrassing all the way around.

[Guest TeamLoloJones]

I'll agree with ya OUM just for one reason it's not a good one but oh well I like dungy more too cause he is a good guy bill is just a butt hole

I would ask you to do some research about Belichick's off the field contributions to society before your revert to name calling.

[Superman]

Three TOs does not make for a championship effort.

 

To each his own. If you sleep better at night knowing Manning might have the rings Brady had if he had his team then go for it. I just could never imagine a guy like Larry Bird or anyone in the NBA saying he could have had more rings with Magic's team and Bird or his fans being Ok with that. Like I said, lots of excuses for #18 - Polian's fault, Dungy's fauly, Defenses fault, if only he had Brady's team, etc. I really hope Peyton doesn't read these boards. Embarrassing all the way around.

 

35-28 with less than two minutes left. The defense gave up a 70 yard touchdown with 30 seconds left. But all that matters is 3 TOs, because that was a "top five defense." Sure thing...

 

Sleep better at night? No, this has nothing to do with the way I sleep. Nor is it excuse making. Bottom line is Brady has three rings, which he earned and deserves credit for. Manning only has one. Take that for whatever it's worth.

 

But if even Rodney Harrison is able to admit that the difference in those teams from a decade ago was that the Pats had a better defense, and Brady wasn't subjected to the pressure of carrying the entire team like Manning was, then there's a small level of validation to something I've believed for a long time now. There's no "if only." You can be embarrassed for Manning if you want, but everyone knows what your objective is.

[Restored]

Three TOs does not make for a championship effort.

To each his own. If you sleep better at night knowing Manning might have the rings Brady had if he had his team then go for it. I just could never imagine a guy like Larry Bird or anyone in the NBA saying he could have had more rings with Magic's team and Bird or his fans being Ok with that. Like I said, lots of excuses for #18 - Polian's fault, Dungy's fauly, Defenses fault, if only he had Brady's team, etc. I really hope Peyton doesn't read these boards. Embarrassing all the way around.

Neither does two which Brady had a week later.

For one talking about excuses, you sure do love to mention that a "better defensive" effort would of won Brady two more Super Bowls. But in reality, Brady and his record setting offense that averaged 35 points a game could only muster 14 points against the NFCs 5th seed in 2007.

[Mameluc]

uncoachable is probably the wrong word or misleading.

 

So we all know as PM developed he ran the show on the field for the most part. What I'm saying is a coach on the sideline has more of a big picture and thus should call the game much like every team does. The better the coach the better the plan. Whether PM didn't want to do that or lobbied for himself the coach should have over ruled him.

 

Now the fact he did run the show on the field was extremely successful as his record shows. Although I think it suffered the most in the playoff games.

 

So if I was the coach I would have taken it away from PM and utilize PM's talent in my play calling/game plan. As Belichick or Josh does Brady.

Maybe PM becomes a little more game manager but that's a good thing in a QB and the slight against Brady from some who thinks he's just a game manager- well that's what QBs are supposed to do. Manage the game to win and insert their talents.

i see what you mean.

 

There is only one thing i just never have really understood and i think fans dont really know either but just post it as the true.

 

Do we really know Peyton called all his plays? I mean, yes we see him on the no huddle barking signals but i also see the OC saying stuff on the no huddle, I've seen PM asking his new oc in denver and then barking the signals on the no huddle. I've seen Tom Moore tell him stuff while he is on the no huddle. I think people, to make him look more hero like, have just accepted the ASSUMPTION that he calls everything. I dont know if that is 100 accurate

[OffensivelyPC]

but..but...he can't play in the cold!

[Mameluc]

35-28 with less than two minutes left. The defense gave up a 70 yard touchdown with 30 seconds left. But all that matters is 3 TOs, because that was a "top five defense." Sure thing...

 

 

or drew brees getting a td on all his 2nd half drives on  the sb(this is obviously an exageration but seriously, on the second half, how many times did we stop him?)

 

or the jets game were we were winning with less than 2 minutse and the caldwell timeout. 

[Moose Of Woe]

Save for a few good returners cut for some weird reason, we had horrible coverage and horrible returns, forgot name of the returner we had  I know it was once stated about  if returned back to the 20 without a fumble we were happy, 

"KNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!"

 

Any time your home crowd chants that on every single return, you know your return team sucks. Let alone our coverage.

[Fx Stryker]

i see what you mean.

 

There is only one thing i just never have really understood and i think fans dont really know either but just post it as the true.

 

Do we really know Peyton called all his plays? I mean, yes we see him on the no huddle barking signals but i also see the OC saying stuff on the no huddle, I've seen PM asking his new oc in denver and then barking the signals on the no huddle. I've seen Tom Moore tell him stuff while he is on the no huddle. I think people, to make him look more hero like, have just accepted the ASSUMPTION that he calls everything. I dont know if that is 100 accurate

 

One thing Tom Moore always said was he gave Peyton three plays at the beginning of a drive. A run outside, inside, and a passing play. Peyton did with those what he wanted.

or drew brees getting a td on all his 2nd half drives on  the sb(this is obviously an exageration but seriously, on the second half, how many times did we stop him?)

 

or the jets game were we were winning with less than 2 minutse and the caldwell timeout.

 

We didn't, seriously. Lol

[Superman]

or drew brees getting a td on all his 2nd half drives on  the sb(this is obviously an exageration but seriously, on the second half, how many times did we stop him?)

 

or the jets game were we were winning with less than 2 minutse and the caldwell timeout. 

 

We did not stop them in the second half. They had three possessions, TD, FG, TD. Then victory formation. All the while, we sat back in Cushion Cover 2 with no pressure on the receivers and our pass rush hobbled, and let Drew Brees slice us apart, 15/16 with two TDs in the second half.

 

The Jets game, two point lead, we give up a huge return, then the defense gives up two huge completions. And sandwiched in there is an *ic timeout.

[Superman]

i see what you mean.

 

There is only one thing i just never have really understood and i think fans dont really know either but just post it as the true.

 

Do we really know Peyton called all his plays? I mean, yes we see him on the no huddle barking signals but i also see the OC saying stuff on the no huddle, I've seen PM asking his new oc in denver and then barking the signals on the no huddle. I've seen Tom Moore tell him stuff while he is on the no huddle. I think people, to make him look more hero like, have just accepted the ASSUMPTION that he calls everything. I dont know if that is 100 accurate

 

I think it's highly overstated. Yes, Manning has more control over the offense than any other QB, but he's not running the offense with no direction. The coaches call plays, and they also give him specific directives at times (like running the ball at the end of the second quarter against the Saints).

 

As for whether his control is a positive or a negative, I think the results kind of make it clear that he's worthy of having that kind of control. The first part of last season, McCoy was imposing some of the Broncos' stuff on Manning, and Manning was running it. As the season went on, McCoy gave Manning more freedom, they started doing more no-huddle and more so-called Indy concepts, and they won the last 11 games of the season. So it's hard to say that allowing Manning to have as much influence over the offense as he does is a bad thing.