Manning TD Record

[Yehoodi]

I have no problem with Brady or the Pats. Brady is fantastic, and so is his team. 

 

My point is that, early in the Brady era, Pats fans had it easy. Since you guys haven't won a Super Bowl in a while, your arguments are looking a lot more like Colts fans arguments have for a long time. All of a sudden, these reasons you're explaining so eloquently are no longer "excuses." 

 

My point was not one of excuses but the realization that the early part of the decade was not a fluke that some try to make out . . . and to that extent is not the same as what the colts fans have been saying about their teams performance . . . I was not mentioning '05, '08, '09, '10, or '12 as those are just years in which we lost, we smoked, and or had bad games . . . it happens . . . my point was addressing the fact that you have to, as part of a championship win, more often then not get the lucky at certain times and if you do what is necessary to get yourselves in position to have lady luck shine on you, you have done what is necessary to win a championship and the rest is out of your hands . . . this was my point . . . and at least 5 times we did this and 6th if you want to say we could of beaten the 2006 Bears . . . so from a body of work stand point we have done this throughout the decade and more importantly with out the "championship defense" 

 

When I look at the colts I really do not see much . . . there was that Jet game a few years ago when they came back for a last second victory, so surely one could point to this game, but that was a divisional round so you would still have to win two more games, post the one play to stop the jets . . .and in 2009 you had that drive to tie the SB prior to the pick, so something here but that drive would only have tied the game and still need some work to win it, it not like that drive was the go ahead drive . . . but there is something with this game . . . but otherwise I can not find a game where one can point and say if only a play had gone our way we win a SB or lose one . . . so the colts history is really more in like with our games in 05, 09, 10, 12 where we in the game for a while then lost . . .

 

if you do not think one bounce at a critical time is important or a minor deal, just look at all of the controversy surrounding some of the keys games in the past decade, people are still talking about the tuck rule 12 years later, the GB-SEA game last year, the NE-CAr game this year . . .the Tryree catch being a great moment, holmes catch in SB 43 and on and on and on . .. all of this plays which are in our memory are there not because they are irrelevant plays that happened in the 1st qtr, by are those key plays that were decisive in games . . . as such there is an understanding that the losing team was close but for one play . . .and this is my point regards those game mentioned . . .which is different  that our other history and the history of the colts . . . so I don't viewed it as a excuse but a recognition of a body of work . . . you can discount key plays any way you want but you can not discount the importance of them as they are remembered by fans as  being important and an understand how far the loser came to winning . . .

[Buck Showalter]

Belichick never got caught cheating. He was found guilty of being in violation of league rules by having a guy with a giant camera standing rather overtly at a Jets practice.

Belichek didn't cheat he just broke rules...

awesome...

I need to get a new dictionary...

Must be cold in the greater boston area, pats fans get so bored they spend their time starting mindless dribble on a Colts message board...

awesome as always...

[PATS16N0]

Belichek didn't cheat he just broke rules...

awesome...

I need to get a new dictionary...

Must be cold in the greater boston area, pats fans get so bored they spend their time starting mindless dribble on a Colts message board...

awesome as always...

 

It's against the rules to smoke Marijuana if you play for an NFL team. Are you telling me that if Belichick smoked marijuana he would be a cheater?

[amfootball]

My point was not one of excuses but the realization that the early part of the decade was not a fluke that some try to make out . . . and to that extent is not the same as what the colts fans have been saying about their teams performance . . . I was not mentioning '05, '08, '09, '10, or '12 as those are just years in which we lost, we smoked, and or had bad games . . . it happens . . . my point was addressing the fact that you have to, as part of a championship win, more often then not get the lucky at certain times and if you do what is necessary to get yourselves in position to have lady luck shine on you, you have done what is necessary to win a championship and the rest is out of your hands . . . this was my point . . . and at least 5 times we did this and 6th if you want to say we could of beaten the 2006 Bears . . . so from a body of work stand point we have done this throughout the decade and more importantly with out the "championship defense" 

 

When I look at the colts I really do not see much . . . there was that Jet game a few years ago when they came back for a last second victory, so surely one could point to this game, but that was a divisional round so you would still have to win two more games, post the one play to stop the jets . . .and in 2009 you had that drive to tie the SB prior to the pick, so something here but that drive would only have tied the game and still need some work to win it, it not like that drive was the go ahead drive . . . but there is something with this game . . . but otherwise I can not find a game where one can point and say if only a play had gone our way we win a SB or lose one . . . so the colts history is really more in like with our games in 05, 09, 10, 12 where we in the game for a while then lost . . .

 

if you do not think one bounce at a critical time is important or a minor deal, just look at all of the controversy surrounding some of the keys games in the past decade, people are still talking about the tuck rule 12 years later, the GB-SEA game last year, the NE-CAr game this year . . .the Tryree catch being a great moment, holmes catch in SB 43 and on and on and on . .. all of this plays which are in our memory are there not because they are irrelevant plays that happened in the 1st qtr, by are those key plays that were decisive in games . . . as such there is an understanding that the losing team was close but for one play . . .and this is my point regards those game mentioned . . .which is different  that our other history and the history of the colts . . . so I don't viewed it as a excuse but a recognition of a body of work . . . you can discount key plays any way you want but you can not discount the importance of them as they are remembered by fans as  being important and an understand how far the loser came to winning . . .

Your research is tremendous Yehoodi. Thanks for taking the time to not only look that up but write it all down. I always enjoy your posts.

[House]

It's against the rules to smoke Marijuana if you play for an NFL team. Are you telling me that if Belichick smoked marijuana he would be a cheater?

No. Don't get crazy.

He just misinterpreted the rules.

[Yehoodi]

No. Don't get crazy.

He just misinterpreted the rules.

 

Yes exactly but that is the point, that is it not "cheating" . . . if Goodell wants to interpreted the rules his way, that is his privilege . . . and even under Goodell's interpretation it is not "cheating" on the part of BB . . . and in reality the only "cheating" part of it, was the improper usage of the film (using to get a track history of signs), something that we were not caught doing (admission or video of us pouring over the film checking signals) nor in reality did we (we used it for off season evaluation of our coaches). . . otherwise why would BB be so open about for all to see . . . its not like the camera was hidden in a seat somewhere, but openly viewable for all to see, even the opposing coaches and players waved to the camera . . .

[Buck Showalter]

It's against the rules to smoke Marijuana if you play for an NFL team. Are you telling me that if Belichick smoked marijuana he would be a cheater?

Belichek smokes weed???

That would explain the sleeveless hoody...

Hey, Denver & Seattle are undefeated at home since Colorado & Washington legalized the tweed... Maybe we've broken the secret code...

[James]

 

Tom Brady was sat in six games the year he threw 50 touchdowns. Has Manning even taken a seat once yet?

No Brady didn't sit six games. Stop talking nonsense. Manning on the other hand didn't play all the games to the end in 2004. He could easily have thrown for more than 50 TDs that year. I'm specifically talking about the Denver game. Peyton could have thrown for 53-54 TD, maybe more, that season. Brady needed all the games to break the record.

And lol @ pats fan talking about statpadding when that was all the Patriots did in 2007.

[Superman]

My point was not one of excuses but the realization that the early part of the decade was not a fluke that some try to make out . . . and to that extent is not the same as what the colts fans have been saying about their teams performance . . . I was not mentioning '05, '08, '09, '10, or '12 as those are just years in which we lost, we smoked, and or had bad games . . . it happens . . . my point was addressing the fact that you have to, as part of a championship win, more often then not get the lucky at certain times and if you do what is necessary to get yourselves in position to have lady luck shine on you, you have done what is necessary to win a championship and the rest is out of your hands . . . this was my point . . . and at least 5 times we did this and 6th if you want to say we could of beaten the 2006 Bears . . . so from a body of work stand point we have done this throughout the decade and more importantly with out the "championship defense" 

 

When I look at the colts I really do not see much . . . there was that Jet game a few years ago when they came back for a last second victory, so surely one could point to this game, but that was a divisional round so you would still have to win two more games, post the one play to stop the jets . . .and in 2009 you had that drive to tie the SB prior to the pick, so something here but that drive would only have tied the game and still need some work to win it, it not like that drive was the go ahead drive . . . but there is something with this game . . . but otherwise I can not find a game where one can point and say if only a play had gone our way we win a SB or lose one . . . so the colts history is really more in like with our games in 05, 09, 10, 12 where we in the game for a while then lost . . .

 

if you do not think one bounce at a critical time is important or a minor deal, just look at all of the controversy surrounding some of the keys games in the past decade, people are still talking about the tuck rule 12 years later, the GB-SEA game last year, the NE-CAr game this year . . .the Tryree catch being a great moment, holmes catch in SB 43 and on and on and on . .. all of this plays which are in our memory are there not because they are irrelevant plays that happened in the 1st qtr, by are those key plays that were decisive in games . . . as such there is an understanding that the losing team was close but for one play . . .and this is my point regards those game mentioned . . .which is different  that our other history and the history of the colts . . . so I don't viewed it as a excuse but a recognition of a body of work . . . you can discount key plays any way you want but you can not discount the importance of them as they are remembered by fans as  being important and an understand how far the loser came to winning . . .

 

I missed this somehow. I'm really weary of this topic, maybe I ignored it subconsciously. But you wrote all that out, and like always, gave thought to it, so I'll respond.

 

1) My point is very simple. Maybe it doesn't apply so much to you, but I can think of a handful of posters here it does apply to... Pats fans often retort to explanations like yours in paragraph 1 up there with "somethingsomething, excuses." So it's ironic, even humorous, that Pats fans do the same thing. I know as well as anyone that the ball has to bounce your way, which is why I don't adhere to the popular thinking that championships make players, especially in football. Not even at quarterback. They are meaningful, but they don't tell the whole story. Go peek your head in the Terry Bradshaw thread for an example.

 

2) If you hold the Pats to the "championship or bust" standard that so many Pats fans trumpet -- and if you want an example of that, scroll up in this thread -- they haven't maintained a body of work throughout the decade. They won three championships in four years a decade ago. (I don't subscribe to that standard, but again, the irony is strong.)

 

3) You're mistaken if you think the Jets game is the only playoff game that the Colts lost by giving up a go-ahead score late in the game (and this applies to the Broncos/Ravens game last year, so there's another example for you). It started against the Dolphins in 2000, we had a 7 point lead after a Vanderjagt field goal with 5 minutes left, and gave up an 80 yard touchdown drive, led by Jay Fiedler of all people, the epitome of average. Then Vanderjagt missed a 49 yarder in overtime, and the Dolphins scored the winning touchdown after that. Manning's stats weren't great in that game, but he's had worse game in wins in the playoffs. It was about the same as Brady's stats against the Rams in SB36, when AV hit a 48 yarder to win it. In 2007, against the Chargers, we had a 24-21 lead at home, and surrendered it to Billy Volek (Fiedler's VP of Average Quarterbacking). No pass rush because Freeney and Mathis were hurt, Marvin Harrison fumbled the ball away deep in Charger territory, Kenton Keith dropped a pass right into a Charger's hands, etc. The next year, in San Diego, we gave up a 17-14 lead at the end of regulation, then the offense never touched the ball in overtime, due to getting ripped up by Darren Sproles. There's the Jets game, like you said. Then the Broncos/Ravens game.

 

That's just the games where the defense surrendered a fourth quarter lead. That doesn't include the games that were competitive but the team lost.

 

4) I am in no way suggesting that the Patriots Super Bowls were a fluke. That's nonsense. The Patriots were a good team that beat the best competition they could have faced, and they earned every second of praise they received for those championships. Maybe you can quibble over the Tuck Rule Game, but that's the rule, so that's that. 

 

5) Like I said before, the Pats had a terrific stretch, one that any team would envy. And what they've done in subsequent years, in terms of games won, records, playoff appearances, division titles, playoff wins, SB appearances, etc., is impressive. But they haven't won a SB in nine years now. And with every year that passes, we see more and more Pats fans "explaining" why the Pats haven't won more, why they've experienced some letdowns in the postseason, etc. We see more and more "sometimes the ball bounces your way, sometimes it doesn't." The further you get away from the glory of winning three SBs in four years, the more you start to sound like everyone else, including Colts fans.

 

And part of the reason is that some Pats fans got full of themselves, preaching about the "Patriot Way" and how nothing matters but the postseason, and so on. And all of that is a bunch of noise. When a few years have gone by, and you do more and more "explaining," it's revealed that, like you said, it takes a lot of luck to win championships in any sport. And given all the laudable accomplishments of the Patriots since their last SB, it's quite obvious that the postseason isn't the only thing that matters. Given how much better Tom Brady is now than he was nine years ago, it's obvious that SB rings don't make a quarterback any better.

 

Be proud of what your team accomplished, but the further away you get from those rings, the more you start to appreciate how special and rare they were. And the more you can appreciate how special the one ring the Colts won with Peyton Manning was, no matter how messy it was, no matter how long it took. You may not realize it, but the more time goes by, the more miles you walk in the shoes of Colts fans.

[-JJ-]

I missed this somehow. I'm really weary of this topic, maybe I ignored it subconsciously. But you wrote all that out, and like always, gave thought to it, so I'll respond.

 

1) My point is very simple. Maybe it doesn't apply so much to you, but I can think of a handful of posters here it does apply to... Pats fans often retort to explanations like yours in paragraph 1 up there with "somethingsomething, excuses." So it's ironic, even humorous, that Pats fans do the same thing. I know as well as anyone that the ball has to bounce your way, which is why I don't adhere to the popular thinking that championships make players, especially in football. Not even at quarterback. They are meaningful, but they don't tell the whole story. Go peek your head in the Terry Bradshaw thread for an example.

 

2) If you hold the Pats to the "championship or bust" standard that so many Pats fans trumpet -- and if you want an example of that, scroll up in this thread -- they haven't maintained a body of work throughout the decade. They won three championships in four years a decade ago. (I don't subscribe to that standard, but again, the irony is strong.)

 

3) You're mistaken if you think the Jets game is the only playoff game that the Colts lost by giving up a go-ahead score late in the game (and this applies to the Broncos/Ravens game last year, so there's another example for you). It started against the Dolphins in 2000, we had a 7 point lead after a Vanderjagt field goal with 5 minutes left, and gave up an 80 yard touchdown drive, led by Jay Fiedler of all people, the epitome of average. Then Vanderjagt missed a 49 yarder in overtime, and the Dolphins scored the winning touchdown after that. Manning's stats weren't great in that game, but he's had worse game in wins in the playoffs. It was about the same as Brady's stats against the Rams in SB36, when AV hit a 48 yarder to win it. In 2007, against the Chargers, we had a 24-21 lead at home, and surrendered it to Billy Volek (Fiedler's VP of Average Quarterbacking). No pass rush because Freeney and Mathis were hurt, Marvin Harrison fumbled the ball away deep in Charger territory, Kenton Keith dropped a pass right into a Charger's hands, etc. The next year, in San Diego, we gave up a 17-14 lead at the end of regulation, then the offense never touched the ball in overtime, due to getting ripped up by Darren Sproles. There's the Jets game, like you said. Then the Broncos/Ravens game.

 

That's just the games where the defense surrendered a fourth quarter lead. That doesn't include the games that were competitive but the team lost.

 

4) I am in no way suggesting that the Patriots Super Bowls were a fluke. That's nonsense. The Patriots were a good team that beat the best competition they could have faced, and they earned every second of praise they received for those championships. Maybe you can quibble over the Tuck Rule Game, but that's the rule, so that's that. 

 

5) Like I said before, the Pats had a terrific stretch, one that any team would envy. And what they've done in subsequent years, in terms of games won, records, playoff appearances, division titles, playoff wins, SB appearances, etc., is impressive. But they haven't won a SB in nine years now. And with every year that passes, we see more and more Pats fans "explaining" why the Pats haven't won more, why they've experienced some letdowns in the postseason, etc. We see more and more "sometimes the ball bounces your way, sometimes it doesn't." The further you get away from the glory of winning three SBs in four years, the more you start to sound like everyone else, including Colts fans.

 

And part of the reason is that some Pats fans got full of themselves, preaching about the "Patriot Way" and how nothing matters but the postseason, and so on. And all of that is a bunch of noise. When a few years have gone by, and you do more and more "explaining," it's revealed that, like you said, it takes a lot of luck to win championships in any sport. And given all the laudable accomplishments of the Patriots since their last SB, it's quite obvious that the postseason isn't the only thing that matters. Given how much better Tom Brady is now than he was nine years ago, it's obvious that SB rings don't make a quarterback any better.

 

Be proud of what your team accomplished, but the further away you get from those rings, the more you start to appreciate how special and rare they were. And the more you can appreciate how special the one ring the Colts won with Peyton Manning was, no matter how messy it was, no matter how long it took. You may not realize it, but the more time goes by, the more miles you walk in the shoes of Colts fans.

Nicely written.

 

As to the bolded part my excuse is, well its not an excuse but reality...you simply don't win a SB every other year regardless how good or close you are ..(its just odds more than anything).

 

lol at the 2nd bolded line. I thought the ring had magic in it

[braveheartcolt]

I don't hate Manning (I don't hate anything except onions). I don't love Manning. I'm impartial.

How can any grown person hate onions? Raw, fried or carmalised, chopped, diced or sliced? Crazy!?

[amfootball]

I missed this somehow. I'm really weary of this topic, maybe I ignored it subconsciously. But you wrote all that out, and like always, gave thought to it, so I'll respond.

 

1) My point is very simple. Maybe it doesn't apply so much to you, but I can think of a handful of posters here it does apply to... Pats fans often retort to explanations like yours in paragraph 1 up there with "somethingsomething, excuses." So it's ironic, even humorous, that Pats fans do the same thing. I know as well as anyone that the ball has to bounce your way, which is why I don't adhere to the popular thinking that championships make players, especially in football. Not even at quarterback. They are meaningful, but they don't tell the whole story. Go peek your head in the Terry Bradshaw thread for an example.

 

2) If you hold the Pats to the "championship or bust" standard that so many Pats fans trumpet -- and if you want an example of that, scroll up in this thread -- they haven't maintained a body of work throughout the decade. They won three championships in four years a decade ago. (I don't subscribe to that standard, but again, the irony is strong.)

 

3) You're mistaken if you think the Jets game is the only playoff game that the Colts lost by giving up a go-ahead score late in the game (and this applies to the Broncos/Ravens game last year, so there's another example for you). It started against the Dolphins in 2000, we had a 7 point lead after a Vanderjagt field goal with 5 minutes left, and gave up an 80 yard touchdown drive, led by Jay Fiedler of all people, the epitome of average. Then Vanderjagt missed a 49 yarder in overtime, and the Dolphins scored the winning touchdown after that. Manning's stats weren't great in that game, but he's had worse game in wins in the playoffs. It was about the same as Brady's stats against the Rams in SB36, when AV hit a 48 yarder to win it. In 2007, against the Chargers, we had a 24-21 lead at home, and surrendered it to Billy Volek (Fiedler's VP of Average Quarterbacking). No pass rush because Freeney and Mathis were hurt, Marvin Harrison fumbled the ball away deep in Charger territory, Kenton Keith dropped a pass right into a Charger's hands, etc. The next year, in San Diego, we gave up a 17-14 lead at the end of regulation, then the offense never touched the ball in overtime, due to getting ripped up by Darren Sproles. There's the Jets game, like you said. Then the Broncos/Ravens game.

 

That's just the games where the defense surrendered a fourth quarter lead. That doesn't include the games that were competitive but the team lost.

 

4) I am in no way suggesting that the Patriots Super Bowls were a fluke. That's nonsense. The Patriots were a good team that beat the best competition they could have faced, and they earned every second of praise they received for those championships. Maybe you can quibble over the Tuck Rule Game, but that's the rule, so that's that. 

 

5) Like I said before, the Pats had a terrific stretch, one that any team would envy. And what they've done in subsequent years, in terms of games won, records, playoff appearances, division titles, playoff wins, SB appearances, etc., is impressive. But they haven't won a SB in nine years now. And with every year that passes, we see more and more Pats fans "explaining" why the Pats haven't won more, why they've experienced some letdowns in the postseason, etc. We see more and more "sometimes the ball bounces your way, sometimes it doesn't." The further you get away from the glory of winning three SBs in four years, the more you start to sound like everyone else, including Colts fans.

 

And part of the reason is that some Pats fans got full of themselves, preaching about the "Patriot Way" and how nothing matters but the postseason, and so on. And all of that is a bunch of noise. When a few years have gone by, and you do more and more "explaining," it's revealed that, like you said, it takes a lot of luck to win championships in any sport. And given all the laudable accomplishments of the Patriots since their last SB, it's quite obvious that the postseason isn't the only thing that matters. Given how much better Tom Brady is now than he was nine years ago, it's obvious that SB rings don't make a quarterback any better.

 

Be proud of what your team accomplished, but the further away you get from those rings, the more you start to appreciate how special and rare they were. And the more you can appreciate how special the one ring the Colts won with Peyton Manning was, no matter how messy it was, no matter how long it took. You may not realize it, but the more time goes by, the more miles you walk in the shoes of Colts fans.

This is one of your better posts up here. 

 

A few thoughts ....

 

I think in the end it is hard to win Super Bowls especially in the cap/FA era. I think what upsets Pats fans is this notion that somehow Manning was shafted in Indy and didn't have the team to win more rings because of a flawed team make up yet that same team won 12-13 games every year and lost each season in Jan. for different reasons - most of the time they were just outplayed by their opponents or they had some bad luck as well. You have to admit that excuse making for Manning by some Colts fans is over the top. Manning's post-season is what it is and he had some very talented teams that did not win for a myriad of reasons. I think if you ask him he would say his teams were plenty good enough to win more rings. But of course, post-season success is just part of the story for any player or team but obviously championships is why you play the game and ultimately defines a legacy more than anything else.

 

In terms of the Pats, while the rings are great, I think I am most proud of the fact that team has continued to win at the rate it has the last 13 years. The other dynasties whether the Steelers, Niners or Cowboys had their great runs and then fell off the map. The Steelers had a parade of mediocre teams in the 80's and 90's. The Niners previous to the last two season have been awful since the cap/FA era began. And of course, the Cowboys have only made one appearance in the post-season since the mid-90's.

 

Currently, the Pats are 9-3 and have secured another winning season which is 13 straight since Belichick/Brady and only have two seasons in which they did not reach the post season (2002, 2008) and both those seasons they were tied for the division at season's end but lost on division tiebreakers. I look at this year and the state of the team to start the season with all new offensive skill guys - mostly rooks and FAs - and then the defense that has been decimated and think this yet may be their finest season and that is really saying something.

 

In terms of your last line about Pats fans walking in the shoes of Colts fans. That is laughable. The Pats are a modern dynasty in an era when the league is designed for every team to go 8-8 every year. And that is not just because of the 3 rings in 4 years but because of their success the last 13 years that I just noted. In addition, your owner is on record as saying that the Colts franchise when Manning was there was a failure because it did not win more rings. I don't agree with him but Robert Kraft has a very different take on the Pats success in the 2000's. And while Manning was ushered out in a messy media affair, Robert Kraft quietly talked to and somehow convinced Brady to sign a three year $24 mil extension this past off-season so he can retire a Patriot and one of his main reasons for doing so was because he didn't want what happened to Manning in Indy to happen to Brady. So, no Pats fans have never been and will never be in the Colts shoes. Like I said at the start, it is hard to win SBs but when you got 3 not winning another ring the last 9 years hardly makes you lose sleep and certainly does not make you identify with Colts fans or any other team for that matter that has not win a ring the last 9 years.

[ricker182]

This got way off topic, but I'll try to add my thoughts.  

The Patriots, as much as I hate them, are a very good dynasty team. 

Brady is a ridiculously good QB. There is no way they should be 9-3 with the team they have.

 

Now saying that, I really hope Peyton gets the record back only because it will mean beating Brady's.