Peyton Manning Voted No.1 By The Players

[sweetsurrender]

Offense is WRs,TE,RB and OL.

OL has 5 of them. Job of OL is to give time for the QB to throw the football.

WRs catch the football only if it is thrown and it can be thrown properly only when the QB has time and the OL provides that.

Hope it's clear.

What? Are you really saying that Manning did not have a good Oline? You do realize that he is one of the least sacked QBs and has never had one season where he has been sacked even 30 times? And that he has also been sacked less than Brady despite having three full seasons on him?

[Shane Bond]

What? Are you really saying that Manning did not have a good Oline? You do realize that he is one of the least sacked QBs and has never had one season where he has been sacked even 30 times? And that he has also been sacked less than Brady despite having three full seasons on him?

That has nothing to do with OL. That's all on Manning with his release. In Denver he has gotten more time and you see the results. It's a huge part.

I mean it's well documented about Colts OL. Are you really pretending you didn't know or you just don't?.

[sweetsurrender]

That has nothing to do with OL. That's all on Manning with his release. In Denver he has gotten more time and you see the results. It's a huge part.

I mean it's well documented about Colts OL. Are you really pretending you didn't know or you just don't?.

Of course it is all Manning. Anything good is all Manning, anything bad is his team, coaching, weather, etc. No Qb on earth would tell you when he is the one of the least sacked Qbs that it is his release and not his line.

 

I have watched and been a fan of the Colts for a looong time. Manning was great but he was also surrounded with great players. To deny this is to plead insanity.

[chad72]

Perhaps I got carried away with saying number one picks. lol. But are you trying to say Peyton did not have good Olines?

 

He had good pass protecting O-lines but Howard Mudd's OL was still a bit finesse more than grind it out style that Scarnecchia of the Pats coached, IMO. I do think drafting Jake Scott in 2004 and his development in a couple of years put our OL over the top in run blocking only to see Jake Scott go .

 

But then, Peyton got owned by Romeo Crennel and Belichick, come playoff time as long as Crennel was there along with Belichick. It is not a co-incidence that Peyton won there in 2005, right after Crennel left. Dungy was better than Mora and was an upgrade there, but I do not think our coaches could hang with the best that the Pats brought to the field, even in the regular season. I do believe Rex Ryan when he said Brady does get a lot of help from Belichick, which was more true in his earlier championship days (much like Russell Wilson now, doing a job within the parameters the coach provides without having to shoulder more of the burden). Belichick, since his Giants' DC days, Cleveland HC days, was always a sharp mind. When he got to work with Law, Milloy, Bruschi etc. that came during the Parcells/Carroll era and added Vrabel and Harrison via free agency, he could work magic on D.

 

But once those guys faded and he had to make drafting decisions on D, it has been mighty hard for them to field a championship D since then. 10-0 start till 2004 for Brady/Belichick, 8-7 since then is the result of that. I don't think it is a co-incidence. Parcells and Carroll, you have to acknowledge they were part of some real good draft picks (Carroll might still be). Cowboys were coattailing on Parcells' picks for the longest time but could not get it right on the QB front . Everything has to fall in line for a championship.

 

Russell Wilson is much like Brady was then, he will become a much better QB later but if he has to carry that team without that championship D and coaching, they would be middle of the pack in the tough NFC now.

[Blue Horseshoe]

I dunno its very likely Manning could win another SB (or two) with the stacked team he has in Denver right now, and will certainly be in contention for the next several years.

 

I don't put a ton of weight onto stats and awards without context, but any award or recognition that is determined by your fellow players in the league is more meaningful than any AP awards, etc in my opinion.  If I was Manning, I'd probably be more proud of being #1 on this list than getting the NFL MVP last year.

 

I disagree!  The Top 100 list is horribly flawed because of the way it is conducted.  "List the top 20 players regardless of position" is very subjective (and a bit of a popularity contest or at least a memorability contest) and leads to anomalies like Jimmy Graham not making the list last year and Matt Forte being in the 90s this year.  The fan poll is conducted in a much more fair way with a series of head to head comparisons of players in the top couple hundred.  If the player list was built using the same mechanism it would be much more reliable and would more accurately reflect the players opinions.

 

Manning certainly deserves the #1 but there were lots of picks that I thought were questionable. 

[Shane Bond]

Of course it is all Manning. Anything good is all Manning, anything bad is his team, coaching, weather, etc. No Qb on earth would tell you when he is the one of the least sacked Qbs that it is his release and not his line.

I have watched and been a fan of the Colts for a looong time. Manning was great but he was also surrounded with great players. To deny this is to plead insanity.

Well we need someone to defend Manning.

Never seen a positive word about Manning from you.

Saying Manning's OL was good compared to Brady is insanity.

[sweetsurrender]

Well we need someone to defend Manning.

Never seen a positive word about Manning from you.

Saying Manning's OL was good compared to Brady is insanity.

I am over Manning. Have been for a long time. Appreciated his time with the Colts but it is on to Luck. I embrace the present but these threads are amusing if nothing else. 

 

Look at how Manning and Brady's Oline's graded out over their careers and then you can tell me where this big difference is. They both had some great and very good Olines. I don't see some chasm. The only chasm is the offensive skill positions which are in Manning's favor and Brady's defense from '01-'06.

[Shane Bond]

I am over Manning. Have been for a long time. Appreciated his time with the Colts but it is on to Luck. I embrace the present but these threads are amusing if nothing else.

Look at how Manning and Brady's Oline's graded out over their careers and then you can tell me where this big difference is. They both had some great and very good Olines. I don't see some chasm. The only chasm is the offensive skill positions which are in Manning's favor and Brady's defense from '01-'06.

Yeah you need more research to be done on OL.

[sweetsurrender]

Yeah you need more research to be done on OL.

Ok, so you have the OL grades then? Let's see them.

[Dustin]

offensive line that was littered with number one picks.

 

wut

[amfootball]

He had good pass protecting O-lines but Howard Mudd's OL was still a bit finesse more than grind it out style that Scarnecchia of the Pats coached, IMO. I do think drafting Jake Scott in 2004 and his development in a couple of years put our OL over the top in run blocking only to see Jake Scott go .

 

But then, Peyton got owned by Romeo Crennel and Belichick, come playoff time as long as Crennel was there along with Belichick. It is not a co-incidence that Peyton won there in 2005, right after Crennel left. Dungy was better than Mora and was an upgrade there, but I do not think our coaches could hang with the best that the Pats brought to the field, even in the regular season. I do believe Rex Ryan when he said Brady does get a lot of help from Belichick, which was more true in his earlier championship days (much like Russell Wilson now, doing a job within the parameters the coach provides without having to shoulder more of the burden). Belichick, since his Giants' DC days, Cleveland HC days, was always a sharp mind. When he got to work with Law, Milloy, Bruschi etc. that came during the Parcells/Carroll era and added Vrabel and Harrison via free agency, he could work magic on D.

 

But once those guys faded and he had to make drafting decisions on D, it has been mighty hard for them to field a championship D since then. 10-0 start till 2004 for Brady/Belichick, 8-7 since then is the result of that. I don't think it is a co-incidence. Parcells and Carroll, you have to acknowledge they were part of some real good draft picks (Carroll might still be). Cowboys were coattailing on Parcells' picks for the longest time but could not get it right on the QB front . Everything has to fall in line for a championship.

 

Russell Wilson is much like Brady was then, he will become a much better QB later but if he has to carry that team without that championship D and coaching, they would be middle of the pack in the tough NFC now.

Very insightful post. I think most Pats fans acknowledge that Bill won those rings with Parcells players at the core anyways. I don't think Bill has been terrible since then in terms of his GM moves but it makes you realize how hard it is to find championship caliber talent and get the talent to all play together and buy in. I think the fact that the Pats have never had a losing season despite rebuilding the O and D multiple times and losing so many coaches is a testament to Bill's GM and coaching abilities and of course Brady as well. I think in many ways the 13 seasons of winning is more impressive than the three rings in four years.

[chad72]

Very insightful post. I think most Pats fans acknowledge that Bill won those rings with Parcells players at the core anyways. I don't think Bill has been terrible since then in terms of his GM moves but it makes you realize how hard it is to find championship caliber talent and get the talent to all play together and buy in. I think the fact that the Pats have never had a losing season despite rebuilding the O and D multiple times and losing so many coaches is a testament to Bill's GM and coaching abilities and of course Brady as well. I think in many ways the 13 seasons of winning is more impressive than the three rings in four years.

 

Yeah, both Peyton and Brady have been to 2 SBs lately and lost, albeit in different manners.

 

Like you said, it is mighty difficult to get all that defensive talent at one time and get them to buy in to play in sync, and the closest we have to that is in Seattle right now with the offense doing what it needs to do to not put the D in a difficult position and the D taking it from there.

 

What is even harder nowadays is to have a successful DC for more than 2 years, especially if you win a SB, and Pats were lucky to have Crennel man that D with Belichick just long enough. Dick LeBeau is the obvious exception to that norm . Ravens' DCs - Marvin Lewis, Rex Ryan, Chuck Pagano all went on to be head coaches but at least they had the core of Ray Lewis and Ed Reed intact for a long time which helped that locker room. But dynasty requires top notch coaching and quality player continuity.

[amfootball]

Yeah, both Peyton and Brady have been to 2 SBs lately and lost, albeit in different manners.

 

Like you said, it is mighty difficult to get all that defensive talent at one time and get them to buy in to play in sync, and the closest we have to that is in Seattle right now with the offense doing what it needs to do to not put the D in a difficult position and the D taking it from there.

 

What is even harder nowadays is to have a successful DC for more than 2 years, it seems like, and Pats were lucky to have Crennel man that D with Belichick just long enough. Dick LeBeau is the obvious exception to that norm .

Yeah, Seattle reminds me a lot of the Pats champ teams. They just shelled out some big contracts so we will see how everything shakes out for them. But they are built a lot like those Pats teams and Wilson reminds me a ton of Brady in terms of his game and leadership. Seems to be light years ahead of his age in terms of his maturity and understanding of the moment.

 

For sure it is a coaching carousel. I always go insane every year with the coaching changes and injuries. Seems as though no team has patience anymore. Hard to build continuity with so many moves year to year. That is why I am not sure if we will ever see another team in the cap/FA do what the Pats did and win 3 in 4 years.

[HtownColt]

Just because Whitner didn't vote, doesn't mean other players don't. The link i provided said 28% of the players returned their ballet. So your claim that no players vote is inaccurate

Didn't literally mean no players of course they get some players to fulfill the criteria of a players list, meant no players that actually play on Sundays and the network puts their two cents in and skew things

[jvan1973]

Didn't literally mean no players of course they get some players to fulfill the criteria of a players list, meant no players that actually play on Sundays and the network puts their two cents in and skew things

If 28 % filled these out, then yes some of them also play a substantial amount of time

[NewColtsFan]

Didn't literally mean no players of course they get some players to fulfill the criteria of a players list, meant no players that actually play on Sundays and the network puts their two cents in and skew things

 

I guess the horse just isn't dead enough.....   so you thought you'd come by and kick it a few more times just to be sure.

 

This has long passed being embarrassing......   I don't know why you cling to this.....

[HtownColt]

I guess the horse just isn't dead enough..... so you thought you'd come by and kick it a few more times just to be sure.

This has long passed being embarrassing...... I don't know why you cling to this.....

This guy

[HtownColt]

If 28 % filled these out, then yes some of them also play a substantial amount of time

Thanks

[BOTT]

That's on the players,  not on the network.

 

Hey, don't get me wrong,  there are lots of things I don't like about the top-100.

 

They don't get enough players to vote,  and the vote is for only each players top-20.

 

Top-20.    That makes no sense to me.

 

The guys who are 51-100 must have a very low number of votes.

 

That's why I don't get worked up over rankings on the show that don't make sense to me.

 

But that's a far cry from claiming the NFL Network makes up the whole thing,  that they do the voting and not the players.

 

That kind of stuff is nonsense.......   sorry.....

I don't think the network is making it up, but I don't think the players care or take it seriously.....just look at the results.

[NewColtsFan]

I don't think the network is making it up, but I don't think the players care or take it seriously.....just look at the results.

 

I agree....   when less 30 percent of the players are taking part,  and all they have to do is to vote for a top-20,  I think that tells you that the players don't care that much.

 

Surprising and disappointing.

[BOTT]

I cut and pasted this from earlier in the thread compliments of Chad: 

 

Peyton however has had several losses where he scored below 20 - in fact 10 times out of which he was 1-9 (16 vs Titans in 1999, 17 vs Dolphins in 2000, 0 vs Jets in 2002, 14 and 3 in Foxboro in 2003 & 2004, 18 vs Steelers in 2005, 15 vs Ravens in 2006, 17 vs Chargers in 2008, 17 vs Saints, recently 8 vs Seahawks). I know that each game has its own character but putting all their eggs in the Peyton basket and spending more high draft picks on offense over OL and defense (either to please Peyton or whatever reason) was largely responsible for the Colts' early playoff exits when elite Ds forced the Colts teams to run on them. Only SB we won was when we relied less on the passing weapons, enough said.

Well, the way they built is an entirely different argument

[BOTT]

Pretty sure that these rankings are by yards , which is perhaps the worst way to rank a defense.

Check by points , the best measurable stat.

Yes, when teams bad teams with bad quarterbacks are playing catch up they turn the ball over.

Be honest...did you ever once fear the Colts defense as a Patriots fan?

[TAPLOOK]

Peyton would be a great politician. All smoke and mirrors.

[jvan1973]

Peyton would be a great politician. All smoke and mirrors.

and belichick would make a great filmmaker. All cameras and deceit

[BOTT]

Peyton would be a great politician. All smoke and mirrors.

So would taplook....you're always full of %€#£

[ViriLudant]

I also didn't mention a key point.

Do you that time Brady has in a pocket vs Manning had with Colts. Brady has more than a second extra to throw. It plays a huge part.

Coming back to WRs, except Marvin and Reggie everyone was made a WRs. It is well documented how Manning trains in off season. Brady sure had lot of WRs but just couldn't get his chemistry and they had to be traded.

Brandon Lloyd looked genius with Kyle Orton.

You are very, very misinformed.

Lloyd had issues; apparently he was a problem in the locker room , and wasn't liked at all.

Never mind the fact that he was a possession WR who hit the deck before any contact.

Btw, there's a reason why no one picked him up in 2013.

Brady didn't have chemistry with WRs? What kind of foolishness is that?

Moss?

Welker?

Brown?

Branch?

Gronk?

Hernandez?

Perhaps you need to bow out.

[ViriLudant]

His numbers are right there. 12,000 yards (11th all time), 80 TDs, 4 time pro bowler, 3 time AP, 2 time rushing champion, rookie of the year in 99, etc.

When is he eligible? This year?

Won't happen. He was never the best RB in the NFL during his years, and he benefited from teams focusing on pass defense against the Colts.

[sweetsurrender]

Won't happen. He was never the best RB in the NFL during his years, and he benefited from teams focusing on pass defense against the Colts.

Perhaps but his numbers are Hall worthy if he doesn't make it as it is tough for RBs to get in.

[Dustin]

Won't happen. He was never the best RB in the NFL during his years, and he benefited from teams focusing on pass defense against the Colts.

He won't make the hall. But not because of that dumb reasoning.

[amfootball]

He won't make the hall. But not because of that dumb reasoning.

Why won't he make it in, do you think? His numbers are pretty impressive. Is it because he ran when Faulk was the best RB? I always liked James a lot and felt he was always overlooked on the Indy offense probably because of Harrison and Wayne.

[Fx Stryker]

DT's numbers have been steadily increasing since he got into the league, he is developing as a player and yes, I am sure having Peyton Manning as his quarterback has something to do with his numbers as well the past two years. But let's not pretend like he was some no-name guy before Manning went to Denver.

 

He pretty much had no name. We know who DT is because of the single catch he made against Pittsburgh. His number were increasing linearly, but they increased exponentially with Manning. Without Manning DT isn't viewed as a top receiver.

 

Regular season games in college are not the big games in many people's perception; The bowl games are. And being in position to win a NC isn't actually winning the NC.

But the point was you said "can't win the big game" has gone back to college. When people say that it's because he never beat Florida in the regular season, but was 3-1 in bowl games. And you're right getting them in a position isn't the same as winning it. But when there is 100+ team getting close is pretty damn good.

 

How many NFL quarterbacks are scrutinized that they didn't win the National Championship? One, Peyton.

 

I once heard a NFL network analyst say "Even though Peyton is a Super Bowl Champion he isn't a championship caliber quarterback." And not one single person objected.

 

Guys like Brady and Montana were only expected to accomplish, lets use numbers, to a level of say 3 in there careers. But they got to level 9, per say. Where guys like Manning, Elway, and Marino were expected to achieve a level 7 for their team, and "only" got to the 9th level. So even though they all are legendary, well accomplished players and achieve a great career pretty much of the same level; it's the Brady's and Montana's who are seen as better because they didn't have that expectation.

 

I can admit that Manning is one of the greatest like the next guy but for some reason me praising Brady as well seems to touch a nerve. They are both Hall of Famers but they were in completely different situations last season.

I don't think it's the fact that you praised Brady. I didn't read the whole, but what I got is that you were saying Brady accomplished more by making it to the AFCCG than Manning did by making the Super Bowl. If that's not what you said then I retract what I said.

I think Brady's a great QB. He has accomplished great things, but I still think Manning is the better QB of the two. The way QBs play today is because of Manning. Brady's greatest accomplishment is winning Super Bowls. There is 48 different teams to win the Super Bowl, Manning has a team included. There are very few individuals to touch the game of football like Manning has.

 

I don't see why people are taking exception to the Brady thing. You guys can praise Manning to the skies but when somebody mentions that Brady did something spectacular too this season all of a sudden everyone wants to bring up defenses and things from the past that don't matter anymore.

Again I didn't care to read the whole thread. So I apologize jumping in and being a little off base from the discussion.

[Dustin]

Why won't he make it in, do you think? His numbers are pretty impressive. Is it because he ran when Faulk was the best RB? I always liked James a lot and felt he was always overlooked on the Indy offense probably because of Harrison and Wayne.

Didn't dominate for long enough. He only had like 4 dominant years.

[Qwiz]

He pretty much had no name. We know who DT is because of the single catch he made against Pittsburgh. His number were increasing linearly, but they increased exponentially with Manning. Without Manning DT isn't viewed as a top receiver.

 

But the point was you said "can't win the big game" has gone back to college. When people say that it's because he never beat Florida in the regular season, but was 3-1 in bowl games. And you're right getting them in a position isn't the same as winning it. But when there is 100+ team getting close is pretty damn good.

 

How many NFL quarterbacks are scrutinized that they didn't win the National Championship? One, Peyton.

 

I once heard a NFL network analyst say "Even though Peyton is a Super Bowl Champion he isn't a championship caliber quarterback." And not one single person objected.

 

Guys like Brady and Montana were only expected to accomplish, lets use numbers, to a level of say 3 in there careers. But they got to level 9, per say. Where guys like Manning, Elway, and Marino were expected to achieve a level 7 for their team, and "only" got to the 9th level. So even though they all are legendary, well accomplished players and achieve a great career pretty much of the same level; it's the Brady's and Montana's who are seen as better because they didn't have that expectation.

 

I don't think it's the fact that you praised Brady. I didn't read the whole, but what I got is that you were saying Brady accomplished more by making it to the AFCCG than Manning did by making the Super Bowl. If that's not what you said then I retract what I said.

I think Brady's a great QB. He has accomplished great things, but I still think Manning is the better QB of the two. The way QBs play today is because of Manning. Brady's greatest accomplishment is winning Super Bowls. There is 48 different teams to win the Super Bowl, Manning has a team included. There are very few individuals to touch the game of football like Manning has.

 

Again I didn't care to read the whole thread. So I apologize jumping in and being a little off base from the discussion.

Fair enough. I think that the Thomas thing is debatable but I guess we won't know till Osweiler or whoever is next steps in and takes the reigns. I had never heard that Championship conversation before but it is silly; I am not surprised though. A lot of the guys on NFL Network say a lot of silly things and do in fact ignore logic at times. But you don't have to apologize to me man, though I do appreciate it. I know by just being a spectator that this Manning/Brady thing is quite troublesome and gets a lot of people's goats, so I understand the hoopla around it whenever the topic comes up. I also get your sentiment about Manning being the guy to change the game for the better. He has had quite the impact.

[sweetsurrender]

He pretty much had no name. We know who DT is because of the single catch he made against Pittsburgh. His number were increasing linearly, but they increased exponentially with Manning. Without Manning DT isn't viewed as a top receiver.

 

But the point was you said "can't win the big game" has gone back to college. When people say that it's because he never beat Florida in the regular season, but was 3-1 in bowl games. And you're right getting them in a position isn't the same as winning it. But when there is 100+ team getting close is pretty damn good.

 

How many NFL quarterbacks are scrutinized that they didn't win the National Championship? One, Peyton.

 

I once heard a NFL network analyst say "Even though Peyton is a Super Bowl Champion he isn't a championship caliber quarterback." And not one single person objected.

 

Guys like Brady and Montana were only expected to accomplish, lets use numbers, to a level of say 3 in there careers. But they got to level 9, per say. Where guys like Manning, Elway, and Marino were expected to achieve a level 7 for their team, and "only" got to the 9th level. So even though they all are legendary, well accomplished players and achieve a great career pretty much of the same level; it's the Brady's and Montana's who are seen as better because they didn't have that expectation.

 

I don't think it's the fact that you praised Brady. I didn't read the whole, but what I got is that you were saying Brady accomplished more by making it to the AFCCG than Manning did by making the Super Bowl. If that's not what you said then I retract what I said.

I think Brady's a great QB. He has accomplished great things, but I still think Manning is the better QB of the two. The way QBs play today is because of Manning. Brady's greatest accomplishment is winning Super Bowls. There is 48 different teams to win the Super Bowl, Manning has a team included. There are very few individuals to touch the game of football like Manning has.

 

Again I didn't care to read the whole thread. So I apologize jumping in and being a little off base from the discussion.

To the bolded - I don't think you being fair to Brady. He has changed the game a lot more due to his play and not just his success winning championships. And while I agree Manning has changed the game, not one team or QB has ever adopted his Tom Moore offense so I am not sure what his imprint has actually been other than running an O that no other Qb can duplicate. 

[Fx Stryker]

To the bolded - I don't think you being fair to Brady. He has changed the game a lot more due to his play and not just his success winning championships. And while I agree Manning has changed the game, not one team or QB has ever adopted his Tom Moore offense so I am not sure what his imprint has actually been other than running an O that no other Qb can duplicate. 

 

You don't think teams are trying to run the no-huddle, precision attack these days? From day one every Colt fans have been asking when Luck will start running it. Matt Ryan and Andy Dalton have been trying to run it. People in Pittsburgh want Big Ben to do it, and they started trying. Phillip Rivers was doing it last season. Brady has been doing it for years now, but Peyton stared adopting it in '99. Tom Moore said one day they messed around with code words, and kept running with it.

 

No Peyton isn't the first to be running no huddle and calling plays at the line. Johnny U was doing it in the '58 Championship game.

 

But like you said his staple is an offense that no other QB can do. No one can, Peyton is the only one that does it like he does, and is as successful as he is. And it's not because they aren't trying because they are.

 

But no other player eat, sleeps, and breathes football like Peyton does.

 

I'm not trying to take away from Brady, but the way he plays is because of Manning. That extremely fast passed offense they had was a model based off of what Peyton was doing. Belichick even said the one time they have Gronk and Hernandez because they seen what weapons a tight end can be from the Colts offense.

[Dustin]

not one team or QB has ever adopted his Tom Moore offense so I am not sure what his imprint has actually been other than running an O that no other Qb can duplicate.

Tom Moore and Peyton ran the most simple offense in the NFL.

[sweetsurrender]

You don't think teams are trying to run the no-huddle, precision attack these days? From day one every Colt fans have been asking when Luck will start running it. Matt Ryan and Andy Dalton have been trying to run it. People in Pittsburgh want Big Ben to do it, and they started trying. Phillip Rivers was doing it last season. Brady has been doing it for years now, but Peyton stared adopting it in '99. Tom Moore said one day they messed around with code words, and kept running with it.

 

No Peyton isn't the first to be running no huddle and calling plays at the line. Johnny U was doing it in the '58 Championship game.

 

But like you said his staple is an offense that no other QB can do. No one can, Peyton is the only one that does it like he does, and is as successful as he is. And it's not because they aren't trying because they are.

 

But no other player eat, sleeps, and breathes football like Peyton does.

 

I'm not trying to take away from Brady, but the way he plays is because of Manning. That extremely fast passed offense they had was a model based off of what Peyton was doing. Belichick even said the one time they have Gronk and Hernandez because they seen what weapons a tight end can be from the Colts offense.

The no huddle has been around forever. It was Jim Kelly and the K-gun that brought the QB to the line to call the play. Hardly an invention of Manning or Moore. In fact the Indy O is an unbelievably simple offense but again not one that you see any team or QB running. Credit Manning for his ability to run that offense so well but again no one is copying it. For sure Manning has left an imprint but he has not changed the game like a Unitas. He has been a great QB and done great things but nothing that has altered the way the game is played. 

[amfootball]

You don't think teams are trying to run the no-huddle, precision attack these days? From day one every Colt fans have been asking when Luck will start running it. Matt Ryan and Andy Dalton have been trying to run it. People in Pittsburgh want Big Ben to do it, and they started trying. Phillip Rivers was doing it last season. Brady has been doing it for years now, but Peyton stared adopting it in '99. Tom Moore said one day they messed around with code words, and kept running with it.

 

No Peyton isn't the first to be running no huddle and calling plays at the line. Johnny U was doing it in the '58 Championship game.

 

But like you said his staple is an offense that no other QB can do. No one can, Peyton is the only one that does it like he does, and is as successful as he is. And it's not because they aren't trying because they are.

 

But no other player eat, sleeps, and breathes football like Peyton does.

 

I'm not trying to take away from Brady, but the way he plays is because of Manning. That extremely fast passed offense they had was a model based off of what Peyton was doing. Belichick even said the one time they have Gronk and Hernandez because they seen what weapons a tight end can be from the Colts offense.

The extreme hurry up that the Pats ran two years ago was from Chip Kelly. Belichick met with Kelly in the off-season and implemented it. And it was Bill and Brady that introduced the spread offense to the NFL in the mid '00s.

[amfootball]

The no huddle has been around forever. It was Jim Kelly and the K-gun that brought the QB to the line to call the play. Hardly an invention of Manning or Moore. In fact the Indy O is an unbelievably simple offense but again not one that you see any team or QB running. Credit Manning for his ability to run that offense so well but again no one is copying it. For sure Manning has left an imprint but he has not changed the game like a Unitas. He has been a great QB and done great things but nothing that has altered the way the game is played. 

I loved that Bills offense. Poor Jim Kelly. I really hope he beats his cancer.

[Dustin]

The no huddle has been around forever. It was Jim Kelly and the K-gun that brought the QB to the line to call the play. 

 

It was actually the 1988 Bengals that ran it before anyone. The K-gun was copied from them after Cincy beat them in the championship game.