Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Peyton Manning Voted No.1 By The Players


King Colt

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 469
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

That is not a very accurate summarization of my post but if that sort of revisionist history makes you feel better than more power to you. The real history is he lost more playoff games than he won, he went one and done more than probably any QB of his stature 9x and he was at home and favored in the majority of those games. Spin it however you want.

You can spin it either way, I suppose. I know what I've seen, and what I've seen was an entire team standing around with their hands in their pockets just waiting for Peyton to win the game for them......over and over again, and that's not how championships are won. 

 

A final score of 43-8 says a lot about the losing team. 

 

It does bother me when people go on about him not being able to win "the big games" when he has, in fact, won the big games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see that link....

Because according to the NFLN, it's entirely the players vote. The NFLN just reveals the results.... period.

@DonteWhitner: “@ShaUdmoney_Era: Surprised @DonteWhitner wasn't in the top 100 players” {it's ok....players don't vote on that. Nor does coaches}

@DonteWhitner: The people @nflnetwork votes on that!

@DonteWhitner: “@JMOREY1: @DonteWhitner u deserved it 4 sure but I thought players were the ones who did vote?” {they want fans to believe players vote}

*here is when NFL network responded to him and said "no we don't" then ignored him after he asked them who voted then*

@DonteWhitner: “@nflnetwork: @DonteWhitner No we don't.” {lies... No one in the 49ers locker room voted! None of my friends around the league voted!}

@DonteWhitner: “@nflnetwork: @DonteWhitner No we don't.” {so who voted???}

@DonteWhitner: Only thing players vote on is the pro bowl. Go ask the players that are on twitter if they voted and at me with their answers please.

@DonteWhitner: @nflnetwork who voted? I didn't get an answer...

*Duke Williams of the Bills is still waiting on NFL Network's answer as well*

@Duke27_: “@DonteWhitner: @nflnetwork who voted? I didn't get an answer...”• ⌛️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manning tore through the NFL and had the best season ever by a quarterback this year. Him not capping it off in the SB and losing in the fashion that he did will indeed hurt his legacy, it is akin to Brady and the undefeated Patriots losing to Eli and the Giants.

 

I don't get that logic.

 

I think the 2007 Pats are a testament to Brady's greatness. I don't think it hurts his legacy that they didn't win the SB, insofar as them getting to the SB at 18-0 had already built up Brady's legacy. Winning the SB would have been the feather in the cap, but the cap is a pretty significant accomplishment on its own.

 

Same with Manning in 2013. Plenty of accomplishments along the way to the SB. Those don't get washed out or undermined because they didn't win the SB, IMO. It's just a featherless cap, so to speak. But there are lots of QBs who don't have a cap to begin with.

 

Me personally, I'd rather get there and lose -- even if it's a bad loss -- than not get there at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get that logic.

I think the 2007 Pats are a testament to Brady's greatness. I don't think it hurts his legacy that they didn't win the SB, insofar as them getting to the SB at 18-0 had already built up Brady's legacy. Winning the SB would have been the feather in the cap, but the cap is a pretty significant accomplishment on its own.

Same with Manning in 2013. Plenty of accomplishments along the way to the SB. Those don't get washed out or undermined because they didn't win the SB, IMO. It's just a featherless cap, so to speak. But there are lots of QBs who don't have a cap to begin with.

Me personally, I'd rather get there and lose -- even if it's a bad loss -- than not get there at all.

I never said that it takes away the accomplishments or the feathers in the hat. But that same offense that blew through competition like it was nothing will be referenced when people look back at the debacle that was the 2014 Super Bowl. It'll speak volumes to the sentiment that Manning can't get it done when it comes to the big games. This has been debated here, everywhere before, so it isn't a new idea or illogical or anything like that. I would rather lose 20-23 in the Championship Game then 48-8 or whatever it was in front of the whole world with massive expectations on my back. But that's just me.

As far as the Patriots go I was comparing the situations, not the results. Brady had his team in that game so I don't think it hurt his reputation much if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@DonteWhitner: “@ShaUdmoney_Era: Surprised @DonteWhitner wasn't in the top 100 players” {it's ok....players don't vote on that. Nor does coaches}

@DonteWhitner: The people @nflnetwork votes on that!

@DonteWhitner: “@JMOREY1: @DonteWhitner u deserved it 4 sure but I thought players were the ones who did vote?” {they want fans to believe players vote}

*here is when NFL network responded to him and said "no we don't" then ignored him after he asked them who voted then*

@DonteWhitner: “@nflnetwork: @DonteWhitner No we don't.” {lies... No one in the 49ers locker room voted! None of my friends around the league voted!}

@DonteWhitner: “@nflnetwork: @DonteWhitner No we don't.” {so who voted???}

@DonteWhitner: Only thing players vote on is the pro bowl. Go ask the players that are on twitter if they voted and at me with their answers please.

@DonteWhitner: @nflnetwork who voted? I didn't get an answer...

*Duke Williams of the Bills is still waiting on NFL Network's answer as well*

@Duke27_: “@DonteWhitner: @nflnetwork who voted? I didn't get an answer...”• ⌛

 

Thanks....   I really appreciate you taking the time to do all that!    Very impressive.

 

But, Donte is just flat-out wrong.    Heck,  there's even video of guys writing out their lists.   I've seen it in some of their shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.... I really appreciate you taking the time to do all that! Very impressive.

But, Donte is just flat-out wrong. Heck, there's even video of guys writing out their lists. I've seen it in some of their shows.

How is he wrong? Nobody denied his claim, NFL network just said"no we don't" and ignored him after he asked who voted then.

Can you shoot me those videos? I have never heard a player say "oh this guy was higher/lower on my list"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that it takes away the accomplishments or the feathers in the hat. But that same offense that blew through competition like it was nothing will be referenced when people look back at the debacle that was the 2014 Super Bowl. It'll speak volumes to the sentiment that Manning can't get it done when it comes to the big games. This has been debated here, everywhere before, so it isn't a new idea or illogical or anything like that. I would rather lose 20-23 in the Championship Game then 48-8 or whatever it was in front of the whole world with massive expectations on my back. But that's just me.

 

To the bolded, I disagree. That makes no sense to me. You can't win the SB if you can't get there. You can't live up to massive expectations if you're afraid to even face them.

 

Also, the idea "that Manning can't get it done when it comes to the big games" isn't supported by fact, unless you only count the big games as the ones that he's lost. When the Broncos lost to the Ravens in 2012, people said "Manning can't get it done in the big games." So the divisional round is a "big game" in 2012. The Broncos won the divisional game in 2013; is it still a big game? When the Colts lost the AFCCG to the Pats in 2003, people said "Manning can't win the big games." Manning's teams haven't lost a conference championship since then; are those big games? You're saying now that "he can't get it done in the big games" because the Broncos lost the SB, but Manning has already won a SB. So is it only the SBs that he's lost that count as big games?

 

And of course, as always, I reject the sentiment that discredits a QB for a loss without regard for the way the game went. Every loss isn't the fault of the QB, even in big games. I know this has all been debated before, but that doesn't mean the argument isn't illogical. I've always thought it lacks perspective, at the very least. Just because people keep repeating it doesn't mean it makes sense.

 

Last thing, I think the way the Seahawks destroyed the Broncos is a testament to how great the Seahawks were playing at the time. It doesn't undermine how productive the Broncos' offense was all season long, IMO. If we're going to reference the great Broncos offense, it should be "the Seahawks did what no one else was able to do all year." It's a credit to them. It doesn't undo all the success the Broncos had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks....   I really appreciate you taking the time to do all that!    Very impressive.

 

But, Donte is just flat-out wrong.    Heck,  there's even video of guys writing out their lists.   I've seen it in some of their shows.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this thing was a sham. As much as I love football, I refuse to watch that garbage. Even if the players did vote, there's nothing to say that the NFLN didn't manipulate the results or perhaps just use an aggregate score from "some" of the votes. The network has gotten really strange in recent years, a far cry from the old days where Rich Eisen was the predominant presence behind the desk. Now it's just a bevy of hot chicks and semi-illiterate, "unprofessional" retired players prattling on about Johnny Football....or whatever tabloid-esque flavor of the week is at the top of their "headlines". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the bolded, I disagree. That makes no sense to me. You can't win the SB if you can't get there. You can't live up to massive expectations if you're afraid to even face them.

 

Also, the idea "that Manning can't get it done when it comes to the big games" isn't supported by fact, unless you only count the big games as the ones that he's lost. When the Broncos lost to the Ravens in 2012, people said "Manning can't get it done in the big games." So the divisional round is a "big game" in 2012. The Broncos won the divisional game in 2013; is it still a big game? When the Colts lost the AFCCG to the Pats in 2003, people said "Manning can't win the big games." Manning's teams haven't lost a conference championship since then; are those big games? You're saying now that "he can't get it done in the big games" because the Broncos lost the SB, but Manning has already won a SB. So is it only the SBs that he's lost that count as big games?

 

And of course, as always, I reject the sentiment that discredits a QB for a loss without regard for the way the game went. Every loss isn't the fault of the QB, even in big games. I know this has all been debated before, but that doesn't mean the argument isn't illogical. I've always thought it lacks perspective, at the very least. Just because people keep repeating it doesn't mean it makes sense.

 

Last thing, I think the way the Seahawks destroyed the Broncos is a testament to how great the Seahawks were playing at the time. It doesn't undermine how productive the Broncos' offense was all season long, IMO. If we're going to reference the great Broncos offense, it should be "the Seahawks did what no one else was able to do all year." It's a credit to them. It doesn't undo all the success the Broncos had.

There have been plenty of ridiculous statements in this thread, but I don't think my original post was that bad at all. It isn't illogical. Manning is 1-2 in SBs, and, like others have said, is what, 9 times one and done in the playoffs? Big game is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but let's not pretend that there isn't an aura about Manning that needs to be justified when his biggest moments appear. He is lauded as the best ever, a guy with surgical precision who will beat you before the snap; Yet, in the playoffs the majority of the time and the past two biggest games of his life, he hasn't been as sharp. He hasn't gotten the job done like he has in the regular season. Of course the blame doesn't always fall on the QB; but when the quarterback is throwing interceptions left and right and having botched snaps against a team that is already good enough to score without you gifting them things need to be addressed. It isn't unfair.

 As far as the SB argument goes, I am speaking in hindsight. If I knew that I was going to get my tail handed to me, I'd rather not play in the game at all. Better to lose by a little then by a lot. I'm sure there are players that would rather have the chance to play in the big game, but they would never be satisfied with the results; They play to win, not just to be in the spotlights.

 Nothing undermines what the Broncos or Manning did in the regular season. But it is ridiculous to give them a pass because the Seahawks played well and they didn't. The best team wins, and the Seahawks proved it that day. They were not the only ones motivated to win that game, so that card doesn't exactly work either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Demonstrably false. What's up with this new apologetic viewpoint of Colts' fans? There were several years when the Colts defense was dominant, or at least top 10.

 

New apologetic viewpoint? Ummm what? 

 

The old GM got fired because all he did was rely on Peyton Manning to take us to the promise land by himself. When he got hurt, the truth was abundantly clear. 

 

Colts Defense rankings since '02

2002: 25th

2003: 22nd

2004: 4th

2005: 22nd

2006: 12th

2007: 30th

2008: 22nd

2009: 15th 

2010: 13th

2011: 8th

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New apologetic viewpoint? Ummm what? 

 

The old GM got fired because all he did was rely on Peyton Manning to take us to the promise land by himself. When he got hurt, the truth was abundantly clear. 

 

Colts Defense rankings since '02

2002: 25th

2003: 22nd

2004: 4th

2005: 22nd

2006: 12th

2007: 30th

2008: 22nd

2009: 15th 

2010: 13th

2011: 8th

Not sure you can say things were abundantly clear after 2011 given just one year later Luck stepped in and won 11 games and got to the post-season. Qb was the issue but not because of no Manning but because of no decent back up QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to call that "The Bob Sanders Effect".  But in general, Peyton has been plagued with average coaching and defenses.  Also, don't let the stats fool you into thinking the Colts had a good defense.  There was one year where we only gave up 6 (or so) pass TDs, but that was because teams had such an easy time running the ball on us, they didn't need to pass it.  The stats would indicate that our pass defense was one of the best in the league that year, but that's not the case

 

But then everyone goes out and says Polian was a great GM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then everyone goes out and says Polian was a great GM.

 

Define "everyone." A lot of people think Polian did a pretty awful job after 2007.

 

I think he did a good job of finding skill talent and pass rushers, and even safeties, but up the middle of the defense, we were always suspect. And the offensive line always struggled in short yardage, then the line completely fell apart in 2008. So even when Polian was on his game, the team still had weaknesses (every team does, of course).

 

What I disagreed with was his team building philosophies, mostly his aversion to free agency.

 

Anyways, without getting into a whole thing about Polian, my point is that just because he has a good reputation as a GM doesn't mean the teams he built didn't have flaws. They obviously did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can spin it either way, I suppose. I know what I've seen, and what I've seen was an entire team standing around with their hands in their pockets just waiting for Peyton to win the game for them......over and over again, and that's not how championships are won. 

 

A final score of 43-8 says a lot about the losing team. 

 

It does bother me when people go on about him not being able to win "the big games" when he has, in fact, won the big games.

Again I never said he could not win a big game he has won big games even a Super Bowl. I simply said and the numbers reflect he is not the successful in the playoffs. He has lost his first playoff game a lot of times coming of a bye with a weeks rest and more often than not with his TEAM as the favorite. He has a tendency to toss the pick 6. Those are facts not opinions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks.... I really appreciate you taking the time to do all that! Very impressive.

But, Donte is just flat-out wrong. Heck, there's even video of guys writing out their lists. I've seen it in some of their shows.

I'm sure some players have voted, but Pat Mcafee has said he doesn't know anyone who voted either
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I never said he could not win a big game he has won big games even a Super Bowl. I simply said and the numbers reflect he is not the successful in the playoffs. He has lost his first playoff game a lot of times coming of a bye with a weeks rest and more often than not with his TEAM as the favorite. He has a tendency to toss the pick 6. Those are facts not opinions.

Who did the Colts lose to in those 1st rd games and how did they lose? Simply throwing out one and dones doesn't tell me anything. Sometimes a team gets a tough opponet in the first round and other times you get a cup cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been plenty of ridiculous statements in this thread, but I don't think my original post was that bad at all. It isn't illogical. Manning is 1-2 in SBs, and, like others have said, is what, 9 times one and done in the playoffs? Big game is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but let's not pretend that there isn't an aura about Manning that needs to be justified when his biggest moments appear. He is lauded as the best ever, a guy with surgical precision who will beat you before the snap; Yet, in the playoffs the majority of the time and the past two biggest games of his life, he hasn't been as sharp. He hasn't gotten the job done like he has in the regular season. Of course the blame doesn't always fall on the QB; but when the quarterback is throwing interceptions left and right and having botched snaps against a team that is already good enough to score without you gifting them things need to be addressed. It isn't unfair.

 As far as the SB argument goes, I am speaking in hindsight. If I knew that I was going to get my tail handed to me, I'd rather not play in the game at all. Better to lose by a little then by a lot. I'm sure there are players that would rather have the chance to play in the big game, but they would never be satisfied with the results; They play to win, not just to be in the spotlights.

 Nothing undermines what the Broncos or Manning did in the regular season. But it is ridiculous to give them a pass because the Seahawks played well and they didn't. The best team wins, and the Seahawks proved it that day. They were not the only ones motivated to win that game, so that card doesn't exactly work either.

 

I didn't say your OP was bad; I said I disagree with the logic. And now, you're making a lot of leaps and assumptions here, many of which I don't agree with. In no particular order...

 

Manning didn't have a good game in the SB; he had a bad game, by pretty much any measure. But so did the rest of the team.

 

Think about the best game a QB has ever had in the SB. Now think about the kind of game Manning would have had to play in order for the Broncos to win that game. Given how well the Seahawks were playing in all phases, I think it's safe to say that Manning would have had to play the absolute best game any QB has ever played in the SB. 

 

How is a botched snap the fault of the QB? I'm sure you can find some round about way of laying the blame for that ten foot tall snap at Manning's feet, but it should be pretty obvious that it wasn't his fault the center had a poor snap there. It happens; I'm not arguing that Manning was betrayed by his teammates or anything like that, but how do you use that play as an example of Manning "not getting it done"?

 

This "aura" about Manning's postseason play is based on assumptions and talking points. That's not how I judge QB play (or football in general). I look at the game, the quality of the opponent, the conditions, etc. If we were to go through Manning's postseason games, one by one, a lot of those losses and one-and-dones can't be laid at his feet. Yes, he could have played better, but every QB has a bad read or a bad throw here and there, and not just in the playoffs. The difference is that, in the playoffs, you're playing the best teams. The margin for error is smaller. And if the QB makes a mistake, the team has to be able to pick him up, just like he picks the team up pretty much every other time they're on the field. If we're not going to talk about the actual game, if we're just going to talk about how the QB missed that throw, or threw that pick, then we're not having a real discussion about football. We're just parroting talking points, and that's not real analysis.

 

For example, you say that "big game" is in the eye of the beholder. Well that means you can pick and choose what games qualify in your mind, and then determine based on only those games that "Manning can't get it done in big games." Again, that's not real analysis.

 

Also, a big problem with QB evaluation is that people tend to automatically credit the QB with a win, as if it doesn't matter whether he played a good game, so long as his team won. At the end of the day, no one cares how the QB played as long as you won, but this leads to the idea that because QB1 has a better win/loss record in the playoffs than QB2, that it means QB1 actually plays better in the playoffs. That's not necessarily the case. If we're going to talk about getting it done in big games, then we need to acknowledge when the QB actually "got it done."

 

Then, of course, I'm not of the mind that any player's postseason log is automatically more weighty than the rest of his career. Postseason accomplishments are special, but it's also special that you play well enough over the course of four months to get to the postseason, and that you play that well consistently, every year, no matter what.

 

No team or player is satisfied with just making it to the SB. Of course they want to win it. But you can't win the SB if you can't get there. I'd rather get my butt kicked in the SB than lose a close game in the conference championship. "A man's reach should exceed his grasp."

 

I'm not giving the Broncos or Manning a pass because the Seahawks played well. I'm saying that the SB was one game -- albeit the biggest game of the year -- and it doesn't undo what they accomplished up to that point. Like you said, the best team wins, and that was undoubtedly the Seahawks. I don't see how that lessens the Broncos accomplishments. If anything, it amplifies the accomplishments of the Seahawks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Broncos would have had A QB with the arm of Elway, the release of Marino, the accuracy of Brady, the legs of Vick and the decision making of Joe Montana they still would have gotten whipped by the Seahawks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Broncos would have had A QB with the arm of Elway, the release of Marino, the accuracy of Brady, the legs of Vick and the decision making of Joe Montana they still would have gotten whipped by the Seahawks.

 

Apparently, all they really needed was Luck and T.Y. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say your OP was bad; I said I disagree with the logic. And now, you're making a lot of leaps and assumptions here, many of which I don't agree with. In no particular order...

 

Manning didn't have a good game in the SB; he had a bad game, by pretty much any measure. But so did the rest of the team.

 

Think about the best game a QB has ever had in the SB. Now think about the kind of game Manning would have had to play in order for the Broncos to win that game. Given how well the Seahawks were playing in all phases, I think it's safe to say that Manning would have had to play the absolute best game any QB has ever played in the SB. 

 

How is a botched snap the fault of the QB? I'm sure you can find some round about way of laying the blame for that ten foot tall snap at Manning's feet, but it should be pretty obvious that it wasn't his fault the center had a poor snap there. It happens; I'm not arguing that Manning was betrayed by his teammates or anything like that, but how do you use that play as an example of Manning "not getting it done"?

 

This "aura" about Manning's postseason play is based on assumptions and talking points. That's not how I judge QB play (or football in general). I look at the game, the quality of the opponent, the conditions, etc. If we were to go through Manning's postseason games, one by one, a lot of those losses and one-and-dones can't be laid at his feet. Yes, he could have played better, but every QB has a bad read or a bad throw here and there, and not just in the playoffs. The difference is that, in the playoffs, you're playing the best teams. The margin for error is smaller. And if the QB makes a mistake, the team has to be able to pick him up, just like he picks the team up pretty much every other time they're on the field. If we're not going to talk about the actual game, if we're just going to talk about how the QB missed that throw, or threw that pick, then we're not having a real discussion about football. We're just parroting talking points, and that's not real analysis.

 

For example, you say that "big game" is in the eye of the beholder. Well that means you can pick and choose what games qualify in your mind, and then determine based on only those games that "Manning can't get it done in big games." Again, that's not real analysis.

 

Also, a big problem with QB evaluation is that people tend to automatically credit the QB with a win, as if it doesn't matter whether he played a good game, so long as his team won. At the end of the day, no one cares how the QB played as long as you won, but this leads to the idea that because QB1 has a better win/loss record in the playoffs than QB2, that it means QB1 actually plays better in the playoffs. That's not necessarily the case. If we're going to talk about getting it done in big games, then we need to acknowledge when the QB actually "got it done."

 

Then, of course, I'm not of the mind that any player's postseason log is automatically more weighty than the rest of his career. Postseason accomplishments are special, but it's also special that you play well enough over the course of four months to get to the postseason, and that you play that well consistently, every year, no matter what.

 

No team or player is satisfied with just making it to the SB. Of course they want to win it. But you can't win the SB if you can't get there. I'd rather get my butt kicked in the SB than lose a close game in the conference championship. "A man's reach should exceed his grasp."

 

I'm not giving the Broncos or Manning a pass because the Seahawks played well. I'm saying that the SB was one game -- albeit the biggest game of the year -- and it doesn't undo what they accomplished up to that point. Like you said, the best team wins, and that was undoubtedly the Seahawks. I don't see how that lessens the Broncos accomplishments. If anything, it amplifies the accomplishments of the Seahawks.

I think the main issue with Manning as has been stated before is that he has really great games against awful teams and not so great games against quality teams. Look at his record overall and his stats vs below .500 teams and above .500 teams. I think we all fall victim to how great he can look against mediocre competition and expect him to perform that way against really good teams. That is unfair in some respects and then we get into the blame game about his team, the conditions, etc. All of that is valid but the fact is even last year in his historic season he really struggled against quality teams being the Colts, Pats and Chargers - all playoff teams and by struggle, I mean he had good games but not great and lost them all. And then as you say the Super Bowl which would have taken a Montana esque type of game which he has never produced against a team of that caliber on that stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main issue with Manning as has been stated before is that he has really great games against awful teams and not so great games against quality teams. Look at his record overall and his stats vs below .500 teams and above .500 teams. I think we all fall victim to how great he can look against mediocre competition and expect him to perform that way against really good teams. That is unfair in some respects and then we get into the blame game about his team, the conditions, etc. All of that is valid but the fact is even last year in his historic season he really struggled against quality teams being the Colts, Pats and Chargers - all playoff teams and by struggle, I mean he had good games but not great and lost them all. And then as you say the Super Bowl which would have taken a Montana esque type of game which he has never produced against a team of that caliber on that stage.

That's such a weird argument to me. The Broncos beat the Chargers in the first matchup in SD, and in the playoffs, so it's not like they can't handle them. And they beat the Pats in the AFCCG. Even the regular season game against the Pats, which was really weird overall, Manning didn't have a bad game. And he led them downfield, into the wind, for the tie in regulation. They lost because of a mishandled punt in OT. And they beat other good teams, like the Ravens and Chiefs. So the idea that Manning plays great against bad teams, then comes back down to earth against good teams, I just don't agree.

And then the SB... Montana never had the kind of game Manning would have needed to play for thr Broncos to win that day. Maybe SB24 against Denver, but even that game, the Broncos helped the Niners with a bunch of mistakes. By the time Montana really got going, they were up by three or four scores. This was a perfect storm, with the Seahawks playing their absolute best game ever, and the Broncos making a lot of mistakes in every phase. I don't think the game was really representative of how big the gap is between the two teams, but on that day, no one was beating Seattle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's such a weird argument to me. The Broncos beat the Chargers in the first matchup in SD, and in the playoffs, so it's not like they can't handle them. And they beat the Pats in the AFCCG. Even the regular season game against the Pats, which was really weird overall, Manning didn't have a bad game. And he led them downfield, into the wind, for the tie in regulation. They lost because of a mishandled punt in OT. And they beat other good teams, like the Ravens and Chiefs. So the idea that Manning plays great against bad teams, then comes back down to earth against good teams, I just don't agree.

And then the SB... Montana never had the kind of game Manning would have needed to play for thr Broncos to win that day. Maybe SB24 against Denver, but even that game, the Broncos helped the Niners with a bunch of mistakes. By the time Montana really got going, they were up by three or four scores. This was a perfect storm, with the Seahawks playing their absolute best game ever, and the Broncos making a lot of mistakes in every phase. I don't think the game was really representative of how big the gap is between the two teams, but on that day, no one was beating Seattle.

My point was not that Manning has never played well against good teams but that the difference in his performance versus bad teams and good teams is large. Take the Ravens game - 7 TDs against a rebuilding a D or his second half vs the horrific Redskins. Then as you say you have his games vs the Chargers and Pats and while they were not bad games, they were not at the same level as his wins vs lousy teams. It is the disparage between that causes the perception. And of course in the playoffs, you get no gimmees so here lies the issue. For sure Manning has had some bad playoff games as has every QB but his are more magnified because we expect greatness which he so routinely displays against bad teams.

 

In terms of the Super Bowl, the Seahawks did not beat any team the entire year the way they did the Broncos and the Broncos were the ones riding history and it was an offensive history. While the Seahawks played a great game, the mishaps by the Broncos on offense primarily is what made it a blowout. This idea that no one was going to beat Seattle is a farce. Just two weeks before the niners had them beat if at HOME if Kaep puts that ball a foot further in the end zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was not that Manning has never played well against good teams but that the difference in his performance versus bad teams and good teams is large. Take the Ravens game - 7 TDs against a rebuilding a D or his second half vs the horrific Redskins. Then as you say you have his games vs the Chargers and Pats and while they were not bad games, they were not at the same level as his wins vs lousy teams. It is the disparage between that causes the perception. And of course in the playoffs, you get no gimmees so here lies the issue. For sure Manning has had some bad playoff games as has every QB but his are more magnified because we expect greatness which he so routinely displays against bad teams.

 

In terms of the Super Bowl, the Seahawks did not beat any team the entire year the way they did the Broncos and the Broncos were the ones riding history and it was an offensive history. While the Seahawks played a great game, the mishaps by the Broncos on offense primarily is what made it a blowout. This idea that no one was going to beat Seattle is a farce. Just two weeks before the niners had them beat if at HOME if Kaep puts that ball a foot further in the end zone.

 

Perception vs reality. I think the perception that Manning doesn't play as well against better teams doesn't mesh with reality. Any good QB is going to play well against lesser quality opponents, so we can throw those out. What really sets great QBs like Manning apart is their ability to perform at a high level against good teams. You're making a distinction between Manning vs the Chargers and Manning vs Washington, for instance, but Manning was great against the Chargers in SD. That's a credit to him. He was a little less great against the Chargers in Denver, but he still didn't have a bad game. It just wasn't the incredible game that he had before. Then they beat that same team a few weeks later in the playoffs. His greatness isn't exclusive to games against "lousy" teams. This line of reasoning is the result of a distorted perspective.

 

As for the Seahawks, they didn't play nearly as well against the Niners as they did against the Broncos. A team can be a little less than 100% in one game, then be clicking on all cylinders the next game. That's why the Colts were able to beat the Broncos; we looked like garbage on both sides of the ball against the Chargers, then ramped up our game the very next week against the Broncos. You go back one more week, we had just beat the Seahawks. Good teams minimize their lows and maximize their highs. The SB was the very pinnacle of the Seahawks ability to perform, I think. I don't think any team in the league was going to beat them that night. With fewer mistakes from the Broncos, it would have been a closer game, but the Broncos mistakes were (mostly) forced. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is he wrong? Nobody denied his claim, NFL network just said"no we don't" and ignored him after he asked who voted then.

Can you shoot me those videos? I have never heard a player say "oh this guy was higher/lower on my list"

 

I have no video's to shoot you.   I've seen the clips during their countdown shows.   They're not separate clips.

 

He's wrong,  because the shows interview people.   Some of those people voted.

 

Look at your first sentence....  "Nobody denied his claim,  NFL network just said "no we don't"...  meaning they don't vote, it's the players.

 

What would be the point of the NFL Network saying the players voted, but not having anyone vote.  Why would they make it up and lie?

 

It's not hard to disprove.   32 NFL PR reps would simply say....   "the NFL Network never contacted my team and asked for people to vote."    Voting is voluntary.     If no San Francisco 49ers voted,  that's because they didn't want to vote,  not because they weren't asked to.

 

Players make all sorts of ridiculous claims.   This is just another one.

 

The NFL Network is not going to turn a silly claim by a silly athlete into something that it's not -- credible.

 

They dismiss it and move on.   Period.    That's the way the world works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if this thing was a sham. As much as I love football, I refuse to watch that garbage. Even if the players did vote, there's nothing to say that the NFLN didn't manipulate the results or perhaps just use an aggregate score from "some" of the votes. The network has gotten really strange in recent years, a far cry from the old days where Rich Eisen was the predominant presence behind the desk. Now it's just a bevy of hot chicks and semi-illiterate, "unprofessional" retired players prattling on about Johnny Football....or whatever tabloid-esque flavor of the week is at the top of their "headlines". 

 

Believe all the paranoid conspiracy theories you like.    That's not the world I choose to live in.

 

To each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure some players have voted, but Pat Mcafee has said he doesn't know anyone who voted either

 

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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perception vs reality. I think the perception that Manning doesn't play as well against better teams doesn't mesh with reality. Any good QB is going to play well against lesser quality opponents, so we can throw those out. What really sets great QBs like Manning apart is their ability to perform at a high level against good teams. You're making a distinction between Manning vs the Chargers and Manning vs Washington, for instance, but Manning was great against the Chargers in SD. That's a credit to him. He was a little less great against the Chargers in Denver, but he still didn't have a bad game. It just wasn't the incredible game that he had before. Then they beat that same team a few weeks later in the playoffs. His greatness isn't exclusive to games against "lousy" teams. This line of reasoning is the result of a distorted perspective.

 

As for the Seahawks, they didn't play nearly as well against the Niners as they did against the Broncos. A team can be a little less than 100% in one game, then be clicking on all cylinders the next game. That's why the Colts were able to beat the Broncos; we looked like garbage on both sides of the ball against the Chargers, then ramped up our game the very next week against the Broncos. You go back one more week, we had just beat the Seahawks. Good teams minimize their lows and maximize their highs. The SB was the very pinnacle of the Seahawks ability to perform, I think. I don't think any team in the league was going to beat them that night. With fewer mistakes from the Broncos, it would have been a closer game, but the Broncos mistakes were (mostly) forced. 

I think if you look at his stats you will see that his numbers are eye popping vs bad teams and then good/great vs quality teams. His record is below .500 vs teams above .500 in both the regular season and post-season. The perception is more based in reality than not IMO. He has always struggled against teams with the right type of personnel to slow his Indy offense that he brought to Denver whether that be vs the Pats, Steelers, Chargers in the '00s or more recently against Seattle. The formula to beat him has always been there because he runs the same offense every single season so if a team can match up with his receivers and bring some decent pressure he becomes average because there is no plan B. When teams can't match up then you get the 7 TDs or 400 yard games.

 

In terms of the SB, how was the safety forced by Seattle? As I have said before, every single time Manning steps on the field, he is the best player on the field and expected to play that way even if the competition is stout. If anything, the Denver D was keeping the O in it early by only letting up 13 points instead of 21. Seattle played great but the game was a blow out because of the Denver mistakes which the majority were committed on O.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Super Bowl snake bitten? Come on he could never win the big games not as a Colt and not as a Bronco. He is a HOF one of the GOAT but he chokes in the playoffs. How many times did we win 12-14 games to go one and done? Pretty sure 9 times that is not snake bitten that is not being able to win when the money is one the line. Ask the Gators it was that way in college too.

Brady one and done 2x big Ben 2x Favre 3x to give an idea 9x is a huge number. That is one huge snake. I love the guy what he did for Indy but don't see why he gets a pass on not being able to win in the playoffs I would have to check but I'd bet over half the 9x he was the betting favorite and probably at home.

I know this isn't going to be popular but it is the truth blame the D Manning always wanted more weapons blame the weather oh wait that pesky dome. It is just the truth doesn't take away from anything he has done.;still a first ballot HOF still one of the GOAT

Yet another person that doesn't look at the truth of things. I wish I could find the article written by the new England writer. Basically broke down his playoff performances and season performances. The stats were nearly identical. And in some instances were better in the playoffs than during the season. But people will continue to believe what they want and not look at the sport as a team event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you look at his stats you will see that his numbers are eye popping vs bad teams and then good/great vs quality teams. His record is below .500 vs teams above .500 in both the regular season and post-season. The perception is more based in reality than not IMO. He has always struggled against teams with the right type of personnel to slow his Indy offense that he brought to Denver whether that be vs the Pats, Steelers, Chargers in the '00s or more recently against Seattle. The formula to beat him has always been there because he runs the same offense every single season so if a team can match up with his receivers and bring some decent pressure he becomes average because there is no plan B. When teams can't match up then you get the 7 TDs or 400 yard games.

 

In terms of the SB, how was the safety forced by Seattle? As I have said before, every single time Manning steps on the field, he is the best player on the field and expected to play that way even if the competition is stout. If anything, the Denver D was keeping the O in it early by only letting up 13 points instead of 21. Seattle played great but the game was a blow out because of the Denver mistakes which the majority were committed on O.

 

I don't feel like digging into all the breakdowns and numbers, trying to quantify what a "good team" is, what a "good game" is, etc. I don't agree that Manning's numbers are split between good teams and bad teams, at least not anymore than any other good QB. The example of the way he played against the Chargers last year should illustrate my point. Like I said before, every good QB plays better against bad teams (Brady feasted on the Bills and Dolphins in 2007, while struggling against the Ravens and Eagles; that's normal).

 

As for the safety, did you miss the word "mostly"? That means you can exclude the safety, and the point still stands. The Seahawks got tremendous pressure, basically all game, they beat up the Broncos receivers, and just physically dominated them on defense.

 

You're basically arguing that Manning is held to a higher standard than most everyone else, as a result of his greatness. That argument has so many implications, many of which undermine this idea that Manning's postseason record should be counted against him. We've all had this debate before; I'm not all that interested in digging deeper than we have. But that's a very interesting statement to make, especially when it's so often argued that there's something wrong with the way Manning plays in the postseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who did the Colts lose to in those 1st rd games and how did they lose? Simply throwing out one and dones doesn't tell me anything. Sometimes a team gets a tough opponet in the first round and other times you get a cup cake.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish there was an analysis that accounted for this for QBs in the postseason:

 

  1. Negative field position generated by a QB's fumbles or INTs
  2. Points off turnovers attributed to QB

I would not be shocked if a lot of Peyton's playoff losses were impacted by those 2 things mentioned above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like digging into all the breakdowns and numbers, trying to quantify what a "good team" is, what a "good game" is, etc. I don't agree that Manning's numbers are split between good teams and bad teams, at least not anymore than any other good QB. The example of the way he played against the Chargers last year should illustrate my point.

 

As for the safety, did you miss the word "mostly"? That means you can exclude the safety, and the point still stands. The Seahawks got tremendous pressure, basically all game, they beat up the Broncos receivers, and just physically dominated them on defense.

 

You're basically arguing that Manning is held to a higher standard than most everyone else, as a result of his greatness. That argument has so many implications, many of which undermine this idea that Manning's postseason record should be counted against him. We've all had this debate before; I'm not all that interested in digging deeper than we have. But that's a very interesting statement to make, especially when it's so often argued that there's something wrong with the way Manning plays in the postseason.

Yeah, I don't want to rehash all that either. To be honest since the SB this is what I have been thinking about in terms of Manning and these endless discussions about his playoff record. I do think Manning is a victim of his own success to a certain extent. He came out as the number one pick with the football pedigree and all and then at times he has played the part of one of the greatest QBs of all time and that has mostly come against average to bad teams. When he has been average and lost to very good teams it is pinned on him more so. I am not sure another QB has been held to a higher standard and part of that was inflicted by Brady who was a sixth round pick and upstaged Manning and we know this primarily happened because Brady had a better team and coach and yet it reflects poorly on Manning. I mean Marino had Elway and both were number one picks and expected to go at it. But Brady? He was supposed to hold a clip board his entire career so getting matched up with him has been terrible for Manning in so many ways and yet Brady gets passes because no one ever expected anything from him so it is all gravy and sunshine. This was on display in spades after Manning beat the Chargers and the media could not wait to ask him about Brady. Didn't even give him a second to enjoy the win when most of them were predicting he would lose to the Chargers. I do think much of it is unfair and the perception is unbelievably etched in stone at this point.

 

My summation - I don't think Manning is as great as we think he is when he plays good teams and because of that he should not be so heavily criticized when he loses in the post-season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no video's to shoot you. I've seen the clips during their countdown shows. They're not separate clips.

He's wrong, because the shows interview people. Some of those people voted.

Look at your first sentence.... "Nobody denied his claim, NFL network just said "no we don't"... meaning they don't vote, it's the players.

What would be the point of the NFL Network saying the players voted, but not having anyone vote. Why would they make it up and lie?

It's not hard to disprove. 32 NFL PR reps would simply say.... "the NFL Network never contacted my team and asked for people to vote." Voting is voluntary. If no San Francisco 49ers voted, that's because they didn't want to vote, not because they weren't asked to.

Players make all sorts of ridiculous claims. This is just another one.

The NFL Network is not going to turn a silly claim by a silly athlete into something that it's not -- credible.

They dismiss it and move on. Period. That's the way the world works.

Players don't vote on that list man, NFL network just wants you to believe they do. I highly doubt players were voting for Manning on the top 100 the year he didn't even play yet he somehow made the list.

It's Just a list everybody at that network votes on and gets a couple a players to do the 2-3min segment on each player to give the illusion that the players actually voted on the list.

Anybody can say "no we don't" but don't provide any proof backing the claim. At least Whitner has some facts backing his claim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe all the paranoid conspiracy theories you like.    That's not the world I choose to live in.

 

To each their own.

ermmm....I'm not sure "paranoid conspiracy theory" is appropriate here. I just simply said I wouldn't be surprised to find out that yet another thing promoted on TV as reality is actually fake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish there was an analysis that accounted for this for QBs in the postseason:

 

  1. Negative field position generated by a QB's fumbles or INTs
  2. Points off turnovers attributed to QB

I would not be shocked if a lot of Peyton's playoff losses were impacted by those 2 things mentioned above.

1. Special teams

2. Defense incapable of creating turnovers

3. Defense incapable of keeping the opposing offense off the field.

 

Three steps to Manning's misery. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I don't want to rehash all that either. To be honest since the SB this is what I have been thinking about in terms of Manning and these endless discussions about his playoff record. I do think Manning is a victim of his own success to a certain extent. He came out as the number one pick with the football pedigree and all and then at times he has played the part of one of the greatest QBs of all time and that has mostly come against average to bad teams. When he has been average and lost to very good teams it is pinned on him more so. I am not sure another QB has been held to a higher standard and part of that was inflicted by Brady who was a sixth round pick and upstaged Manning and we know this primarily happened because Brady had a better team and coach and yet it reflects poorly on Manning. I mean Marino had Elway and both were number one picks and expected to go at it. But Brady? He was supposed to hold a clip board his entire career so getting matched up with him has been terrible for Manning in so many ways and yet Brady gets passes because no one ever expected anything from him so it is all gravy and sunshine. This was on display in spades after Manning beat the Chargers and the media could not wait to ask him about Brady. Didn't even give him a second to enjoy the win when most of them were predicting he would lose to the Chargers. I do think much of it is unfair and the perception is unbelievably etched in stone at this point.

 

My summation - I don't think Manning is as great as we think he is when he plays good teams and because of that he should not be so heavily criticized when he loses in the post-season.

 

That's fair, mostly. I think that's kind of a negative slant in that final line, but whatever. 

 

My major sticking point with these QB discussions is always the bolded. Football is the ultimate team sport. Yes, the QB is incredibly important, but he's still heavily reliant on his teammates. Attributing team records to one player is folly in pretty much any sport, but especially football. Otherwise, you wind up thinking Joe Flacco is better than Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers in the playoffs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's fair, mostly. I think that's kind of a negative slant in that final line, but whatever. 

 

My major sticking point with these QB discussions is always the bolded. Football is the ultimate team sport. Yes, the QB is incredibly important, but he's still heavily reliant on his teammates. Attributing team records to one player is folly in pretty much any sport, but especially football. Otherwise, you wind up thinking Joe Flacco is better than Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers in the playoffs.

Sure but in terms of the post-season with Manning you have a really big sample size and a pattern that seems to repeat whether he wins or loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players don't vote on that list man, NFL network just wants you to believe they do. I highly doubt players were voting for Manning on the top 100 the year he didn't even play yet he somehow made the list.

It's Just a list everybody at that network votes on and gets a couple a players to do the 2-3min segment on each player to give the illusion that the players actually voted on the list.

Anybody can say "no we don't" but don't provide any proof backing the claim. At least Whitner has some facts backing his claim

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/05/inside-the-top-100-voting-process/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Rick Venturi today on the radio said he is more of a fan of speed with corners then what Ballard has done. He said young corners have to be able to recover from mistakes. I would almost like rodgers instead of Brent’s.
    • BBZ, what do you mean when you say Brents will be successfully targeted because of his size and speed? Aren't those his good traits? 
    • Right. But we also are expected to draft a corner, So the fact that DeJean can play either position, makes me think Ballard could have his eye on him.
    • As a Ballard type player, he seems to fit the bill.  Big 10. Excels at zone coverage. Elite athlete. Special Teams standout, Good tackler. etc. Colts may be able to trade back, and still land DeJean   Considered one of the Safest picks. Seven 2024 NFL Draft Prospects Who Are Safest Bets to Succeed at Next Level https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10113875-7-2024-nfl-draft-prospects-who-are-safest-bets-to-succeed-at-next-level   DB Cooper DeJean, Iowa   A fractured fibula during a November practice tempered any excitement regarding Cooper DeJean's draft status. So he's not been in the same conversations as the class' top defensive backs, specifically Toledo's Quinyon Mitchell and Alabama's Terrion Arnold. DeJean's profile projects just as well or better than the aforementioned cornerbacks.   Three specific attributes set DeJean's floor higher than anyone else among the back end.   First, the reigning Big Ten Defensive Back of the Year presents the positional flexibility and traits to start at cornerback or safety at the professional level, with B/R's Cory Giddings highlighting his coverage skills:   "DeJean excels in zone coverage, but he's versatile enough to play man as well. He shows a smooth backpedal and the ability to keep his leverage and quick footwork with few wasted steps. Although he transitions well, there are times where DeJean hops into his breaks; allowing a step of separation.   "When in zone, DeJean does a great job of reading and reacting to the quarterback's eyes. Pairing that skill set with his route recognition, he often puts himself in good position with leverage and positioning.   "While working downfield, DeJean has the strength necessary to hand-fight with tight ends and bigger receivers, as well as the speed necessary to carry twitchier receivers downfield. He also does a very good job of locating the ball and playing through the catch point."   Second, the high school track standout is an elite athlete who captured Iowa state titles in the long jump and 100-meter dash. Many expected him to blow the doors off Lucas Oil Stadium. Unfortunately, he wasn't ready to test in Indianapolis after being cleared a few weeks earlier.   "His acceleration is incredibly fluid and super powerful," NFL combine trainer Jordan Luallen told The Athletic's Bruce Feldman last summer. "He's the best athlete I've seen in person, pound for pound."   Finally, DeJean adds significant value as an elite collegiate returner. Big Ten coaches also awarded him Return Specialist of the Year this past season. DeJean averaged 13.1 yards per punt return over the last two seasons. A top-notch contributor anywhere along the defensive backfield and on special teams will provide excellent value in the NFL.   Potential Landing Spots: Indianapolis Colts, Philadelphia Eagles    
    • He could, but I think he's way more athletic than people give him credit for and projects way better as CB. Definitely could be a good safety, but I think if we drafted him, he fits well as a boundary corner for us.
  • Members

    • NJFanatic

      NJFanatic 45

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • krunk

      krunk 8,219

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • colts52761

      colts52761 89

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Southern Cal

      Southern Cal 7

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ColtStrong2013

      ColtStrong2013 3,237

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • joecolts

      joecolts 471

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Flash7

      Flash7 1,899

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Coltsbluefan

      Coltsbluefan 222

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • C_Lew

      C_Lew 176

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Clem-Dog

      Clem-Dog 155

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...